BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Slavery and Owning Animals

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Linus Dunce
18:42 / 08.12.03
Lurid, no one's saying that animals should not have some protection under human law. But to claim that animals should have "rights" is as sensible as saying they should have nice cosy beds with clean sheets.

Whether you agree or not, rights are a human concept and mean nothing outside the human world. They are sometimes sketchily applied but that does not necessarily invalidate them. If you want to invent a new ethical widget to ensure animals are treated better, fine, but "rights" do not apply. You may as well fit spark-plugs to a bicycle.

On the "for" side, there seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of rights that does animals no good whatsoever. It is a nonsensical argument that merely serves to prove that the holder doesn't really understand what they are asking for, that they think "empathy" is the same thing as "sympathy" and, having self-lobotomised their own moral, critical and historical faculties, they will come like lambs to the slaughter ...
 
 
Loomis
18:51 / 08.12.03
The discussion seems to have veered towards an analysis of rights, and I’m not sure if that is the most productive way of approaching this topic. I find myself more interested in motivations. Why do we interact with animals the way we do? Deciding where you draw the line in terms of animal rights becomes redundant if you have no motivation for exploiting them in the first place.

So, to look at the practical concerns of Haus’ schema, I think if we are going to look at it like that and assume for the moment the validity of the contract, then perhaps the defining factor may be traditional need. In terms of work and food, in the past people did not have the luxury of leaving animals to do their own thing, as their immediate needs were pressing. However as technology advances, we have less and less need for such things and in my opinion it is only tradition that dictates that we keep using them in this manner. And if we’ve outgrown traditions of sexism, racism, etc., why can’t we see how much of our use of animals is based solely on tradition?

But at least we can say that there once was need, even if it is not there (or has been reduced) these days. However using animals for amusement is another story. What possible justification is there to force horses to run circles with jockeys on their back, simply because it amuses us? I won’t bother going into detail but are such practices really defensible without the fallback of tradition? Similarly the domestication of cats and dogs. We can claim no need for their company, so can we justify a practice which though it may not be an agonizing existence for the animal, remains ethically indefensible?

And let’s talk about sex. How many times have you, dear reader, had sex in your life? Do you consider it essential, or at least fairly central to your happiness? So how do you feel about depriving your pet of sex, either by keeping it inside where it has no access to playmates, or by neutering it so that it has no desire or ability to do the deed? Would you consider the loss of your bits to be a fair trade off for a life of free food and shelter? When Tryphena says that she does not own George any more than mum owns her, how about his balls? Who owns them?

(side note: I am actually in favour of neutering if you have domestic animals, for various reasons, so I’m not having a go at anyone for doing that.)

Now to look at how far an animal is prevented from expressing its animal nature. It seems to me that at the very least, the fact that domestic animals are bred to favour certain characteristics which tend to be detrimental to their survival, must be taken into account. We have begun an anti-Darwinian mode of speciefication (not sure if that is a word but it sounds good), whereby cosmetic traits that do not contribute to survival, and in many cases detract from it, are cultivated. And that surely reduces an animal’s ability to fully express its nature, since we have altered the very physical manifestations of that nature.

isn't there an argument that dogs have been bred to have a close relationship with humans?

How is that an argument in favour of pets? Does anyone actually think that breeding pets for pleasure is ethically defensible? Of course as I said earlier, it leaves us in a tricky situation now as we have inherited the situation, but to defend an ethically questionable situation by reference to an ethically wrong position seems to be moving backwards rather than forwards.
 
 
Lurid Archive
21:10 / 08.12.03
Ignatius J: Yeah, I meant sympathy rather than empathy, but I think that saying that I have self-lobotomised my moral, critical and historical faculties is a bit harsh. You were referring to me, right?

I dunno. What you seem to be saying is that rights can only and shall only apply to humans and that any discussion on the subject is a moral and intellectual failure. Rights, like morals, are human. Therefore rights, unlike morals, can have no meaning when applied to animals. Unless we accept the torture of animals as unconnected with morality - which some do, I suppose.

I'd be interested to know what rights are, in that case. And why they should apply universally to humans. I suspect this is going to be rather circular.

How is that an argument in favour of pets? Does anyone actually think that breeding pets for pleasure is ethically defensible? Loomis

Well, I realise that they are related questions, but I think they are separate nonetheless - owning pets and breeding pets. I mean, if you accept that dogs and humans can coexist in a reasonable, non-exloitative, yet possibly dependent way (this was my question), then you can see how you arrive at pets without resorting to a breeding farm. Put it this way, if a cat wanders in as they please, I feed it when it is around and one day it has kittens...I'd find it hard to condemn my behaviour. Have I bred a pet for pleasure? Well, breeding has taken place and my motives were my own pleasure...but you see what I'm saying, right?

You surely aren't saying that interacting with animals is wrong, Loomis? In which case, I think one could quickly get to a situation where we have an owner and a pet (or working animal) and where it is hard for me to see any moral culpability.
 
 
Mr Tricks
22:06 / 08.12.03
a little late in posting but here's 2 more cents...

Cute Doggie Pics:
They where placed, both as an offering of some levity and a reminder of the emotionally significant role pet ownership has with-in human culture, as I've observed it.
I'd argue with the "They add nothing to the discussion, and are attempting to distract from the point in a manner entirely inappropriate to the Head Shop" comment, by offering that the inclusion of first hand experience might lend some credible insight to some theories offered here. Some experiences are of a "sensational" nature rather than an intellectial one and could thus be offered more effectively with an image rather than an explaination; image=1000 words and all that, but it's not that big a deal.

My dogs are all forgiving and thus... Haus, thou art forgiven.

Animal types:
It seems to me that the discourse presented here is hampered by an overlaying of arguements about different types of animals. Weither or not all animals should have the same rights etc... seems confused by the inherently different natures and roles of "animals" with-in the context of the over-arching human culture.
How could animals as diverse as cats, goldfish, chickens, sheep dogs, dolphins, rabbits, chimpanzees, cows, parakeets, sheep etc. be "offered" the same rights and or protections by human society?
There's obviously a wide range of interactions evident and this itself is being touch upon.

  • The simple kept pet (goldfish? snake?)
  • The interactive pet (cat? dog?)
  • The labor animal (Horse? police dog?)
  • The farm animals (Sheep? milk Cow? Hen?)
  • Lifestock (Chicken? Pig? Cattle?)
  • Test animals (Rabbits? Apes? Mice?)
  • Animals that just get in "our" way (Dolphins and any number in "endangered" species).
Just off of the top of my head, I don't imagine human society could or should extend "rights/protections" equally accross this abartrary breakdown of animal/pet types. Certainly there's plenty of crossover as well; lab dogs, horse meat, pet mice and so fourth. My point is that human society does not treat all animals equally, though on a whole it treats most other species rather poorly (consider also that humanity is quite experienced at treating members of its own species rather horribly... which brings us to the bit about Slavery.)

