The pets i have owned has been for personal pleasure/entertanment... plus a bond formed whare i cared about ther wants an needs.!!! Id say gettin a pet from the "pound" (savin its life) woud be a lot mor ethical than buyin a pet from a breeder... which coud lead to even mor pets windin up loosin ther lifes at the pound... so do you see it as unethical to get a pet from the pound... even if you'r mane gole is to receive plasure/entertanment from that pet.???
you've highlighted the problem in your first sentence. the concept of ownership is only "defined" for us in a legal sense, and for those of us who simply regard the state for what it is--a dangerous nuisance--it's a non-issue. in philosophy, ownership is simply what is proper to one (property of)--same thing? not really. my mother, my sister, my girlfriend, my dog. do i "own" any of them? in the legal sense, i only "own" my dog--but, as stated above, this means nothing to me. in the other sense--yes, they are proper to me. can my dog get up and walk out of the house? yes, but she wouldn't because she loves and respects me. can my girlfriend? yes, but she probably won't. but can YOU just get up and walk away from anything really? sure--your job, your partner, whatever--but not really. have you ever really walked away from everything? i mean, have you walked away from society and all that is (supposedly) has to offer you? i have actually, i've lived out in the middle of fucking nowhere with simply my dog, a backpack, and perhaps a bicycle and a trailer--for anywhere from months to well over a year at a time. but it's not terribly easy, and i always come back. we are all "slaves" and we cannot get away from our "masters." EDIT: i was gonna ignore this, but why not have some fun? please define this "sapience" for us, Norsefire. and tell me how you came to the knowledge that only certain creatures possess such.
I agree. Pets have no place in nature and should eventually be allowed to disappear (just like humans Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!).
Do you eat meat? It would seem a bit inconsistent to question keeping animals as pets but consider eating them Ok. I own a dog (german shepherd) and two cats. The reason I own the cats is that my wife likes them. I own the dog mainly for the kids, and as a watchdog. I think it's good for children to have a dog. It teaches them some responsibility and teaches them empathy for other living things. In this era of computers, video games, and TV; a pet also helps keep children in touch with physical reality and makes them aware that animals aren't just characters in stories. Putting aside the bolded portion of your statement, without pets I think most people would lose all touch with nature and care even less about the environment than they do now. Pets are like nature's ambassadors to humanity. Consider that it is mainly cute animals (like Pandas) that drive many people's interest in such things. Get rid of pets, and soon we'll get rid of nature all together. Pave over the whole planet except for land used to produce food. Nothing wild left whatsoever.
Well that just goes to show why I put the bolded portion in. And pets really have little to do with nature.
I don't let my kitten out the front door yet because she's VERY hyperactive and might run into the path of a car. Immoral? Slavery?? Damn you! I'm jealous. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I LOVE Alsatians.
We saved Bruce's life. He was at the humane society and deemed adoptable so he was in a foster home. Apparently when ppl went up to the cage to say how cute he was he would growl and show him this face!! (below) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! He didn't have much time left, until we took him into our home and he has driven us nuts ever since. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! He is good entertainment, he has such a crazy personality. Sometimes I think he is more hassle then anything else. Nietzsche and him have a love hate relationship going on. Bruce loves me though, and acts totally different with me then anybody else.
??? Are you saying I should give the cats money instead of food, vet care, and a roof over their head?
I called my petpsychic, she talked to the animals, they would rather stay with me, then trying to survive in this weather. You don't get just how stupid your assumption is do you?
No she doesn't she pays them with catfood... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! She probably even puts money in the cats' retirement fund...
Advocates of animal rights often make a distinction between "owning" pets and acting as guardians of them. Obviously, Norsefire's silly idea to let pets out and see if they survive on their own is ridiculous. Pet animals are not, in general, equipped to survive in the human environment without help. It is ethical to care for a pet animal. In fact, you could well be doing it a service by giving it a home rather than consigning it to ekeing out an existence, potentially causing harm to other animals. For example, I own a cat. That cat was tossed as a young kitten out the window of a car into my yard in the dead of night (I didn't know that initially). Luckily, I happened to be outside late that night (for unusual reasons) and heard the mewing. I did not trap the cat, but left food for it should it choose to take some. The cat decided to stick around and has become a much-loved pet in our household. The cat is not trapped. She is free to go outside and roam around. Yet she chooses to come back. She is happy living with us. No. Many animal activists rescue animals intended for slaughter and keep them as pets (or give them to other people as pets). It is a kindness. You don't like them yourself?
