Do you remember your first dog or cat? Perhaps even your first boa constrictor? Whatever your preference, pets can play a huge role in our lives, even becoming full-fledged family members. But is domestication really in an animal’s best interest? Does pet ownership create a loving bond between human and animal, or does it only serve our own interests?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Clarifying the Question
- From Gary L Francione
By Gary L. Francione - Rutgers University School of Law
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
slyv
How can you say you love your animal when you leave it in a kennel, back yard or garage for 10-12 hours. You leave the house for work and are gone for hours on end and tell me that's humane! Then you feel so guilty that you've left them, that you have to bring them EVERYWHERE with you. But do you walk them,no, you leave them in hot cars to suffer. Again that's really humane. You go to a festival and there are the dogs, trying to attack one another because they are such good babies they don't need a leash.God help the child that gets between them.Then anyone who comes to your house has to put up with some dog either trying to hump their leg or putting their head in your lap or jumping on you.That's really fun especially if their allergic! What do we hear "they are my baby". Ugh!And the dog hair. And the dog hair when you visit someone. Or the dog bite because maybe you moved funny or you scared them somehow the poor babies. Ridiculous
- slyv
August 25, 2008 2:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
assuming the worst case is not a convincing argument
if you assume the worst case then we shouldn't allow people to have children either. Clearly that's illogical.
"How can you say you love your CHILD when you leave it at home or in a terrible daycare for 10-12 hours. You leave the house for work and are gone for hours on end and tell me that's humane! Then you feel so guilty that you've left them, that you have to bring them EVERYWHERE with you. But do you play with them, read to them; no, you leave them in hot cars to suffer. Again that's really humane. You go to a festival and there are the kids, trying to insult and fight one another because they are such good babies they don't need discipline."
I'm convinced, let's end reproduction of the human species!
- reckoner
August 25, 2008 9:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Poor analogy
You ignore the main relevant distinction between the dog and your child in your analogy.
Your child belongs in our society. Its the only society he can belong to in a way congenial to himself and for his well-being. The dog, on the other hand, does not belong in a human society.
I believe a valid analogy would be to compare a dog in our society as a "pet" and a human child brought up by some hypothetical Martians on their planet.
Surely, such a child wouldn't be living a natural life, or find available to him means to exercise his preferences and inborn human tendencies. Therefore, it would be immoral for Martians to breed humans as "companions".
By analogy, it is immoral for us to bring animals into existence solely for the purpose of enjoying their companionship.
- Sandy
August 30, 2008 8:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
naturalistic fallacy again
"The dog, on the other hand, does not belong in a human society."
saying this doesn't make it true. How do you determine what is natural? All of your arguments are based on this, and you haven't defined it. Please do.
- reckoner
August 30, 2008 9:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
saying so doesnt make it so
You can find the answer on this very debate. I just found that Gary Francione has answered this question himself: Why "pets" do not belong in out society.
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/pets-the-inherent-problems-with-domestication
You seem to be hanging onto the "Nobody can prove it is so" excuse. The proof has to come from within you - do a conscientious reflection on the question whether pets really are at home in our society (or can ever be) and you can find the answers.
- Sandy
August 30, 2008 10:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Experts
"...Gary Francione has answered this question himself."
Even experts are not all knowing, and some questions do not have "answers" that can be known; thus you merely referenced an argument. We are unlikely to ever truly KNOW whether a individual animal, let alone a species, truly feels "at home" since that feeling is personal in nature and we have not managed to created a shared vocabulary with animals.
As for the "nature vs. nurture" question the same issues apply. Given the assumption that there is no "ideal" life that we as individuals are supposed to live then our existence is no more than the sum of our experiences and we adapt (mentally and physically) so that we may live within the experiences and environments to which we are subjected; many of which are outside of our control.
- polobo
August 30, 2008 1:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Escapism
I referenced him cos i think there's a 1000 word limit on here. Besides, my beliefs are coincidental with GLF's. I see no point in repeating.
If you are looking for 100% proof, then probably this isn't your place. In issues like this one, we come to reasonable conclusions by conscientious reflections, upon consideration of observation, differing viewpoints, and employment of our sense of empathy and intuition.
It is perversely erroneous to hang on to the "YOu cannot prove it is so" straw.
- Sandy
August 30, 2008 9:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
hanging on
at this point I have no idea what your belief is based on. Right now the only thing that I've found consistent in your view is that animals should only exist outside of human society. Why I have no idea.
- reckoner
August 30, 2008 2:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Twisting my words
You cannot defeat me by twisting my words around to suit you. Nevertheless, I'll clarify.
I believe in what GLF says - that we have no right to use animals as our property, no matter how well or how badly they are treated.