Question:
Should a discourse on humanity's treatment (or mistreatment) of other species take place with-out first examining how humanity interelates with other species?


Interesting points made by Loomis:
Loomis said
  • If you spent your entire life in someone's living room, got fed twice a day and had a litter tray to shit in, what meaningful choice to you have to go anywhere else? Do you know how to hunt? Do you even know what to hunt? Do you know where to shit, where to sleep, how to talk to other animals? You have no meaningful option but to stay where you are. I could say that human slaves had the option to escape, but how many did so during the long years of legal slavery? Do you think the fact that they stayed meant that they had no desire to be free?


Tryphena's already answered this based on her relationship with her cat.
Still there's a curious imposition of human ideals placed onto the theoretical pet; at least as I read it. Durring the age of slavery in the U.S. I'm certain the arguement was made that "they" where better off as slaves as they wouldn't be smart enough to survive in normal society on their own; slaves that is. So could the same be said for other species?
Perhaps, however it's the exceptional dog that learns to look both ways before crossing a street.
Animals on a whole have varying capacities for learning. Bear cubs have to be taught how to catch fish but many birds know exactly where to fly for their winter migratons. Dogs are instinctively pack animals naturally incline towards social behavior, a Bengal Tiger is quite the opposite. Some stuff is just plain instinct; a feral dog or cat will hunt whatever they can catch however is most effective. The questions your posing seem to me much to "human" in its value system.

Loomis also said
  • Obviously it's somewhat complicated in that this is the situation we have inherited and we weren't the ones that created it. But it seems fairly straightforward to me that there is something ethically wrong with the concept of genetically modifying animals for our own pleasure. Saying that your dog appears to love you does not negate that.


With this I agree in principle. Can I say that dogs have probably been keeping people company since the days of sharing caves?

At this point dogs, in particular, have evolved alongside humanity and more than one "breed" has gotten the short end of the stick. In this light can humanity justifiable just cut these animals loose saying "so sorry, you're free to go now." there's almost a responsibility we have to these animals now, as a pack of ferral pugs would not get very far.

The modern equivilent is probably the Puppy Mill. With is socialized store front being those puppy shops found at certain malls. This is where I find the analogy of a slave trade very true to life.

The last thing Loomis said that I'm interested in
  • I would like to think that as technology advances we will have less and less need for animals, both as workers and as food.


it seems to me that our continued relyance on technology has actually worked in the opposite direction causeing more hardship and cruelty to the rest of non-human species. this prediciment seems to range from factory-farms, to roadkills, to animal testing, to the California Spotted Owl who's endangered because of the logging of redwood forests.

It would be interesting to live in a Vegitarian society but i suspect I'm in the manority in that view.

But getting back to the breeding bit... There seems to be a sort of catch 22 if we as a society deside to let all dogs go ferrel then what clean up the darwinian mess? Or not neuter pets and have a greater influx of random puppies.

And then there's the question of weither a dog "enjoys" sex in the same way a human does.
 
 
Leap
09:48 / 09.12.03
Quantum –

Ariadne pre-empted my point on those with diminished responsibility. A coma victim or encephalic child (or indeed a baby) can't take part in societal contracts but they still have rights.

You mean the “there but for the grace of god” empathy clause? Which of course itself has a limiting clause on not causing serious harm to the rest of life (and thus its acceptability/usability is limited based upon resources available). Does not really apply to other animals though………the way I see it is a person leading a Good (in relation to other humans) life will not cause harm to other animals which would merit mention.
 
 
Ariadne
13:31 / 09.12.03
a person leading a Good (in relation to other humans) life will not cause harm to other animals which would merit mention.

I just don't see how you get from one thing to the other. I'm sure the head of your local battery chicken farm is a lovely guy (or woman..)who adores his kids, but he goes to work and, in my opinion at least, causes harm to animals that really does merit mention.
 
 
Loomis
13:40 / 09.12.03
The lurid one says:

Well, I realise that they are related questions, but I think they are separate nonetheless - owning pets and breeding pets.

I think it is in fact the assumption that these two are separate that has led us to this position where people feel themselves to be absolved of the wrongdoing of part 2 (owning) because they do not feel implicated in part 1 (breeding). If we agree that breeding animals for our pleasure is wrong, then I think that obliges us to look at the ownership question more closely. Do we deepen the initial wrong by continuing it or should we just shrug our shoulders and move on? As Mr Tricks notes, “There seems to be a sort of catch 22 if we as a society decide to let all dogs go ferrel then what clean up the darwinian mess? Or not neuter pets and have a greater influx of random puppies.”

I think the most ethically defensible conclusion (obviously not too practical but we’re talking about the principle here) is that we ought to neuter all pets and not breed any more and let the breeds die out. If we agree that there are serious questions regarding the constrained life of the pet, no matter how pampered it may be, then I think it would be self-serving to fall back on the excuse that Lurid offers:

If a cat wanders in as they please, I feed it when it is around and one day it has kittens...I'd find it hard to condemn my behaviour. Have I bred a pet for pleasure? Well, breeding has taken place and my motives were my own pleasure...but you see what I'm saying, right?

If you think that breeding is wrong, and if you further agree (which of course you may not) that continuing to do so serves to deepen that wrong, then I think you have certainly done the wrong thing. I find that most of these pro-pet arguments tend to hide behind anonymity, claiming that feeding a cat once is not equal to breeding the cats. It’s simply mob mentality – eschewing the responsibility because you were only a small part. But if you think it is wrong to have pets (which is a big “if”), then the ethical thing to do is to make sure the cat is neutered, feed it all you want and not replace it when it dies.

You surely aren't saying that interacting with animals is wrong, Loomis?

Well that’s the question isn’t it? It seems to me that you're assuming the answer to that question when I think it is far from obvious. Like you, in practice I find it hard to condemn individual acts, but it is the concept that bothers me, and in my view they cannot be separated when it suits us. Where lies the difference between interacting and interfering? Is it possible to interact with animals without essentially changing them? When you go to a zoo or a national park or wherever and they tell you not to feed the animals because the right thing to do is to keep them on their original diet, lifestyle, etc., no one questions the accuracy of this information. But should that wisdom not be extended to relate to all animals? Would you take an eagle from the wild and bring it into your home for a pet? I believe that sort of thing is actually illegal. So why is it okay for dogs and cats?