That's more of a semantic issue than a moral one. We call our relationship with our pets "ownership" because AFAIK the laws in all countries define them as property rather than citizens. They have no (or almost no) legal rights, so in the eyes of the shit-for-brains government, which takes a digital rather than analog view of the world, they have to be property. I don't know about your pets, but if you asked mine how they liked being "owned" by me, they would scratch their heads and respond, "Oh, you mean the Fraggle over there? He's just a really nice roommate who provides all the food. Yeah I guess we never go anywhere but it's because we love it here so much. Sometimes when he takes us out walking and there are no cops to bust us, he takes off the leashes, and we stick with him anyway. Since there's never a food shortage our primary motivation is love, and there's plenty of it right here. Sorry gotta go, he just called nap time and we're all gonna make a big pile on the bed." We used to have parrots and we took them outside. The only time they tried to fly away was when something startled them and that reflex center in their shoulders started flapping their wings, and they were really sorry about that. Many people let their cats roam freely (although city ordinances are cracking down on that) and if your cat doesn't come home the only reason is that something bigger ate him. We have carefully selected the species that we have domesticated as pets. Most of them are pack-social species who bond with a small group of pack-mates. If you treat them well they'll be perfectly delighted to stay with you. Why don't you consider companionship as "earning their keep"??? It's been well documented that dogs keep us healthy by relieving stress, encouraging us to play more, and providing absolutely unconditional love that's hard to get anywhere else. Of course other species perform these tasks too, but dogs have been doing it for at least twice as long and they're better at it. Look at the earth's cesspools in which dog ownership is not common or outright forbidden: Inner cities and the backwoods of fundamentalist Islam. People in both places have lost their grip on civilization and have regressed to the tribal era. Do you call it "slavery" when we confine someone with an IQ of 45 to an institution? Do you think we should turn him loose to find his way in the world? Parrots, dolphins and apes may have intelligence that approaches that level, but the mammals most commonly kept as companions aren't even close. How could they possibly thrive on their own in an ecosystem that has been almost completely rebuilt to our specifications and no longer resembles the one their ancestors evolved to fit? These species have been bred in captivity for thousands of generations, and they no longer have the temperament to rough it. You occasionally see feral populations of cats or dogs, and they're usually hanging around the fringes of civilization scavenging (and gratefully accepting handouts), not reverting to the hunting life of their ancestors. Herbivores do okay. Since we killed off all their predators the deer have been slowly taking over America's cities, and they are evolving intelligence as the new survival trait instead of speed and a good sense of smell. They've learned to read traffic patterns and even pedestrian walk signals. But herbivores can (and to our great dismay do) eat the foliage everywhere they go. Most of our pet species are carnivores and they need to hunt, in an ecosystem that lacks prey. Right or wrong, what's done is done and we now have species of companion animals who like being companion animals. We've certainly modified our own psychology since the Agricultural Revolution both permitted and required us to gather in larger packs. We've done the same to the other species we live with. Indeed. Even ignoring the morality of raising them to be killed and eaten, the conditions under which they're kept nowadays are beyond barbaric. Fortunately I have enough cognitive dissonance to be able to eat a taco without thinking about the way the pigs are treated. And furthermore my home state recently passed a law requiring "factory farms" to be more humane. Nonetheless I wouldn't be surprised if in two or three generations vegetarianism becomes the norm. I'll be long gone, but just in case, I'm hanging onto the mantra, "Chocolate is a vegetable."
In the context of this thred... that souns creepy at the very least... much less "ethical"... ie... 1 animal "domesticatin" another animal.!!!
Norsefire: you consistently throw out such terms as "sapience," "self-awareness," "culture," etc. in such a manner that clearly indicates that you have absolutely NO idea as to what these terms mean--i suggest you review some philosophy primer texts before employing such language in the future. moreover, your lack of knowledge about animals is quite ... dumbfounding. i get the impression that you have very little experience with animals and have yet to delve into an ethology textbook. and finally, you consistently vacillate in your attributions of various qualities to one species or another. perhaps you ought to make up your mind; but first, perhaps you ought to acquire a better understanding of these notions and a better understanding of animal behavior and cognition.
Has anyone used the word symbiosis yet? I think it fits this topic. I do not see a rule as far as..... I have seen animal human relationships that fit each of these - and with the parasite being sometimes the human and sometimes the animal. Sort of like marriage. When I see certain dog breeds I do want to take a stick to the breeders, but once the poor things are in the world getting one from a shelter seems ethical to me. Buying one does not however. House plants, on the other hand, should all be liberated immediately.
I've never quite got the concept that "owning" animals as pets is unethical. What you do with them during their stay is a different matter. What do people do with their own offspring? Do they own them? Is it ethical to let your children go at any time if it is their free will and desire to separate themselves from you? Are children your slaves? Domesticated animals that are kept as pets (dogs, cats, etc.) are very much like children in that respect. Children and animals can be both pleasurable and entertaining. And alot of work as well.