Particularly to the issue of pet ownership, that does not imply "that animals should only exist outside of human society". What my belief leads to is this : "that animals should not be forced to exist inside of the human society". And when we breed non-human animals to serve us as companions, we due just that: Bring them into our society without giving consideration to their interests. GLF uses the word "refugee" to describe his non-human companions. I think that description is absolutely perfect.
Needless to say, what i write above does not mean that owning a stray dog or a rescued dog and caring for him/her becomes immoral.
- Sandy
August 30, 2008 9:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
more...
Fish, frogs, turtles, tarantulas, small (under5feet) snakes, and small(under 1foot) lizards, well, I really don't believe that they can think on a high enough level to be dissatisfied with their enclosure. As long as they have adequate food and water and an appropriate habitat , they are happy and content. I don't believe that any of them are domestic or tamed, but I believe that they can EASILY live long, happy, healthy lives in captivity. (Although I do get mad when I see fish kept in glass bubbles that don't hold two cups of water, because I HAVE taught my goldfish to rings bells and swim through hoops.)
Lizards over a foot long are usually predators near the top of the food chain in their ecosystem. Top predators and near-top predators, do not belong in people's garages. Tigers are top predators; cheetahs are near-top predators. The higher up on the food chain an animal is, the more dangerous it is and the more space it needs to be content.
Snakes that exceed five feet in length, are dangerous, and in my opinion, incapable of being properly kept in captivity due to the fact that most people can not provide what I consider adequate living space.
I believe that if an animal must LIVE in any kind of cage, then the cage must be at least big enough for the animal to stretch itself out to its full length TIMES THREE, in every direction (times 10 for flying animals). Although for snakes, since they rarely stretch out to their full length and actually prefer to be coiled up, I would consider a cage that allowed them to stretch out to half their length in every direction (except height), as adequate.
The problem is, on tv, on the internet , in petshops, and breeder facilities, people routinely keep their 10foot PLUS snakes in cages that are smaller in volume (length X width X height) than what I would keep one of my 60 pound dogs in (if they lived in cages).
Boa constrictors, (female) anacondas, and many pythons, grow to be so huge that they sometime think they can eat their owners. ANY animal species that rountinely believes that its owner is food should not be a pet !!
These huge snakes are often bought by ignorant (ignorant means not adequately informed, it does NOT mean stupid) people who are unprepared for and incapable or unwilling to care for them when they reach their full length, so they release them into the surrounding area. DID YOU KNOW THAT THE EVERGLADES IN FLORIDA HAS A BREEDING POPULATION OF BURMESE PYTHONS!!!! Burmese pythons are native to the rainforests of Southeast Asia, but so many Floridians have released their overgrown snakes, that the pythons are breeding and EATING ALLIGATORS!
- gatorgirl7563
April 14, 2009 4:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the problem with some of our pets' "natural life"
I'm going to assume that by "natural life" you mean living in their natural habitat without the interference of humans.
some of our pets ' today no longer have or have never had a natural habitat. There is no "natural life" without humans available to, or even possible, for them.
Cats: Persians with their long fur that tangles easily and flat faces that hinder their sense of smell. Sphynx and Rex cat breeds with their hairlessness and curly fur. What about them? Do we let these man-made breeds die off? Or because they are man-made is it okay for THEM to be pets?
Dogs: Chihuahuas, Poodles, Dauschunds, Collies
I've never heard anyone dispute the claim that dogs came from wolves, so do we drop our Spaniels, Labradors, Schnauzers, Terriers, Greyhounds, Shepherds, Great Danes, and Retrievers off at Yellow Stone and cross our fingers, in the hope that mans' best friend will intergrate with mans' oldest enemy?
The Yorkie and Chihuahua breeds were created to catch rats. Does that make their natural habitat warehouses full of grain and corn? Because they definitely don't belong in Africa running alongside its packs of Wild Painted Dogs.
Standard Poodles (60pounds) were created to retrieve fowl from the icy waters of Germany. Do we send them to Canada and hope they can catch the geese? AND WHAT ABOUT THE TOY AND TEACUP POODLES?
The Dauschund breed was created to catch/flush rodents (rats and rabbits) out of their tunnels by going underground into their tunnels after them. What is the Dauschunds natural habitat? The rabbit burrows of Australia?
Collies are energetic, intelligent animals that have an incredible herding instinct. Do we send them to Australia, with its enormous flocks of sheep and hope they get along with the dingos? Or are they better suited to herding the bison of Yellow Stone?
Big cats like tigers and lions, definitely belong in the wild. Little cats like, servals, civets, and lynx do, too. I agree that no one should have seals and gators in their backyard unless they live on waterfront property or run a rehab facility. Monkeys belong in the jungle, not in peoples houses, wearing diapers and being a human's surrogate child.
