I think it is worthwhile to take a look at some of the terms of that Prof. Cohn and her colleague Prof. Andrew Linzey are objecting to so strenuously. Let's start with the word "pet". The American Heritage Dictionary gives three definitions for the word:

            1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.

            2. An object of the affections.

            3. A person especially loved or indulged; a favorite: the teacher's pet.

I fail to find any of these inappropriate or offensive, and Prof. Cohn does not seem to have provided a defence for her call to ban its use.

The use of the word "master" in referring to the dog's owner seems to be particularly offensive to these animal ethicists. Prof. Cohn writes "if the trainer is the "master," then what word characterizes the dog but 'slave.'" Apparently the professor has not looked at the dictionary. Although one of the meanings of the word master is "a man who has people working for him, especially servants or slaves," there are many others which are useful and have nothing pejorative about them. Consider the following list of individuals who are all privileged to bear the title of master, but do not have any insinuation associated with slaves: a male school teacher; one whose teachings were doctrines are accepted by followers; a worker qualified to teach apprentices and carry on the craft independently; an honorific title for an instructor or someone with great skill (as in referring to an instructor of martial arts using the term master); or the male head of a household. None of these uses seems to be offensive or inappropriate, and they allow us to answer Prof. Cohn's implied question, namely, if the trainer is the "master" then the dog is the "student."

These worthy scholars seem to have singled out one negative usage out of a myriad of appropriate and useful designations associated with a word and, on the basis of that one negative connotation, they have called for a ban of such terms. By extension, then, why not demand a ban on the use of the word "dog"? Among the list of definitions found for this term in any dictionary you will find that it is used to refer to a contemptible person (as in "You dirty dog"), an unattractive person (as in "No one will date your sister because she is a dog"), or something that is useless and undesirable (as in "That movie was really a dog"). Similarly we should ban the use of the word "cat". After all that term is used to describe a spiteful woman, or even a prostitute (as in describing a brothel as a "cat house"). If the words "pet" and "master" are so offensive because one can find a single negative aspect in one of the definitions of the word, then the words "dog" and "cat" deserve to be expunged from our vocabulary for the same reason.

I respect the fact that the editors of the Journal of Animal Ethics, and the members of the Oxford Institute of Animal Ethics have the desire for us to treat animals in a caring and conscientious manner. But I ask in all honesty do these philosophers really think that telling an abusive dog owner that he may no longer use the word "master", but rather he must use the phrase "human carer" or "animal guardian" will change his behavior toward his dog? Similarly, do they believe that if I tell my child that he is his puppy's master, that somehow that will turn him into an uncaring animal abuser?

I am reminded of Alice's discussion with Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, which includes the lines

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.'

I believe that Alice's reply to this is one that the editors of the Journal of Animal Ethics should consider. The little blonde girl's answer to Humpty Dumpty

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

I believe that these professors have tried to make common words that we use to describe our pets and our relationship to them seem as if they mean something negative and offensive. I believe that most pet owners however feel that they CANNOT do that. Those of us who are fond of our companion animals will continue to call them "pets", and will love them nonetheless.

Stanley Coren is the author of many books including: Born to Bark, The Modern Dog, Why Do Dogs Have Wet Noses? The Pawprints of History, How Dogs Think, How To Speak Dog, Why We Love the Dogs We Do, What Do Dogs Know? The Intelligence of Dogs, Why Does My Dog Act That Way? Understanding Dogs for Dummies, Sleep Thieves, The Left-hander Syndrome

Copyright SC Psychological Enterprises Ltd. May not be reprinted or reposted without permission