If a “cat” wanders into your house, you need to analyze what this “cat” is. If you assume it to be a totally normal part of your life then you have already made your position clear before you’ve asked the question, which makes the question redundant. If however you question what conceptual weight is attached to this man-made creation that has no proper notion of its nature which has been perverted and constrained, then your actions regarding it might be different. Which is what we’re all doing here in this thread - analyzing the assumptions about why this cat exists in the first place to wander into your house, and how it would ever come near you for food.

In terms of the pet industry, anyone can look up the info if they want (I think PETA has some good stuff). But pet stores etc. breed lots of them, many of which end up unwanted and sold off to medical labs etc., or just dumped, etc etc etc. It’s basically not the bet industry around. And if you go the natural way and don’t neuter your pets, then that is also going to result in plenty of unwanted babies which again are going to meet an unhappy end. And simply having pets fuels the industry (by buying food, leads, etc) and also fuels demand for pets (by encouraging people to assume that pet ownership a normal thing) which fuels the whole cycle. Not to mention where the pet food comes from (so if you’re anti- factory farms then I hope you’re buying organic meat). So there is no possibility of existing outside the system. You can’t claim to feed a cat once while opposing the pet trade (of course I’m not saying that you do oppose it …). Like many other ills of society that are fuelled by people thinking “I’ll just do it this once- that won’t cause any harm”, when everyone else is doing the same thing, the result impacts on the whole globe.

Phew! Sorry people, I don’t mean to rant. It’s just that there seem to be so many assumptions here that are not being investigated. And assumptions are being offered as explanations for other assumptions, so I can’t really see a great deal of development here.

And finally, to get reflective for a moment, I agree with the concern of Mr Tricks:

it seems to me that our continued relyance on technology has actually worked in the opposite direction causeing more hardship and cruelty to the rest of non-human species. this prediciment seems to range from factory-farms, to roadkills, to animal testing, to the California Spotted Owl who's endangered because of the logging of redwood forests.

Indeed. I guess we all thought that technology would enable us to work less hours and use natural resources more efficiently but it turned out people got fired and nature got screwed instead. Human nature and all that eh?
 
 
Quantum
14:19 / 09.12.03
Loomis said: If we agree that breeding animals for our pleasure is wrong...I think the most ethically defensible conclusion...is that we ought to neuter all pets and not breed any more and let the breeds die out.
I have to take issue with that, humane genocide isn't the answer. If we agree it's wrong, then surely a giant cat sanctuary and an enormous Dog Heaven should be opened where they can all live out a life without humans in an environment they'd like (loads of fire hydrants, lakes of milk etc ).
But I don't think we'll agree it's wrong, I fall into the pets&humans symbiosis camp, it's good for both parties. Which is not true of human slaves. I think we should accept that having pets and treating them kindly is the most ethically defensible path (since we can't un-domesticate our pets).
A pet doesn't have the complex needs a human has. Like them we need food and shelter, and affection and security, but we also feel we need things like freedom and a purpose in life, things a pet doesn't want. What we think of as freedom is not something a pet necessarily wants- they may see it as abandonment or being thrust into a terrifying new environment with no familiarity.
Domestic animals tend to be territorial and parochial, they don't like change much and they don't like to stray too far from what they know. To project a yearning for freedom onto them is an anthropomorphic mistake.

I mentioned coma victims etc. as parallels;
Leap:You mean the “there but for the grace of god” empathy clause?
No. I could never be an animal for example but that doesn't stop me from feeling I should treat them with respect.
My point is we measure our civility by how we behave toward others, irrespective of their ability to form a social contract. I think that it's wrong to mistreat an animal (even pulling the wings off flies), not because of any moral status on the part of the victim but because it dehumanises us.
I want to live in a world where people behave in a civilised manner for it's own sake, not because the recipient of the behaviour might reciprocate in the future. A part of the social contract I am a part of includes 'don't be cruel to animals', and want everyone to stick to that even if they think my cat has the same moral status as a rock. It's not about them, it's about our relationship to them. They aren't moral agents, we are.

So really what I'm saying is a human as a moral agent is un-ownable, but an animal (which is not) is a responsibility, not just property.

There are a lot of parallels with babies- you live with them and look after them, they are 'yours' but you can't just do what you want with them. In some ancient cultures (and some modern ones...) women are considered the property of their fathers or husbands, which to me is as morally wrong as slavery, because people can't be owned. Pets can be, but not in the same way as you own a car.
 
 
Quantum
14:34 / 09.12.03
To clarify a little, imagine you see someone beating a dog with a stick, really hard, so it wails and whimpers and drops to the ground unmoving, and then keeps beating it. You rush over, and he cheerfully explains that it's just a robot dog covered in fur, a fake dog, so it feels no pain and has no moral rights. So it's alright to act cruelly toward it.
Would you want to hang out with them? Probably not. Is it morally wrong to vent your anger on a mock pooch? Probably not, but it would make you think twice about pissing them off.
As I say, it's not about the animal (or robot, or rock) it's about our behaviour. And when I say 'our' I mean us all as humans, slaves or not.
 
 
Leap
14:46 / 09.12.03
Ariadne –

Leap: a person leading a Good (in relation to other humans) life will not cause harm to other animals which would merit mention.

Ariadne: I just don't see how you get from one thing to the other. I'm sure the head of your local battery chicken farm is a lovely guy (or woman..) who adores his kids, but he goes to work and, in my opinion at least, causes harm to animals that really does merit mention.

Ok, perhaps a serious part of the problem is a lack of coherent understanding today of what is generally required of a person in order to actually be “Good” (insert whichever word defining moral rectitude that you find acceptable – it’s the meaning I am hoping to argue about, not the label ).

Most people seem to try and answer moral quandaries “as if they were God”, that is, taking a view that disconnects from human identity rather than in relation to humanity and our relationship with the rest of the world.

Quantum –

No. I could never be an animal for example but that doesn't stop me from feeling I should treat them with respect….not because of any moral status on the part of the victim but because it dehumanises us.

I agree, but note that there is a massive difference between wanton cruelty and “mmmm t-bone on the hoof!!!”.

Treat a human like a human, and you will generally treat an animal in a generally appropriate manner as well………..big problem comes from societies that themselves dehumanise…..

I want to live in a world where people behave in a civilised manner for it's own sake, not because the recipient of the behaviour might reciprocate in the future. A part of the social contract I am a part of includes 'don't be cruel to animals', and want everyone to stick to that even if they think my cat has the same moral status as a rock.