Birds, well, honestly, I really don't like (or care too much about) birds unless they're being abused or neglected, but I do agree that the cages most are kept in are MUCH too small. They need to be able to TRULY FLY. And the larger, more intelligent birds (like macaws) need to have proper mental stimulation. Predatory birds, like eagles, hawks, and ospreys should never be pets.
- gatorgirl7563
April 14, 2009 4:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Arbitrary points again
"I believe that if an animal must LIVE in any kind of cage, then the cage must be at least big enough for the animal to stretch itself out to its full length TIMES THREE, in every direction (times 10 for flying animals )"
So if a woman happens to look too sexy and too beautiful, it would be ok to keep her enslaved within an 18 by 18 by 18 feet cage for everyone to gawk at?
The point is this: Keeping an animal within a cage is a violation of their rights - unless it is the only way to ensure the safety of the humans there - and cannot be made acceptable by providing a slightly bigger cage.
- Sandy
April 15, 2009 12:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
cages and the point of pets
I have two dogs, two cats, a ferret, a turtle, a dwarf hamster, a goldfish, and a corn snake and I am going to be a vet with I finish college .
Zorro, one of our dogs, my family rescued when our neighbor moved away and left him behind.
My cat, Tiger, I rescued as a two-week old kitten (along with the rest of her litter) that had been born in and was living in a USED pigpen behind my highschool. I got all 8 of them spayed and neutered, found loving homes for them, caught the mother, got her spayed, and released her because she was feral.
Mickey, the ferret, I adopted when I found out that one of my highscool teachers was looking for a new home for him (because both her parents were moving in with her after being robbed and shot and she felt like she wouldn't be able to give him the attention he needed) AND I had been waiting 11 months for any nearby animal shelters to receive a ferret.
Katrina, the turtle, I found when she was a newborn (umbilical cord still attached), in Buloxi, Mississippi (we drove down there with a horse trailer full of food , water , blankets, and soaps to help the people there). On my lunch break, I was walking beside a lake, when I encountered a car that had been picked up by the wind and smashed into the shore. There were a bunch of black birds around it and a horrible smell coming from it, so I decided to investigate. As best as I can figure out, after the car slammed into the shore, it sort of skidded in (and under) the soil for several feet. It embeded a ton of glass chunks and tiny pieces of glass everywhere in the sand around it. AND it disturbed a softshell turtle nest that was in the process of hatching or just a few days from hatching. What I smelled was dead baby turtles and the birds were eating the few who managed to dig themselves out. I found 18 living turtle. The 6 that were unharmed and the 3 that I felt were uninjured enough to survive, I escorted to the shore (escort= I kept them all in a box until I was satisfied I had them all, then let them out of the box near the car/nest and kept the birds from getting them while they traveled to the water.) 5 were dead the next morning from deep cuts caused by digging face-first through the glass and the birds trying to eat them and I returned them to the beach. 2 turtles had all four legs either shredded by glass or eaten off by birds and I put them on the "found pet " bus where I presume they were taken to a make-shift animal shelter and put to sleep. Lucky, which has only his front left and rear right leg, I gave to one of my middleschool teachers and Katrina, who has only her two front legs, I kept.
Bob, the goldfish, I caught in the lake behind my house, where he was released by an irresponsible owner.
Eve, the BOY dwarf hamster, my dog found in a park near our house and brought to me in its mouth after another animal mauled it. I know Zorro didn't maul it because his wounds were almost completely healed. Eve is missing both left legs and his left eye. His left ear is shredded. As a little joke, I like to say that the left side of his heart is missing too, because Eve is EVIL; he mauls anything that gets too close to his cage; he even rips into his food.
Ice, the blizzard corn snake, we found when we were cleaning out our house's gutters. We believe a bird picked him up (to eat him) and he managed to get away from the bird but landed on our roof. Corn snakes are not native to where I live and the little guy was friendly so I would have kept him even if he wasnt completely white with ruby red eyes.
- gatorgirl7563
April 15, 2009 5:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
cages and point of pets
I don't not believe it is okay to keep any thinking, feeling, sentient being (which includes animals , in my opinion) enslaved in a cage. My point was, if a cage is big enough, then the animal won't mind being in it (and maybe won't even know it is in a cage.)
I don't believe that any being should spends its whole life (or even half of each day) stuck in a cage, but with some animals, like birds, tarantulas, and hamsters, for the sanitation of your homes (pooping), for the safety of the other beings living in the home with it (spider bites), and for the safety of the animal (getting stepped on), it is only feasible for them to be kept as pets , if they are kept in cages when not being interacted with by humans. AND...
if the cage is big enough for them to get all the exercise they need, has enough toys to keep them properly entertained, is kept clean, THEN WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL???
