Introduction
There is a reason why land-based speed records are set on a marked track and not an open unmarked field. The reason has much to do with the fact that it is easier to apply maximum field when parameters are better marked. The limitations created by the markings create the possibility of plying free will in increasing or decreasing speed. For the purposes of the instant essay, free will means having the choice to make decisions and act upon it without inordinate control. Domestic animals are animals that have a human master with whom they live, such as a cat living in a home. Wild animals, on the other hand, represent those animals that live in the world, away from any active human control, such as a bear or stark living in a forest. Domestic animals live in a carefully marked field full of the dos and don’ts that have been set by their masters. On the other hand, wild animals have no masters and are considered to be free to do anything they want. However, the limitations that come with this freedom are so extreme that the freedom itself becomes a mere mirage. Domesticated animals have a serene environment to exercise their limited free will while wild animals have unlimited freewill with no room to exercise it at all, thus domesticated animals have a more free will than wild animals.
The Problem and its Implications
Millions of people have died and scores of others continue to die due to the desire to gain more free will in their lives and countries. Massacres such as the ones that accompanied the 18 th century French Revolution and the 20 th century Russian Revolution have been driven by the desire to gain more free will. George Orwell in his famous novel Animal Farm compared the Russian Revolution to animals in a farm, chasing away the farmer so as to gain the free will to do anything they want (Sun, 2015). The room to exercise free will attained as such was short lived since the vagaries of freedom were worse than the problems associated with bondage. In the modern times, there are still laws, rules, and regulation at every level of society that limits the ability to express free will. The debate has been rife on whether or not these laws, rules, and regulations should be eliminated or diminished in the name of encouraging free will. An evaluation of which animals have more free will between domestic and wild animals has a close relevance to the subject of the relationship between humanity and governance. The argument below about which of the two groups of animals has good free will enables a better understanding of the plays of laws, rules, and regulations in the society, and whether the limitations they create are good or bad for the free will of humanity (Sun, 2015).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
My Argument
The free will of domestics animals is limited by the whims of their masters while the free will of wild animals are limited by the vagaries of nature hence domestic animals have a more free will than wild animals. The domestic animals spend some of its time doing what its master wants and the rest of the time doing what it wants. The ability to spend some time doing what it wants is in part guaranteed by the protection the domestic animals get from its master by virtue of its domestication. The wild animal, on the other hand, live in the jaws of the executioner with any single mistake leading to a set of events that lead to death. Theoretically, wild animals have no master and thus have an exponential amount of free will. However, they have almost no room upon which to exercise this free will due to the dangers under which they operate. For example, a careless lion that breaks one of its toes on a stone is more often than not a dead lion as it can no longer hunt or defend itself with the injury, and healing will take too long. A careless dog that breaks both feet while playing will be treated by the vet and be back on its feet in no time. This argument was canvassed in Gray (2015) that ethically defends the concept of modern zoos. The subject of extinction and how zoos protect wild animals from extinction is canvassed. Wild animals have a higher propensity for extinction than domestic animals do, despite the fact that wild animals are more prolific than the domestic ones (Tomasik, 2015). Living in the wild exposes animals, including apex predators to grave danger. The danger becomes a worse master than the human masters that handle domestic animals. Danger is an extreme master who constantly eliminates any chances for wild animals to express and utilize any free will that they may have. The unlimited free will that comes with being wild becomes a mere mirage and is then overtaken by the limited free will of domesticated animals.
The Objection
The primary ethical objection made relating to the free will of animals is that animals have the same moral status as human beings thus domestication is an absolute mutilation of their free will. Based on this argument, whether or not wild animals are in danger, they are able to face the danger in their own terms and succumb to it if they must. Being able to face danger on their own terms is thus an expression of free will and not a limitation thereof . Based on this argument, therefore, wild animals have a more free will than domestic animals who in essence have none because it has been taken away by their masters. There is a lot of validity in this argument, more so because domestication is mainly about the humans and their whims, not the animals and their needs. However, the same argument has been canvassed in Gray (2015) where it is argued that ab initio, zoos were about humans enjoying animal and not animals staying safe. Conservation from extinction was a secondary consequence of creating zoos and not the basis for it, yet it cannot be denied. If the same argument was employed to the instant objection, the whims of domesticators do not take away the fact that the vagaries of domestication are mild when compared to those of the wild. The outcomes of being domesticated and being wild prove that humans as masters are more benign that the world as a master for animals (Tomasik, 2015). Domestication thus creates more room for expression of free will than the wild and wild animals would be able to express their free will better if they were domesticated.
Conclusion
Animals that live under domestication have a much higher capacity to express their free will than animals who live in the wild. Wild animals may theoretically have an unlimited amount of free will because they do not have a visible master per se. Living in the world in itself is, however, a worse master than the limitation that comes with living under domestication. The hedge, fence or wall that the domesticated animals live behind and the rules and regulations that they have to adhere to enable, not disable free will. On the other hand, the lack of these limitations, rules, and regulations make the wild so dangerous that the animals who live in the wild dare not have any free will, lest they get consumed by the said dangers. An argument has been made that having a human master eliminates free will for domestic animals making wild animals have free will. The fact that wild animals have been going extinct and domestic animals do not, reflect that the contrary argument downplays the perils of living in the wild. When the perils are factored, the limited free will of domestic animals still beats the seemingly unlimited free will of wild animals as it can never be exercised.
References
Gray, J. H. (2015). An ethical defense of modern zoos (Doctoral dissertation). http://hdl.handle.net/11343/55288
Sun, P. (2015). Animal images and metaphors in Animal Farm. Journal of Arts and Humanities , 4 (5), 1-7
Tomasik, B. (2015). The importance of wild-animal suffering. Rel.: Beyond Anthropocentrism , 3 , 133-152