You have a cat?!!! Or is it one of those damn Schrödingers?

So really what I'm saying is a human as a moral agent is un-ownable, but an animal (which is not) is a responsibility, not just property.

There are a lot of parallels with babies- you live with them and look after them, they are 'yours' but you can't just do what you want with them. In some ancient cultures (and some modern ones...) women are considered the property of their fathers or husbands, which to me is as morally wrong as slavery, because people can't be owned. Pets can be, but not in the same way as you own a car.

That is because we make communities with people and thus should treat babies as potential community members, and women AS community members. Another big part of the whole problem is the idea of identity being a private thing when it is a personal but inter-relational thing

To clarify a little, imagine you see someone beating a dog with a stick, really hard, so it wails and whimpers and drops to the ground unmoving, and then keeps beating it. You rush over, and he cheerfully explains that it's just a robot dog covered in fur, a fake dog, so it feels no pain and has no moral rights. So it's alright to act cruelly toward it.
Would you want to hang out with them? Probably not. Is it morally wrong to vent your anger on a mock pooch? Probably not, but it would make you think twice about pissing them off.

By the same argument we should shy away from people who shoot AI entities in computer games?
 
 
Quantum
15:07 / 09.12.03
Treat a human like a human, and you will generally treat an animal in a generally appropriate manner as well
Unless you're in a non-western culture like Afghanistan where they use calves as footballs, or any other where they don't have the sentimental value attached to animals we do. Even in Europe they are enlightened and civilised to each other and casually maltreat animals on a regular basis (e.g. French animal testing for cosmetics). Didn't you mention that point yourself upthread?

That is because we make communities with people and thus should treat babies as potential community members, and women AS community members.
So what about pets? Isn't a dog a part of the family in a way?
More importantly, we have moral responsibilities to those outside the community, we can't just stone a stranger because he's not from our village. To behave in a cruel manner to anyone or anything makes us more savage.

Perhaps in retrospect a robot dog was not the best example for a thought experiment, but I hope you take the point. I don't think acting out aggression in computer games is indicative of anger problems but there are those out there who do think that ('TV made the kids do that horrible thing' 'Violent movies make you violent' etc), and if someone did get really into an ultraviolent game I wouldn't say it was making them a better person, eh.
 
 
Leap
15:39 / 09.12.03
Quantum –

Unless you're in a non-western culture like Afghanistan where they use calves as footballs, or any other where they don't have the sentimental value attached to animals we do.

And how exactly do they respect people in these cultures?!!

Even in Europe they are enlightened and civilised to each other and casually maltreat animals on a regular basis

I think that we are so dehumanising today that very few people have a chance of being “enlightened”!

what about pets? Isn't a dog a part of the family in a way?

No, a pet is a second class citizen because they lack the ability to make a fully human contact in a human community.

if someone did get really into an ultraviolent game I wouldn't say it was making them a better person, eh.


I agree

More importantly, we have moral responsibilities to those outside the community, we can't just stone a stranger because he's not from our village. To behave in a cruel manner to anyone or anything makes us more savage.

Again I agree. Savage behaviour has a tendency to cross over into areas we don’t want it to pollute, which is why we should generally try to be nice to everyone we meet, or at least polite to them. This does indeed cross over into our treatment of animals….we should not be habitually cruel to anything as it makes us more likely to slip with those we love.

But at the same time, we should not be particularly worried about occasional/mild slips in character, as is unlikely to have lasting harm and of course forbearance is part of the deal
 
 
Quantum
16:08 / 09.12.03
So it's morally right to beat your dog sometimes? I disagree (although I agree the occasional lapse is forgivable, morality should be what we aspire to).

a pet is a second class citizen because they lack the ability to make a fully human contact in a human community.
As do babies, the severely disabled and coma victims but it's still wrong to abuse them (have you seen Kill Bill?). That exact attitude was used by people who owned slaves wasn't it?

I think that we are so dehumanising today that very few people have a chance of being “enlightened"
I don't think you have to be enlightened to feel it's wrong to abuse animals, or indeed living things in general. Abuse is bad, don't you think? Sounds like a truism to me, can you say abuse is ever good?

The issue is whether or not keeping an animal counts as abuse, whether or not they want freedom.
 
 
Leap
16:15 / 09.12.03
Quantum –

So it's morally right to beat your dog sometimes? I disagree (although I agree the occasional lapse is forgivable, morality should be what we aspire to).

I think such a lapse is part of being human and should not be construed in any other way (it certainly should not be condemned (merely “frownd upon” would be strong enough))

As do babies, the severely disabled and coma victims but it's still wrong to abuse them (have you seen Kill Bill?). That exact attitude was used by people who owned slaves wasn't it?

That is when the “but for the grace of god” clause comes in!

I don't think you have to be enlightened to feel it's wrong to abuse animals, or indeed living things in general. Abuse is bad, don't you think? Sounds like a truism to me, can you say abuse is ever good?

We have to learn how to blend our naturally friend-seeking nature into harmonious relationships…..that means a marked degree of enlightenment we seldom find given a place in the modern hypercompetitive world.

The issue is whether or not keeping an animal counts as abuse, whether or not they want freedom.

Whilst to me the issue is not whether the steak I want to eat came from an animal that wanted to be “free” but whether or not it was raised in a generally respectful environment……………which means not using the cow as a means of dehumanisation.
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:18 / 09.12.03
I think the most ethically defensible conclusion (obviously not too practical but we’re talking about the principle here) is that we ought to neuter all pets and not breed any more and let the breeds die out. - Loomis

I find that hard to accept, tbh. I don't see how one can condemn pet ownership on the grounds that it is equivalent to slavery and propose as a solution mass sterilisation, which would be equivalent to genocide.

Practicalities aside, if you believe that animals should have rights then wouldn't a mass sterilisation infringe on those rights? Again, I find the opposing view hard to accept.

If a cat wanders in as they please, I feed it when it is around and one day it has kittens...I'd find it hard to condemn my behaviour. Have I bred a pet for pleasure? Well, breeding has taken place and my motives were my own pleasure...but you see what I'm saying, right?

If you think that breeding is wrong, and if you further agree (which of course you may not) that continuing to do so serves to deepen that wrong, then I think you have certainly done the wrong thing.

No, here I am going to have to strongly disagree with you. I think we need to clarify what you mean by "breeding" pets. Are you saying that any instance of reproduction of a domesticated animal is morally wrong? Seems doubtful, but I'll try not to assume too much.