Animals in captivity live longer, healthier lives than wild animals.
My TIMES THREE rule, was just a generalized rule. The minium amount of space I believe each ORDINARY (like hamsters and goldfish) animal's enclosure should have. Obviously, a cheetah, which (including the tail) measures about 7 feet long, SHOULD have a cage that measures bigger than 21 by 21 by 21; they need room to RUN.
And just for the record, I believe that only zoos and rehab facilities (if you aren't against rehabs for wild animals since it's interferring with nature and animals' natural lives; even if the animals are endangered), should be able to have wild animals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"if a woman happens to look too sexy and too beautiful... ok to keep her enslaved... [in a] cage for everyone to gawk at? " this situation describes a "TROPHY PET" THAT'S NOT WHAT HAVING PETS IS ABOUT.
you are missing the whole point of keeping a pet .
8 out of 10 of the pet-owners I know, think of AND treat their pets as a member of the family. That statistic is better than America's average child abuse , homeless and hungry child statistics.
Pets provide a shoulder to cry on when you're sad, and you comfort them on the Fourth of July if they're afraid of the fireworks your neighbor sets off. You go to Walmart to pick up a few things and see a toy you just know they will LOVE and you get if for them, even though when you get home you know your spouse will give you a dirty look that says "you got them ANOTHER toy"; but you don't care, you want to see their tail wag.
THAT is what pets are about, LOVING and CARING
NOT PUTTING THEM ON DISPLAY.
yeah, some people get big dogs and spotted cats and fancy birds to look macho, look cool, and show off, AND some people abandon their pet when it gets old or sick or when they get a puppy or have to move, but that doesn't make ALL pet owners bad NOR does it make owning pets bad.
analogy
Some highschool teachers have sex with their student, but that doesn't make ALL teachers bad NOR does it make teaching bad.
- gatorgirl7563
April 15, 2009 6:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Cages are not prisons to all
Of the six constictors I keep I can open the doors and only one will leave his cage. He only does so in a attempt to see his girlfriend two cages down. Thru the advances in husbandry over decades of keeping various species we have found what they require to be calm, happy, healthy, and stress free. Non of them hide or avoid intteraction but are afforded places for privacy should they chose it. In keeping these types of animals (reptiles) the cage is for their safety more than containing any mess they may incurre. Reptiles are independent from birth and have a strong will to explore , but it is our responsability as responsable caretakers to protect them from harm while giving suppervised exploration opportunities:)
- Mcdowelli76
May 29, 2009 9:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is this a response of a slave?
A huge thanks goes out to 'Clancy' for the tip about this story - one of the most amazing canine stories we've ever heard - dachshund or otherwise. Get ready to meet 2.5-year-old red smooth 'Sam,' who hails from Clarksville, Tennessee. Sam's human passed away on Monday, and Sam, who wears an electric fence collar, escaped his yard and was found 2.5 days later at the church where the funeral was being held. Sam had to cross busy highways to arrive at the church, which was six miles from his home. Excerpt from WKRN: Ever since Sam was a puppy, he rarely left his owner's side.
When owner Teddy Crockarell lost his battle with cancer last Monday, his wife Marcene believes Sam must have sensed something was wrong.
The dog, who wears an electric fence collar, ran away from the couple's home on Kimbrough Road.
Two and a half days later, after searching for Sam, the family arrived at a church on Trenton Road, over six miles from their home, for Teddy's funeral and discovered Sam was waiting for them.
Marcene Crockarell said, "He was just shivering and sitting there by the doors. We just lost it and all we were doing was hollering, 'Sam! Sam!' and here he comes and he was just all over all three of us."
There is no way to know what prompted Sam, who had never left home on foot, to run away and end up at a church he'd never seen, but is family has a theory.
"If he walked those six miles he was looking for his papa... but he found him, and that's what's good about this whole situation, he found him and he found his way back here," said Marcene Crockarell's son-in-law Howard.
or is this a response of a slave?
TOKYO, JAPAN - Loyalty, faithfulness and unconditional love are qualities that have earned dogs the title of "man's best friend". One particular Akita dog took these qualities to such an extreme, he has earned a place in the hearts of all Japanese people, and has kept that place for over sixty years!
Nestled amid hoards of harried commuters, a variety of shops and department stores, and a giant television screen that covers half a skyscraper, a life sized bronze statue of a dog can be found at Tokyo's busy Shibuya Train Station. Despite the diminutive size of the statue in comparison to the massive neon flash of the city, it isn't difficult to find. Millions of Tokyoites have been meeting at the landmark since 1934 and continue to do so today.
