The “unwanted horse”–a modest proposal.

This research paper discusses the responsibility of humans towards animals they own, focusing specifically on the concept of the “unwanted horse”. The author argues that once a human acquires an animal, there is an implicit lifelong commitment to care for that animal, regardless of the animal’s usefulness or desirability. The paper proposes the idea of requiring an owner to demonstrate sufficient resources to care for an animal before acquisition and discusses the moral and ethical implications of animal ownership and care.

Key arguments of the research

• The paper starts by exploring the misuse of language concerning animals, particularly the term “unwanted horse”. The author argues that being unwanted is a relational property of the horse relative to humans, as horses do not naturally come as unwanted.
• The author expresses their disapproval of horse slaughter as a solution for “unwanted horses”. They argue that this enables irresponsible animal owners to benefit from their lack of commitment to the animal’s welfare.
• The author proposes that before acquiring a horse, one should demonstrate the possession of sufficient resources to care for the animal. This requirement aims to ensure that the individual can fulfill their responsibility to the animal.
• The paper also addresses the concept that veterinarians’ primary obligation is to the animal, focusing on improving or restoring an animal’s health and well-being.

Moral and ethical implications of animal ownership and care

• The author suggests that irresponsible animal treatment may lead to irresponsible human behavior. They highlight the importance of respecting life, not just discarding old or “problematic” animals.
• Euthanizing animals is viewed by the author as a virtue ethics issue. They question whether we want to be a society that views animals as disposable and teaches our children that moral obligations last only as long as they are convenient.
• The author proposes a hypothetical policy in which one must prove their sufficiency of disposable income to care for an animal before acquiring it, to control the acquisition of animals as impulse items. They concede that this policy is drastic, but defend it as necessary to prevent a morally unacceptable state of affairs.

Concluding thoughts

• In conclusion, the author suggests that society is increasingly recognizing the moral status of animals and treating them less as objects and more as moral individuals.
• The author acknowledges that their proposal may not be accepted in the short term, but they believe that articulating the idea can serve to prompt people to think differently about their responsibilities to animals.