Is breeding only wrong if helped by humans? This seems closer to what you are saying, since you think that feeding a stray cat who breeds is wrong. Does this mean that animal sanctuaries and vets are morally indefensible in their treatment of domesticated animals? I find that hard to swallow, myself. (Though there are issues with vets being complicit in the mistreatment of animals, so there are grey areas here.)

Perhaps breeding is only wrong if it is done for the pleasure of humans. But in my example, the breeding was neither encouraged nor administered by a human. The pleasure was incidental. Lets be clear here. Are you really saying that it is wrong to feed a starving cat? Or does it only become wrong by repetition? I find the fact that the cat is domesticated and hence has specific (I'd hesitate to say unnatural) behaviour patterns to be...irrelevant.

Partly, I have a different view than you because I think that animal and humans can have (though needn't have) non-exploitative relationships. Mostly I disagree because it leads to some odd conclusions.

You surely aren't saying that interacting with animals is wrong, Loomis?

Well that’s the question isn’t it? It seems to me that you're assuming the answer to that question when I think it is far from obvious.

Interacting with animals is wrong? Sorry, I hadn't even considered that one could take such a position. I think I see what you are getting at, though I think that you are pushing the line a bit too far. I think I'd need a convincing argument that said that any human interaction with an animal is detrimental to the animal in some sense. One needs to be careful here about appeals to naturality, however. As I said above, I think there may be some reason to suppose that a human/canine codepedence is in a certain way natural. To answer one of yout questions, this is a possible justification for having dogs, rather than other animals, as pets.

Otherwise, what grounds are there for thinking that humans should never interact with animals? What about the potential for beneficial contact? You seem to be negative about interference and changing animals. Would you condemn human interference in saving endangered species? OK, thats one extreme. But how much interference do you think is ok?

Lastly, to cover your points on the pet trade and one's complicity in it, Loomis. I'm afraid that my view on this, as with similar matters, is that systemic wrongs are usually insufficient to dictate personal behaviour. OK, I don't quite mean that, so let me try to clarify. I think that one can object to a particular issue, say Nestle milk, and try to organise a campaign to boycott an institution based on that. Right. One can protest about abuses of power and try to get them changed. Sure.

But, in my view, the fact that we are all complicit in thousands of injustices, which permeate our lives, means that a boycott only makes sense if it is specific. For instance, the fact that Bush is embedded in the energy industry in the US does not mean that no one should consume petrol in any way. The point is that you can find moral problems with every part of the world we interact with.

So, I can support undermining the pet industry by not buying from puppy farms, for instance. Of course. And not buying pet foods. Right. But not feeding animals at all? No. I don't see it.
 
 
Mr Tricks
19:16 / 09.12.03
Well, Lurid has pretty much said most of what I was about to...

I'm thinking that there's a borderline absurdity to the idea that human/animal interactions are "unatural." Where could this idea be drawn from?
Certainly history, particularly that of the past few centuries, is rife with humanity's inability to maintain a healthy relationship with the environment in general. We can go back to Slavery as a means of illustraiting this disfunction with-in the species. But are you proposing that for humanity to fulfill a moral imperative it must sequesture itself from all other species?

Maybe floating cities are a bit much, the animal kingdom has evolved around virtually every aspect of human culture. In tandum with the unfettered growth of that same society. Even dedicating some land mass (say Austrailia) as a sort of wilderness preserve for "freed" pets would be rife with problems. Could it be better to reorganize human society to make greater allowances for intersection with wild nature? This hasn't yet even gotten to industrialized meats; an arguement for cloning?

Allowing certain species to go extinct does not "solve" the initial error that created specialized "pleasure" breeds. Moreso it seems like an abdication of a real life responsibility for the sake of persuing of an abstract concept; the source animals are gone instead we now have a plethoria of breeds with no real darwinian function, they exist for "us" now. Are you proposing that "we" abandon the responsibility we took upon ourselve?
Sort of parrallels a child getting a puppy who is then let loose once the novelty has worn off or the effort required in training it becomes too apparient.

Sure, in an ideal world the continued comercial breeding of these animals sould be stopped, and the industry around it should be dismantled. Especialy when one considers how the pet food industry er.. "feeds" into the industrial meat production industry. Beyond that you've got the catch 22 again:
  • Keeping pets empeads upon their right to live a naturally free life.
  • Allowing pets to go ferrel will basicly doom them to a similar fate faced by the too many animals already in the path of human expansion.


This this still hasn't touched upon working animals etc...
would it be better for sled-dogs to be replaced with snowmobiles? How would that effect the local Moose communities?

What would replace sheep dogs?

Loomis:
Would you take an eagle from the wild and bring it into your home for a pet? I believe that sort of thing is actually illegal. So why is it okay for dogs and cats?
There are many organizations that would do this for a wounded eagle (or other animal) releasing it into the wild once it's recovered or giving it a perminant home if its injury would be consider fatal in the wild; an eagel who cannot fly.

For dogs and cats, there really has never been a point where they have not been an active part of human society... as "pets" or "tools."

And simply having pets fuels the industry (by buying food, leads, etc) and also fuels demand for pets (by encouraging people to assume that pet ownership a normal thing) which fuels the whole cycle.

Sorry but I don't buy that. I haven't seen any arguement that effectively says "not having pets" is a normal thing.

Leap:
...a pet is a second class citizen because they lack the ability to make a fully human contact in a human community.

I think there's a sort of problem in using the term Citizen there:
cit·i·zen ( P ) Pronunciation Key (st-zn)
n.

1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.
2. A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there.
3. A civilian.
4. A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place: “We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community” (Franklin D. Roosevelt).


[Middle English citisein, from Anglo-Norman citesein, alteration (perhaps influenced by dainzain, denizen), of Old French citeain from cite, city. See city.]

While there's no doubt that "pets" are a part of a social structure I couldn't see them as "citizens." They're pets:
pet1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pt)
n.

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.


adj.

1. Kept as a pet: a pet cat.
2.
1. Particularly cherished or indulged: a pet grandchild.
2. Expressing or showing affection: a pet name.
3. Being a favorite: a pet topic.

why attempt to create a new word for what they are?
 
 
Loomis
20:28 / 09.12.03
Right. I feel that you’re looking at my argument backwards. You’re disagreeing with my conclusion without having engaged with the premise. I’m not saying the conclusion is pretty, and from the start, I never said that I myself was conclusively against pets. This thread is about whether or not it is right or wrong to own pets, which is what I am trying to get at. I then followed that line of thinking to an admittedly extreme conclusion, and you’re taking issue with the practicalities of that conclusion without having effectively disagreed (imho) with the premise in the first place.