Chu-ken Hachiko (lit. the faithful dog Hachiko) was born in Akita in 1923 and was first brought to Tokyo in 1924. He and his owner, Mr. Eisaburo Uyeno, were inseparable friends right from the start. Each day "Hachi" would accompany Eisaburo, a professor at the Imperial University, to the train station when he left for work. Upon returning, the professor would find the dog patiently waiting, tail wagging. This happy routine continued until one fateful day in 1925, when the professor was taken ill on the job and unfortunately died before he could return home.
Despite the fact that Hachiko was less than two years old at the time, the bond between dog and owner was strong. Hachiko continued to wait each day at Shibuya station for a friend who was never coming back. At times, he wouldn't return home for days at a stretch.
The Akita became a familiar sight to commuters as he kept his vigil for over ten years. On March 8, 1935, Hachiko finally went to meet his master. He died on the very same spot he last saw his friend alive.
Both accounts smack of free will and love! So are you telling these animals that loved their humans so much that they are slaves? Animals do love as well as humans do. Have you never had a pet? My Akita of seven years behaves as if she gave birth to my son not me. She sleeps by his side and even kicks him out of bed. She is a bed hog. She is a member of our family. I prefer her company to the company of most humans.
- faithinlove September 22, 2008 2:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
alternatives
when we go to work or school, WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO with our dogs ???
I agree that leaving them in a (small) kennel isn't exactly nice, but we have to put them SOMEWHERE. Should we just let our dogs wander around the neighborhood while we're away working?
dogs that try to attack one another "at festivals" need obediance training and responsible owners. Dogs that hump legs need to be neutered. Dogs that jump need obediance training. Dogs that put their head in your lap just want to be petted - is that so wrong?
As for allergic friends, I don't decide the important decisions in my life based on my friends' and potential future friends' possible conditions .
I'm sorry that you're allergic to dogs and I have three. I'll vacuum before you come over, or we'll meet in the park or at your house. Or, we can sit on the porch instead - it's such a beautiful day, anyway.
I'm not going to buy a house with a frontdoor that's wheelchair accessible just because a friend of mine uses a wheelchair - they can come in through the garage. I'll paint the walls of my house (inside and out) HOT PINK, even if it bothers or offends you. (For the record, I hate the color pink, but it was a good example)
NOT ALL DOGS SHED.
you sound like a dog-hater to me.
and what about other pets : cats, horses, fish, birds, snakes, lizards, turtles, monkeys, rodents, monkeys, big cats, hedgehogs, etc
- gatorgirl7563
April 14, 2009 5:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks for clarifying the question
It is worded in such a way that I don't even want to vote in the poll. However, I am going to vote "no," with the understanding that we should be seeking to eliminate the breeding of animals for companionship ("pets"), without necessarily barring the legality of taking care of animals (guardianship/caretaker) status.
- Eric Prescott
August 26, 2008 12:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
where is the line?
I'm a tad confused where the animal rights supporters would draw the lines. For example, I have a relative that owns a fair amount of land. He's come to care for some cats that were wild in the woods on and around his property. Is this acceptable from an animal rights perspective?
If it is, what if the cats breed? Can he place those kittens into good homes? Should he prevent them from breeding?
- reckoner
August 26, 2008 1:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The line
The line with respect to rights is drawn around the interests of the right-holder. We are duty-bound to do the best we can to meaningfully respect other animals' interests, rather than merely serving our own. I would submit that, if the cats were feral to begin with, they ought to have been left alone in the first place. While we are duty-bound to avoid harming feral cats we may encounter, we are not duty-bound to feed and shelter every single one of them, nor to encourage or discourage their procreation by doing so.
- Eric Prescott
August 27, 2008 9:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
and if
and if I see a feral cat that is injured and likely to freeze to death in the coming winter I should "leave it alone"?
Attempting to draw these clear and absolute lines will break down very quickly.
regarding my relative, he left the cats alone in every way except one. He gave them food. They choose to hang out under his shelter on their own. Either way it is impossible to have "left them alone". He either had to kick them out of his shelter (I'm not sure how this could have be accomplished humanely) or let them stay there by their choosing. If they stay, as they did, then he has to deal with them breeding or spay and neuter them. Either way he couldn't "leave them alone".
Again, attempting to draw absolute lines gets silly really quickly.
- reckoner
August 28, 2008 11:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Help, but first, do no harm
I don’t think AR Blog is trying to “draw clear and absolute lines”. Reckoner, you ask, “Where to draw the line?” and then answer your own question that “clear and absolute lines” can’t be drawn. AR Blog gave a good answer that applies to the vast majority of cases.
