A Defense of Free-Roaming Cats from a Hedonist Account of Feline Well-being

Acta Analytica 35 (3):439-461 (2020)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
There is a widespread belief that for their own safety and for the protection of wildlife, cats should be permanently kept indoors. Against this view, I argue that cat guardians have a duty to provide their feline companions with outdoor access. The argument is based on a sophisticated hedonistic account of animal well-being that acknowledges that the performance of species-normal ethological behavior is especially pleasurable. Territorial behavior, which requires outdoor access, is a feline-normal ethological behavior, so when a cat is permanently confined to the indoors, her ability to flourish is impaired. Since cat guardians have a duty not to impair the well-being of their cats, the impairment of cat flourishing via confinement signifies a moral failing. Although some cats assume significant risks and sometimes kill wild animals when roaming outdoors, these important considerations do not imply that all cats should be deprived of the opportunity to access the outdoors. Indeed, they do not, by themselves, imply that any cat should be permanently kept indoors.
Reprint years
2019, 2020
PhilPapers/Archive ID
EABADO-3
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-01-18
View other versions
Added to PP index
2020-01-18

Total views
82 ( #36,629 of 51,275 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
63 ( #8,237 of 51,275 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.