And even if we are going to stick to the sterilization plan, I don’t see the problem that Lurid or Mr Tricks has with it. Do you disagree with the neutering of individual pets? If not, why is it wrong to sterilize all of them? Have you caused any harm to any individual animal that you are not already condoning on a case by case basis? If we then prevented all domestic animals from reproducing, has any animal been harmed? Using emotive terms like genocide simply clouds the issue. The only thing that would be lost would be the “species” of domestic cat or dog. No individual animal would have undergone any harm that they are not already undergoing right now, with your consent. I am not talking about gassing them – the idea was to feed them, love them, etc. but don’t replace them.

But anyway, let's leave that alone for now.

Are you saying that any instance of reproduction of a domesticated animal is morally wrong?

Is breeding only wrong if helped by humans? This seems closer to what you are saying, since you think that feeding a stray cat who breeds is wrong. Does this mean that animal sanctuaries and vets are morally indefensible in their treatment of domesticated animals?

Here you’re conflating the discussion of the principle of ownership (which is the only question I am really trying to answer) with the realities of present day pet ownership. The position I was exploring (which I admit was a bit of a stretch) is trying to reverse the unnatural situation we have created, and if you’re going to do that, then it would need to be a 100% approach. Animal sanctuaries are irrelevant because you can’t put the entire population of domestic animals in a sanctuary. Animal sanctuaries are a reality of our current pet-owning world and I was exploring a position which aimed to remove the race of dependent animals and return to a state where animals are wild and may choose their level of interaction with us. If we are going to have pets, then of course I advocate fulfilling our responsibilities towards them by supporting sanctuaries and vets and all the rest of it. I would never advocate causing harm to an individual animal- that is the point of my argument remember?

To try and address your questions about when interaction with animals is wrong:

What I’m getting at here is choice, not anthropomorphic concepts of freedom or happiness. Let’s remember that this thread is about domestic pets, not about interacting with animals per se. I may have stretched my line a little far in following that extreme logical conclusion (not that I am convinced, mind you, that it is not the ethical solution), however in arguing against that I feel that you are leading us away from the original, and far less contentious point about forced interaction with animals, ie. owning pets.

A wild animal has the ability to choose how much it wants to interact with us because it is not dependent on us for anything. I am not against interacting with animals; I simply advocate allowing the animal to choose its own level rather than being forced, and in the case of domesticated animals, they have not been merely forced, they have been bred such that they literally have no other meaningful choice.

And I still do not see any counter-argument to this point. To be honest I am not interested in being led astray (no pun intended) by discussions of how to fix the problem, which may be beyond my/our wisdom, or perhaps a subject for a separate thread where we were arguing from an agreed premise that owning pets was wrong. I admit that mine was a somewhat abstract idea and really I was just thinking aloud. But the fact that we are probably stuck with this situation should not detract from the topic of the thread, which is the right and wrong of the situation itself. Having no way to fix a problem does not mean that there is no problem, and that’s where I feel that this thread has gone.

Are you really saying that it is wrong to feed a starving cat? Or does it only become wrong by repetition?

Do you feel that individual acts are not complicit in the larger system? Now of course, as you rightly say, we are complicit in a thousand wrongs every day of our lives, and there is no perfect state outside of these things. Which makes your example of feeding a starving cat a good one for your argument over mine, so I’ll retract a little and return to the original topic, which is about owning cats rather than feeding them. Can you own a cat without being part of the system? And, to return to one of my earlier points, do you have any need to do so? I won’t ask you not to feed the odd stray cat, but in an ideal world I would ask for you simply not to own a cat. That does not require any revolutionary plan. It simply requires one to opt out of a tradition that one feels is exploitative. Just say no, and all that. I return to my question that has not yet been answered to my satisfaction: why not simply avoid being complicit by the simple decision not to own a pet? What ethical justification do you have for continuing to do so?

I find the fact that the cat is domesticated and hence has specific (I'd hesitate to say unnatural) behaviour patterns to be...irrelevant.

Perhaps here is the crux of our difference. My position assumes that the less we interfere with the natural life of an animal, the better, and I am developing an argument from that basis. If you find nothing wrong with the intial creation of domestic animals then maybe we do not have enough common ground on which to ever reach agreement.
 
 
Mr Tricks
22:41 / 09.12.03
Interesting indeed Loomis:
I'm wondering if perhaps the difference between 2 fundimental concepts of a "pet" are factoring in on the discussion:

There's the pet bred such that they literally have no other meaningful choice but to depend on human captivity. Then there's the pet as a domesticated wild animal.

Take for instance the PUG

as an example of the former. And the cat or "mutt" dog as an example of the later.

of course you can delete these images

So, the neutering of every domesticated pug would result in the potential extinction of that species and free human culture from the mistaken ideas that caused such breeding in the first place. In the meantime the mutt can easily be set loose allowing instinct to replace any initial training.

Based on my understanding of your arguement the actions would have to be different for each breed. so as to reach
a position which aimed to remove the race of dependent animals and return to a state where animals are wild and may choose their level of interaction with us.

This still seems flawed in that it doesn't seem to take into account that most wild animals are having fewer and fewer options for interaction with human society. "We" are giving "them" fewer choices and perhaps the "pet" phonomenon is an evolutionary responce.

While I could agree with you on the breeding of "luxury" animals. I just don't see a basis for a believing that human/animal interdependance is unnatural. Society may have pushed this dynamic to an extreme that has resulted in the kind of "breeding" you're pointing out, but it seems no less extreme than factory farms or the industrial revolution.
Soes this mean that if you're going to keep an animal you should make sure it's a useful one?

Do you disagree with the neutering of individual pets? If not, why is it wrong to sterilize all of them?

I think the choice should be made on a case by case basis with the appropiate responsibilities inherent as well. I did not neuter my pet until she was 4 years old and after a single litter. The reasoning behind not "fixing" her changed after her puppies were found appropiate humans and it was determined one would stay with.

Have you caused any harm to any individual animal that you are not already condoning on a case by case basis? If we then prevented all domestic animals from reproducing, has any animal been harmed?


hmmm.. not sure if I'm understanding this part, but IMO the neutering of all domestic animals would harm the species that is the "domestic animal."
 
 
Quantum
13:01 / 10.12.03
Loomis, I disagree with your premise that it's wrong to own a pet, irrespective of what conclusions arise. Because, like Lurid, I believe humans and animals can have non-exploitative relationships, and I also believe animals don't have the need or desire for freedom that human beings do (whether that's bred into them or not).
On the other hand I agree selectively breeding animals for fun and to make them look cute is wrong, which leaves us with the cultural inheritance of something wrong, like slavery or colonisation.