When we think about ethics, we often legitimately make general, all-other-things-equal statements as principles to follow; however, given unusual situations (such as the injured feral cat or injured human) we may decide to intervene to help. The important thing is to “first, do no harm”, and then, if we know we can help and decide to go ahead and help, then wonderful, go ahead and help.
- dan August 29, 2008 9:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
do no harm
is "do no harm" an absolute? I agree with everything you say, but if you read the other comments around here you'll see that many AR advocates are attempting to draw absolute lines with only two binary choices. Read some of my comments that discuss "using" or not "using" animals and the replies from the AR people.
- reckoner
August 29, 2008 12:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Do no harm is prerequisite, not an absolute
“Do no harm” is not an absolute, but far too often, I see people helping *some* animals by rescuing them from harm, which is good and right, but then contributing – directly or indirectly – to the harm inflicted on *other* animals.
It would be much better if people “first, did no harm” by leaving animals alone: that is, going vegan and not breeding domesticated animals, even if they did *nothing* whatsoever to help animals outside of merely leaving them alone. After we refrain from harmful actions such as consuming animal products (we torture and slaughter 12 billion in the US; 53 billion worldwide) and breeding animals into a US society that kills tens of millions of domesticated animals annually, THEN we can make sense of helping animals in other ways. Until we overcome that absurd inconsistency, our “helping animals” is an absurd notion.
- dan August 29, 2008 12:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
but what if
but what if the feral cats are killing the native wildlife?
do you kill the cats, or spay/nueter them or try to relocate them?
In my opinion, it would be better for the cats to be dead than to exist as a domestic animal forced to live ferally in a wilderness or alley that were never meant to live in.
Or you could look at it this way.
The cats are being forced to live outside of their natural habitat , which since they have been changed by their 1000's of years of domestication, no longer exists.
Because they have no natural habitat, they can no longer live anywhere in the wild because there is no place where they could live that would not harm the ecosystem (since they would be an invasive, introduced species).
So therefore it would do the least harm LONGTERM to kill every feral cat on sight. You would end the cats' suffering (from dogs, cars, rain, hunger, fleas, ticks, fights, cruel kids , cold, posions, and more) and prevent the native wildlife from suffering from their predation.
- gatorgirl7563
April 23, 2009 3:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Trap, Neuter, Return
The only way I see us humans ethically intervening with the lives of animals of a different species to our own is when they need our help.
There is a group called Alley Cat Allies. They use a technique called TNR -Trap, Neuter, Return. Feral cats are stuck in a nether world. They can never be pets in a caring home because they are too wild and they can never be wild and independant animals because they are too tame and do not have the life skills to survive on their own. Rather than killing the feral cats which is ineffective because it allows new feral cats to move into the same area and repeat the populating, it is wiser and ethical to let them live out their lives without being able to breed.
Wild animals should be left alone. But if a human stumbles upon an orphaned or injured animal in their natural habitat or even in a suburb, I believe we should be obliged to take him in and nurse him back to health. Then these animals should be returned to where they were found if that is safe, or to a sanctuary if they can no longer live where they were found. For wild animals who can no longer survive in the wild, we should if possible, provide a safe santuary for them to live the rest of their lives. Animals should never live in zoos.
Just about any animal who lives in the wild, whether they are native or feral, would take a human up on the offer of a free meal. But this is wrong because it is interfering with their natural life. These animals or birds will quickly become dependant on the food and may die if the feeder moves away or dies. More importantly, the artificial feeding of feral or native animals will alter their natural behaviour, possibly jeopardising their survival or well being. What is acceptable however, is providing a natural habitat in one's own garden to support the animal/bird's natural diet. For example a flowering, seeded bush for birds, or a tropical fruit tree for possums and bats. These trees will only fruit and seed for a short time during their season.
- Desert Girl
December 29, 2008 3:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Duty bound?
Where exactly does this duty come from? I don't think it is my duty to either take care or ignore any animal, except of course the ones I have taken as pets , and therefore accepted that responsibility.
And I would be reluctant to say that I am duty bound to ignore feral cats and dogs, considering that many of them end up scrounging in garbage and at the dump for subsistence. Is it really better to let them live this sort of life on the edge than to feed them and make them more comfortable?
If so, why am I also duty bound to feed the homeless people? Animal rights activists often state that animals have the same rights as humans, so either we feed them both or ignore them both. I will err on the side of compassion, and feed them both. I really don't see how you can fault someone for that.
- LagerHead
June 23, 2009 1:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Feral cats are domestic cats with the same health problems
I disagree. It actually cruel to let feral cats be feral. Feral cats are still domestic cats who became feral. Unlike true wild cats they do not have immunity to feline aids and leukemia and many are infected and infect other cats including non-ferals. Once infected without proper care they die horrible deaths from immunodeficiency. It is less cruel to get veterinary treatment and to enclose a feral cat than to let it die from leukemia which means it succombs to tumour after tumour.
