7 days ago
Pets as part of the family. Australian law confirms it
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the man who all but broke Philosophy, would likely have appreciated Australia's Family Law Amendment Act that comes into force next week. A singular mind, Wittgenstein showed how many of the most intractable problems of metaphysics — and life, really — are rooted in misunderstandings of language. For example, the questions 'who gets the house' and 'who gets the dog' follow the same syntax. But that doesn't mean they should be addressed in the same way. Fortunately, in Australia at least, the law will no longer treat the family dog like any other piece of property. After a breakup or divorce, the best interests of the pet and who the primary caregiver is, among other considerations, will determine custody — not an archaic idea of 'ownership'.
To be fair, the idea of pets as 'fur babies' — especially in urban and well-to-do households — is relatively recent. Animals have been domesticated for three purposes: Food, transport and labour, and as companions for hunting, guarding and pest control. But some animals, even when they are working, are a part of the family. A dog feels, even when she guards and a cat has moods, even when she catches mice. They have an inner life, likes and dislikes. Dogs, especially, need care, and give it back in return and, unlike children, are always grateful for a meal, a hug and a walk.
Australia's law is, then, both a correction and an admission. It ensures the well-being of an animal, emotional and physical, as it would of a dependent. It also acknowledges that the anthropocentric view of ethical and legal systems leaves out some of the most important members of a family, that when a home is broken, the pet isn't just a part of the furniture. Hopefully, lawmakers in the rest of the world will take a leaf out of Australia's book.