Reading the thread through I can't see where you've justified that premise, it looks like we're exploring the options that follow if we decide owning animals is wrong, due to the wrongness of breeding them in the first place. If we agree that breeding animals for our pleasure is wrong, then I think that obliges us to look at the ownership question more closely. (Loomis)

So if we decide it is wrong we're faced with the animal equivalent of emancipation, and the consequent problems- for example the practicalites of un-domesticating breeds (by humane genocide, or allowing them to go feral, or maybe selective breeding to turn a pug back into a wolf).
Then we're also faced with the dilemma of livestock, if we are to emancipate pets then how is it defensible to keep cattle etc.?

Leap, to finish off rights, I'm not appealing to the 'Grace of God' clause in any way at any point, let me quote Lurid Archive at you from upthread- For a start, the whole idea of reciprocity and empowerment seems morally dubious to me. The point of rights, as far as I can see, is to protect the disempowered Don't you agree?
I find it hard to agree that the only reason we grant rights to the mentally disabled is because they could have been different in an alternate universe. in other words, we don't grant rights due to the 'there but for the grace of god go I' clause.

Back to the thread..
Why do we interact with animals the way we do? Loomis
History, as you intimate. People go fox hunting because they always have (and I'm surprised the hunting issue hasn't come up yet). If we ever decide we need to undo the evils of the past and free animals (which I frankly doubt, it's pretty low on the list) we'll face all the problems and guilt that the US has toward Native Americans, the UK has in Northern Ireland etc. complex, intractable problems not easily solved.
(BTW I think the solution is simple, make everyone vegetarian pet lovers using a mind control satellite )
 
 
Loomis
13:08 / 10.12.03
... I had this post all ready to reply to Mr Tricks but I just saw that Quantum has posted. I'll have a look at that and reply later on ...


They are all good points that you make Mr Tricks, and in my heart I kind of agree in general, but still, if we were to attempt reversing the situation it's a difficult thing to do by halves.

So, the neutering of every domesticated pug would result in the potential extinction of that species and free human culture from the mistaken ideas that caused such breeding in the first place. In the meantime the mutt can easily be set loose allowing instinct to replace any initial training.

Perhaps so if it was years ago, but in our current environment we'd have the problem, as you have already raised, of the lack of habitat left for the animals to return to, thanks to us naughty humans. Not to mention the impact on local species of birds, rodents, etc. Mind you domestic animals already have a huge impact on such things, which is one more reason stacked up against them.

Society may have pushed this dynamic to an extreme that has resulted in the kind of "breeding" you're pointing out, but it seems no less extreme than factory farms or the industrial revolution.

Well I'm not in favour of those either! And for most people it is not very contentious to want to move beyond such extreme practices, so why should it be so difficult when it comes to pet ownership? My belief is that it is mostly the dominance of the traditional viewpoint that stops people seeing the reality, and many people seem unable to admit that there could be anything wrong with a practice that gives them so much pleasure. But is that not the case with all of the societal assumptions that are regularly interrogated on Barbelith?

Does this mean that if you're going to keep an animal you should make sure it's a useful one?

Well I guess I am saying that at least if it is useful then you have more of a justification, although I would certainly question whether animals are useful in such ways anymore. I get by without the use of animal products - it's not very difficult. Since I tend to believe that the less you impact on the life of another (without consent) the better, I simply choose not to do it. Would it truly be such a horrible world if people chose not to have domesticated animals?

And let me ask this: when did we have a more honest and respectful relationship with animals - back before we had domestic animals, or in the current world where kids grow up assuming that cats live in houses and goldfish live in bowls because they have never learned any different?
 
 
Quantum
13:53 / 10.12.03
"when did we have a more honest and respectful relationship with animals - back before we had domestic animals, or in the current world..? "
Back before domestication when we were hunters (some ten thousand years or more ago) we had a more honest relation to animals (you are here for us to eat), and a more respectful one (in tribal culture venerating the animal spirits for providing game was/is the norm).
Now we have a more compassionate relation to animals, and many believe that hunting is wrong, where does that leave our relation to them? It could be argued that since we can live without animal products (I do too) they are redundant, we don't need them. From that perspective keeping pets is an act of conservation.
 
 
Mr Tricks
16:12 / 10.12.03
really good point loomis... I think we agree on alot and are actually almost splitting hairs (fur?)

"when did we have a more honest and respectful relationship with animals - back before we had domestic animals, or in the current world..? "

While I can see Quantum's point:
Back before domestication when we were hunters (some ten thousand years or more ago) we had a more honest relation to animals (you are here for us to eat), and a more respectful one (in tribal culture venerating the animal spirits for providing game was/is the norm).

I'm not sure it's entirely an Honest/Dishonest situation. Especially as we're talking about the societial "We" here. I'd say "We" have a much more complex relationship now. But again I must keep returning to the possibility that there may never have been a time before "We" domesticated animals.
Of course this comes back to the luxurey breeding vs. utilitarian training thing as well.

On a personal note, I have definately been shocked at the lack "respect" my pets have at time recieved from random kids. Not name calling or anything, but a basic assumption that the furry animal sitting beside me = a huge teddy bear and can simply be approached and "hugged" with-out the formalities of inroductions (sniff sniff) etc. By that same token I feel that part of my duty as a "pet-owner" is to offer education/experience on inter-species interactions. I suspect a human raised interacting with other species is less likely to be a speciesist.
 
 
Leap
08:40 / 11.12.03
Quantum –

Now we have a more compassionate relation to animals, and many believe that hunting is wrong,

where does that leave our relation to them?

Unrealistic and dehumanising, by and large.

We have, as a society, put our relationship to animals into extremes (they are either our equals and part of our family or they are resources to be ruthlessly exploited) rather than a more natural middle ground…..

Part of our natural relationship with other animals is as predator to them, but they are also part of our “home” (the environment we are a part of – the world) and should be loved and respected at the same time.

The problem comes when dehumanise ourselves, because this brings us into unnatural relationships with other animals; which is why I say a Good person will rarely do ill worthy of serious note.

Of course it is never “perfect”, nothing ever is, but it can be “good”.
 
 
Quantum
12:49 / 11.12.03
So Leap, you think we should be more honest by being less compassionate? The middle ground between cruelty and love?
(BTW "a Good person will rarely do ill worthy of serious note."- um, by definition. If they do something seriously ill they cease to be good, n'est ce pas? You're using 'goodness' as a permanent quality, when it is in fact a judgement of someone's actions. Just had to mention it, sorry for the threadrot)

I'm not sure it's entirely an Honest/Dishonest situation Mr Tricks
I agree, I think it would be better to ask which position is more enlightened/civilised/whatever, and to me it's our modern behaviour. Keeping pets is better than seeing animals as resources.
 