- sor666
August 31, 2009 1:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Further Clarification
As stated the question (even the clarified one) is still abstract. A better question is "Should government punishment those members of society who treat animals as property?" as the answer to this question is actually actionable. The other questions basically try to assert moral superiority by giving a personal value the status of ethical.
From the standpoint of a moral obligation to care; if I did not cause a pet to come into being then do I have an obligation to care for it. If yes then you imply mandatory pet ownership for all members of a society that allows pets (equal numbers or some for of proportion)? If no then at what point do you draw the line where obligation starts. Either way, who is enforcing the obligation? Public chastising only goes so far.
- polobo
August 27, 2008 3:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Further Further Clarification
I do not purport to understand what you are saying here but it appears to be that there can be no morality without law--that moral views without the authority of law are meaningless.
If that is what you maintain, then consider: In Nazi Germany, the killing of Jews, Romanies, and other "non-Aryan" humans for no reason other than status was not only permissible but legally mandated. On your view, any expression of the immorality of such activity was a matter of "personal value." And before 1865, statements about the immorality of chattel slavery--when those statements were made in states that allowed chattel slavery--were merely matters of "personal value." Indeed, in both cases, the critic of the Holocaust or of chattel slavery is merely asserting "moral superiority."
Okay. If you say so.
BTW, as someone who teaches criminal law, I can assure you that social reactions to certain anti-social conduct provide a mechanism for controlling social behavior that is as effective--perhaps more effective--than do formal legal norms.
GLF
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
- Gary L Francione
August 30, 2008 11:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Too literal and interpretation but basically accurate
I do not dispute your "social reactions" comment but in order for it to be effective the person being corrected has to (1) belong to the social group and (2) value the benefit of the social group more than the benefit of the action being denounced. With respect to Nazi Germany another social group denounced the actions of Nazi Germany and, through the use of military force, imposed its moral position upon the country. What I am saying is that neither situation can be considered "morally superior" without specifying who is making the judgment. I do not believe man or any other known sentient species can claim absolute ethical righteousness and to claim such is nothing more than someone saying "I am right because I say I am". The practical reality is that enough people believing in something does indeed make it right but that is only because there is no meaningful way to enact anything different at a social level. If the group wants to punish you for being "wrong" they can do so.
- polobo
August 30, 2008 6:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Eliminate the Pets?
I am a bit unsure of what's being pushed for here. When you talk about not having pets anymore what are your solutions. Do you want us to abandon them into the wild or just eliminating the species through neutering. Some domesticated animals, and we're talking more than dogs and cats here, have been involved with people in one form or another for thousands of years having been bred to be dependant on us. I live with three manx female and while I'm sure they could survive for a little while on their own, I wouldn't be long before they came out on the wrong end of the food chain.
- Aegiltheugly
September 3, 2008 1:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Letting go of a Breed, Not Losing a Species
Human bred domestic animals are not species in and of themselves. All breeds are a part of the same species and connected to the original and natural "race" of animals. If we "lost" domestic pigs, we would not be losing the species because the original, smaller, hair covered, disobedient, wild pig would still be grunting around in the forests and swamps. We would be letting go of an artificial breed, not a species. Similarly, if a small, remote race of humans who lived in a jungle died out, we would not be losing a species because there are many more humans on Earth of many different races or "breeds". The many different races are all of the same animal species -human.
- Desert Girl
December 29, 2008 3:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
really?
I never seen herds of chickens roaming the savannahs of Africa nor in the rainforests of Brazil, nor in the prairies of North America nor the outback of Australia.
According to the logic of your argument, it would be okay for polar bears to go extinct as long as brown bears survived. It would also be okay for Siberian tigers to go extinct as long as Bengal tigers survived.
It'd be okay for sperm whales to die out because we'd still have blue whales and humpbacks.
- gatorgirl7563
April 23, 2009 3:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wild chickens of Hawaii
Chickens could potentially roam in their native habitat, which is probably not in the environments you described. Chickens are forest floor dwellings birds, scratching in the undergrowth, needing to fly only short distances and roost in the tree branches at night to avoid predators. Funnily enough, I have actually seen chickens living in the wild in the forests of Kauii, in Hawaii. They were walking on the beach until the tourists came and then scattered like lightening into the forest where they vanished. There was a rooster and his harem of hens and baby chicks. Obviously not their native homeland, but it suited them.
