How to Apply the Golden Rule to Dogs and Other Nonhumans

A recent essay called "'I Sure Wouldn't Put My Dog in a Puppy Mill, Would You?'" generated a good number of email messages and discussions. The question on which this piece was based was asked by a 10-year old at a talk I gave a few years ago. While I was talking with someone, the idea of applying the traditional Golden Rule—“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”—to nonhuman animals (animals) came into my head and heart, and I thought it would be something in which others would be interested. A few people asked me what it would be based on and my response was a simple one—it would be based on data, decency, respect, and compassion for who other animals truly are. It's not a radical animal rights move. Other animals are valuable because they are alive and have inherent or intrinsic value. Their worth is not measured by what they can do for us, often called their instrumental value.

The Nonhuman Golden Rule can easily be fact-based, because there are ample data clearly showing that a vast array of diverse animals have rich and deep cognitive and emotional lives. What it basically calls for is that all humans who have any sort of interactions with other animals will ask themselves would I want to be treated in this way. Because the number of humans who do, indeed, influence the lives of other animals is staggering, asking this question should surely reduce abuse and violence directed to nonhumans, even if a large number either don't ask this question or ask the question and then move on to harm and kill other animals nonetheless.

Would you do it to your dog?

I often encourage people who don't want to consider humans as part of the equation because they subscribe to different forms of human exceptionalism, to ask if they themselves would do something harmful to their dog, cat, or other companion animal, or allow them to be used in the harmful and often violently lethal ways in which countless non-companion animals are treated in a wide variety of venues. I've never had anyone say they would. This is good news, and I hope that dogs and other companion animals can serve as "gateway species" to bridge the empathy gap. This basically means that dogs and other animals with whom people are familiar can serve as models for how other animals should be treated and also benefit from applying the Nonhuman Golden Rule. I take this view because it's likely to be easier to begin to think about applying a Nonhuman Golden Rule to the nonhumans with whom we're most familiar, namely companion animals.

Consider dogs, for example. By following the following guidelines for making your dog happier and more content you're applying the Nonhuman Golden Rule. Let your dog be a dog; Teach your dog how to thrive in human environments; Have shared experiences with your dog; Be grateful for how much your dog can teach you; Make life an adventure for your dog; Give your dog as many choices as possible; Make your dog’s life interesting by providing variety in feeding, walking, and making friends; Give your dog endless opportunities to play; Give your dog affection and attention every day; Be loyal to your dog. Allowing puppy mills and kitten factories to exist and allowing these animals to be abused in other ways would be counter to the Nonhuman Golden Rule.

It would also be easy to apply a similar set of guidelines to many other animals, while incorporating their species-typical needs. While individuals of different species will have different needs, the one common denominator is that individuals of each and every species need to be treated with respect, compassion, and decency. Their feelings truly matter.

Caring for other animals means caring for ourselves

When we give dogs and other animals the very best lives possible, it can easily spill over into more freedom and justice for all animals, including ourselves. Wouldn’t that be grand? Who could argue that more trust, empathy, compassion, freedom, and justice wouldn’t be the best thing we could do for all animals and for future generations who will inherit our wondrous planet? I surely don’t know anyone who would disagree.

How to apply the Golden Rule

Applying a fact-based and heart-driven Nonhuman Golden Rule would be a win-win for all. We must use what we already know about who these animals are, what they need, and what they feel to give all of them the best lives possible. In fact, we've had relevant detailed information available for many years but simply haven't used it on behalf of countless other animals. There's more than enough science that shows other animals are emotional beings.

In our book The Animals' Agenda, Jessica Pierce and I call the failure to use what we know the "knowledge translation gap." Essentially, what we know about animal cognition and emotion has not been translated into an evolution in human attitudes and practices. Simply put, it's high time to seriously apply evidence-based animal ethics in our interactions with other animals. Not using the evidence we have and not applying the Golden Rule to nonhumans is a species of speciesism. It's plain and simple human exceptionalism.

When other animals are treated well it's good for us, too, For example, the One Health approach is a way of looking at the world that helps humans to see and acknowledge that humans, other species, and the natural environment (the three pillars of One Health) are completely and perfectly interlinked. If we harm one of these three pillars, all three are harmed.

Empathy Essential Reads

The Empathy-Compassion Gap

A Mile in Their Shoes: How VR Can Reduce Homelessness Stigma

I look forward to more discussions about how we can make the lives of other animals the very best they can be, and how the thinking about the Nonhuman Golden Rule can foster decisions that are based on decency, compassion, and respect for other animals.

It's essential to remember that while this cross-species guideline can be golden and truly help other animals, silence isn't—it's deadly.