 
Leap
13:05 / 11.12.03
Quantum –

So Leap, you think we should be more honest by being less compassionate? The middle ground between cruelty and love?

I think we need to allow respect and necessity to balance out instead of the imbalance we currently have with the 2 extremes of sentimentality vrs ruthlessness.

If they do something seriously ill they cease to be good, n'est ce pas? You're using 'goodness' as a permanent quality, when it is in fact a judgement of someone's actions. Just had to mention it, sorry for the threadrot

:P

What I am saying is that an allowance for occasional slips is part of being a good person – only the insane demand, or indeed expect, perfection – I already gave a description of the sort of things that means!
 
 
Quantum
13:19 / 11.12.03
So is it good to own a pet? Is owning pets a sign of a good person? Is it a good practice?
 
 
Leap
13:29 / 11.12.03
Quantum -

Is that the right question to be asking? Is it perhaps over-stating a point?
 
 
Quantum
13:36 / 11.12.03
Not in a thread on owning animals and whether it's right or wrong. Although maybe I was overstating a little..
 
 
Leap
13:54 / 11.12.03
Well, the question you just asked was effectively "what is it that makes a good person?"
 
 
Mr Tricks
17:02 / 11.12.03
So is it good to own a pet? Is owning pets a sign of a good person? Is it a good practice?

Wouldn't that depend on how he pet is treated?

could it be said that one is only as good as their latest deeds or misdeeds?
 
 
Leap
07:46 / 12.12.03
Mr Tricks –

could it be said that one is only as good as their latest deeds or misdeeds?

Judgement without context or any understanding of occasional slips?!!

Scary.
 
 
Quantum
09:10 / 12.12.03
Well, the question you just asked was effectively "what is it that makes a good person?" Leap
Or perhaps 'Do you consider this thing (owning pets) to be morally virtuous or morally reprehensible?'. I'm not asking what goodness is, I'm asking whether you think owning pets is good.

Wouldn't that depend on how the pet is treated? Mr Tricks
What I'm trying to get at is whether owning pets is, in itself, good or bad, irrespective of how we treat them. There is the position that no matter how you treat them, owning an animal is wrong.
 
 
chemicalscum
13:40 / 12.12.03
I see my dogs as members of my family

They see me as a member of their pack

Only the state sees them as property
 
 
Mr Tricks
15:58 / 12.12.03


  • Mr Tricks –
    could it be said that one is only as good as their latest deeds or misdeeds?
    Leap -
    Judgement without context or any understanding of occasional slips?!!
    Scary.


Well that begs the question of who's Judging?
If one's going to use absolutes like "good" and "not good" would that be "bad" or "wrong"? What difference would context make?
For that matter what defines an "occasional slips"?
If you've done "good deeds" you're "good" if you haven't done good deeds what difference would context make in judging a "slip" when a person has already done something "not good" should they not just set out to do something "good" again?

and...
Quantum:

  • What I'm trying to get at is whether owning pets is, in itself, good or bad, irrespective of how we treat them. There is the position that no matter how you treat them, owning an animal is wrong.


That seems too absolute. If i was to say that owning a pet is "good" would that make every person who doesn't own a pet "bad?"
For some people own a pet is the best thing for them... for any number of reasons. For other people it's the worst. Let's switch Pet with baby...

Is owning (having) a baby in itself good or bad?

Sure there's a position that can say owning a pet is bad, there are also positions that say having an abortion is bad... yet what seems to get lost is "context."

interesting that I seem to argueing both against and for context in the same post...
I guess it's contextual.

So if I had to vote I would say own a pet is good and anyone who doesn't own a pet is not doing good.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:03 / 14.12.03
But why? Is owning a pet good because it is morally good to own animals, or is owning a pet good because it makes the owner a better person, or is owning a pet good because it is, irrespective of the actions or status of the pet owner or the pet owned, an absolutely good thing to do?

Put another way, it is clearly not an intrinsic element of any animal that it should be owned. Some animals are not good pets. Other animals do not breed in captivity. Therefore there is presumably some distinction between animals and pets. Mr Trick's position appears to be that a pet is an animal one of whose essential qualities is that of being owned, and of there being goodness inherent in the ownership thereof.

The statement "owning a pet is good, and thus anyone not owning a pet is not doing good" requires another gigantic leap - in this one, we hurdle all objections to the idea that if one is not doing a particualr thing, one is not doing good. Presumably Tricks missed out the part where this "not doing good" was limited to the specific field of owning a pet, rather than general morality. However, we can argue that there are situations in which owning a pet is not good, even by that rather specific compass, assuming that we have some ideas in common about the ethical treatment of animals. So, owning a dog which one starves or beats is presumably not a good act of pet ownership.

Unless we mean that owning the dog is good, but starving and beating it is bad, which inspires something of a WTF reaction.

About two paragraphs earlier Tricks suggests rather that owning a pet is a morally neutral action, and that judgement of that act of ownership is context-dependent. However, there seemns to be a little confusion about what that context is. Is owning an animal as a pet when that animal is constitutionally unsuited to being owned still a neutral act? Is that constitution outside or a part of the context. It all seems a little confused. The baby/pet switch does not seem teribly profitable; it's like substituting "fridge" or "salami"- the question becomes an entirely different question. "Is it all right to have babies" is a very different question (and not, btw, the same question as "is it all right to have abortion).

(Incidentally, "begs the question" means "assumes the truth of an argument to be proved without proving it". For example, as a statement "animals, who love having masters and being looked after by those masters, profit from being pets" probably begs a question, depending on what goes beforehand. "Begs the question" does not mean "invites, leads to or demands the question". I know this is unusually pedantic and anal even for me, but it might be useful later.)

We're talking a lot about pets, and about breeding, here, but what about the work animal? The sheepdog, say. In a sense, it is doing something it is to some degree intended for (dog chases sheep, to extend the example), but at some point its behaviour has been altered to make it useful. When I first came to this thread I had the idea that the working animal had a better deal or a greater "equality", somehow, but I think that may be tied up with very anthropomorphic ideas of the dignity of labour; the animal is contributing labour, but perhaps only in the same way that the domestic animal contributes companionship - the relationship is actually much the same, be that exploitative or mutually profitable.

(Oh, one more thing - mod hat - could we not try to turn this into a discussion of broader human ethics? The question in the topic title is complex enough; how humans should behave in general is unlikely to fit comfortably into the thread)
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply