If you accept that animals have some kind of person hood like children do, then the question is if you basically locking them in a totalitarian prison in which you control their every move and food etc. or in which they have some kind of agency to live a life they want to live, which will reduce the mental, emotional and physical problems that can be found in many if not all animals to be found in flats or houses.

Lets take a goldfish:

A: Yes! Goldfish are social animals and when kept in groups often socialise with their fishy friends. They even learn to recognise people, too! You should have at least two goldfish in an aquarium to give them some company and stop them from being lazy, couch potatoes!

They are often not held in environments which are socially stimulant enough, large enough (in "natural" conditions they are swimming much further than even your largest pool is sized) and enjoy a multitude of environmental objects and interactions.

In door cats are basically prisoners, dogs are often bred to be pets in the first place and are put indoors for most of their life and can't properly socialize with other dogs, nor run around as much as they want to and there is a problematic hierarchy between the humans and the dogs (esp. since most humans have no clue that dominance theory is pseudoscientific bullshit) and since most humans are forced to work there is not enough time to properly interact with the dogs anyhow.

So good pets would be those in which the domination of animal by human doesn't occur (or at least not in the brute force it does now), in which animals aren't produced in stuff like puppy mills.

That said I think that some form of human / animal interactions are very sensible to keep going that aren't of mass industrialized cows being slaughtered for treats or locked in dogs.

Also: common dogs with some caretakers might be nicer than the current way to have pets in any case.