Jamieson V. Mathews

In our last class, we leveled many criticisms against both Jamieson's and Mathews attitudes towards pet keeping. Among those, I thought the criticisms pertaining to their hasty generalizations were the most precise. However, I do not think we should completely disregard their ideas completely; rather, we should balance them. Jamieson contends that all pet keeping should be abolished, but this precise stand does not benefit the human dog relationship. Against Jamieson, I would argue that animals that do benefit from human interaction should be cared for by human hands. Contrary to this, Mathews contends that the possibility of creating a greener city is limitless with animal integration in human life; however, she does not consider the animals need. Against Mathews, I would argue that animals who do not benefit from human interactions, regardless if they can defend themselves against humans, should not be interfered with because their interests are compromised.