Domestic dogs are not different species to wolves, they are different breeds. The only way to have a breed is by human invention. Races of the same species -human are similar to breeds but they were created by natural selection, not artificial breeding. Polar bears and brown bears are not two different breeds or races, they are totally different species. Siberian tigers and Bengal tigers are totally different species. Sperm whales and blue whales are totally different species.
We should not be obliged to spare the life of an animal just because they are in a group of endangered species, but because they have a right to life as an individual.
- Desert Girl
May 30, 2009 5:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
not exactly
According to Wikipedia, the "common definition [of species] is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring (ie. not a mule/infertile), and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen."
Polar bears and grizzly bears have bred in the wild (and probably captivity) to produce fertile offspring.
Siberian tigers and bengal tigers have been bred in captivity and produced fertile offspring.
Thus both the bears and the tigers are merely different "races" of their specie.
- gatorgirl7563
June 13, 2009 12:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sub-Species prefer their own
Hmm. That's interesting. I do agree with the definition you put up. I had not heard about that with the bears and tigers before. Although they could potentially mate, I would strongly believe they would not choose to do this naturally. They have been artificially mated through human intervention, but I would be willing to bet they'd never do it in the wild. I watched a documentary about Australia's Gouldian finches. There are three different kinds of them with three different distinct body colours. All of them can mate but they selectively prefer to mate with their own colour type. The reason is that if they mate with birds of a different colour pattern, their offspring will have genetic problems leading to health problems. I would guess the same would be for the tigers and the bears if this were studied in depth. I wouldn't advise such a study because it would involve suffering on the part of the animals and isn't necessary either. The animals should only be mating with their own kind. The fact that humans have interfered disturbs me. I am certain that science would call a grizzly bear and a polar bear entirely different species even though they can potentially mate. Tigers however are called sub-species. As I am not sure about the bears, I am only guessing and would have to research for the facts. Thanks for the interesting facts gatorgirl.
- Desert Girl
June 13, 2009 10:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
so...
where exactly do they go? Shall we all set them free simultaneously in a freeing ceremony? Zoos? Certain wildlife parks? Let's try to be practical here.
I mean if we let them ALL go eventually were going to be the pets.
Think about it
- zebrakin
November 23, 2008 3:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In Our Homes of Course! Until there's none left
Of course we shouldn't abandon domestic animals in the native bushland. They would die and that would be cruel and immoral. Even if they survived, they would be eating native animals and interfering with the local ecology. We should cease to breed all domestic animals. I mean, what right do we have to make them breed, to change their genetics to suit our egotistical desires for a certain look or characteristic to suit our purposes? Animals should exist for their own reasons, not for human's superficial needs. The animals who are alive should be cared for in domestic environments and given the best life possible for the rest of their days. Only wild and free animals should be allowed to breed on their own terms in their natural wild habitat.
- Desert Girl
December 29, 2008 2:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
animals should be allowed to breed on their own terms
the reason that millions of cats and dogs are killed in pounds each year is because they are allowed to breed on their own terms.
- gatorgirl7563
April 15, 2009 5:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Millions of pets are bred while more are killed
Hello Gator girl,
Well no actually because we brought them into existence in the first place. Their very existence is unnatural, we altered their dna in order to make them more exploitable to humans -docile, etc. All domestic animals should be neutered. The real reason why millions of cats and dogs are killed in "shelters" each year is because BREEDERS breed them by the millions in back yards, small professional breeding kennels, and also large scale "puppy mills". This is the source of them. Like a conveyor belt, humans breed them, and on the other end, the consumers who don't want their pet anymore like old dvd players dump them in the pound. The majority of pets killed in shelters are turned in by their owners. A third of them a pedigree animals. Watch the film Earthlings to learn more about this. www.earthlings.com
- Desert Girl
May 30, 2009 5:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sam and Grizz
Sam and Grizz are not my pets . They are my family. Period! End of Discussion!
- wolfycat50
May 20, 2009 11:47AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm keeping my pets
All I know is, my dogs are much more comfortable than their wild counterparts. My dogs don't have to hunt for their food , worry about competing with other dogs for scraps, or dying of myriad diseases that infect wild dogs. They are always happy to see me when I come home, play with each other in our yard for hours every day, and don't spend all their time whining or howling to indicate the perceived misery portrayed here.
Hell, I wish I could change places with them. I would love to have my food brought to me every day. And how great would it be if my biggest worry in life was, "do I poop over here, or do I poop over there?" And if my dogs are so miserable, why do they return when I leave the gate open and they get out? Plenty of people in my neighborhood feed their dogs outside, so they could get their food elsewhere. And they could run free and stay away. I know, I know. they have become dependent upon me. But I don't see any signs of my dog not being happy.
- LagerHead
June 23, 2009 1:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.