This content is inappropriate

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:

Should We Keep Pets?

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?

Next question in Animal Rights

You are seeing 18 Comments on this Argument. See all 381 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Argument

Dogs and Cats Wandered Into Our Lives Long Ago

- From The Humane Society

Open Argument Go to this Argument

An evolving relationship

I think this argument both states an important point, but fails to carry it to its logical conclusion. The relationship we have now with pets is not the same as the original relationship HSUS talks about. While there is a new form of mutualism, to use the original form as an argument for whether we should have pets now is a fallacy. At the time, those animals were essentially free. Now, while still receiving a benefit, they are not free. If they escape or are born outside of a home they become strays and are treated much differently.

I personally believe that the relationship as it exists now, assuming quality treatment of the animal, is one worth continuing even without the animal having complete autonomy. However I also believe there are many practices that need alteration, including certain breeding practices that perpetuate genetic diseases just to keep a dog a "pure-breed".

- ToddG August 27, 2008 7:37AM

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.
- Question for ToddG
  
  How can we "assum(e) quality treatment of the animal" if we must necessarily intervene in the lives of two sentient beings (who therefore have lives of their own) to re-produce our "pets" for human ends, which, therefore, makes these animals our property? We cannot assume "quality treatment," if this is to be intelligible given the context of this discussion, if the object being treated as such is merely property: an object with extrinsic value only. We can easily, though invalidly, justify our actions by assuming some benefit to the animals being created. However, on this line of reasoning we could similarly argue that forcing two humans to procreate so that we can take their children from them is justified if the two children live "comfortable" lives. The question, however, remains: Should we be forcing procreation so that the products can be used for our ends?
  
  - Alex M August 27, 2008 3:16PM
  
  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.
  - Symbiotic Relationship
    
    Does the established relationship, however thus arrived, represent a symbiotic relationship whereas the ability for our pet species to live depends on their being cared for by a human? If you do not support extinction of pet species then into what environment do you propose to release them once you have given them the status of individual beings?
    
    In a order-of-dominance world those with dominance can and do force lower dominance beings to act/exist for the betterment of the dominant species. This is a matter is empirical fact without asserting right or wrong. I assert that our world indeed exhibits such an order-of-dominance characteristic and our current state of being is a natural consequence of that fundamental fact. To argue that we should change the status-quo without presenting benefits relating to our rank in said order turns the argument into a metaphysical description of a "Utopia".
    
    - polobo August 27, 2008 6:11PM
    
    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.
    - Polobo
      
      You are assuming that we can benefit a non-existent being. You're implying the following: Our actions allow future generations of "pets" to be born; therefore, without our intervention, they wouldn't be born at all thus I need to justify depriving them of the benefit of existence. Why this assumption is problematic should be clear: A non-existent being cannot be benefited nor can it be harmed or experience anything; it doesn't exist. Your complaint doesn't follow as a matter of logic.
      
      For the "pets" that currently exist, Francione has made it quite clear that we have an obligation to care for them. The question arises, "Should we intervene so as to force-produce more animals as a means to satisfy our desire to have "pets"?" (The benefit here is strictly for humans currently living.) Francione's negative answer to this hasn't been refuted yet.
      
      - Alex M August 28, 2008 8:31AM
      
      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.
    - "Might makes right"
      
      Quote:
      
      "In a order-of-dominance world those with dominance can and do force lower dominance beings to act/exist for the betterment of the dominant species. This is a matter is empirical fact without asserting right or wrong. I assert that our world indeed exhibits such an order-of-dominance characteristic and our current state of being is a natural consequence of that fundamental fact."
      
      Isaac Bashevis Singer wrote,
      
      "As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behavior toward creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right."
      
      - Alex M August 28, 2008 9:19AM
      
      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.
      - Man is inherently racist
        
        I would not disagree with this assessment but neither will I judge whether this is good or bad. Indeed, I would assert that this is nothing more than a fact of our existence and thus inherently is "ethically neutral" since we cannot not choose that with which we were born.
        
        - polobo August 30, 2008 11:46AM
        
        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.
        
        Polobo?
        
        Is "might makes right," then, a valid ethical principle? And further, ought we to allow our inherently ingrained impulses to govern our actions with impunity? An impetus may be "ethically neutral," but action is not; therefore, if that impulse is the application of force, can that be challenged as unethical or not? If not, are you justifying Nazism, for example? We are not challenging "thought" so I don't understand the point of your rebuttal. You seem to be using a lot of words to not say a lot here.
        
        - Alex M August 31, 2008 12:01PM
        
        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.
        
        "Ought we allow..."
        
        Please pardon the mistype.
        
        - Alex M August 31, 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.
        
        Might Makes Right
        
        I feel that it is a satisfactory model of ethics as they exist in the real world. Your "further" point is impossible to setup since any actions or decisions we make have consequences. Might does not equal physical force; as a society we have recognized there are other ways to influence the actions of others without resorting to the costly use of force.
        
        Assuming the absence of "ethics" as they are generally applied (i.e., acting toward a metaphysical truth or perfection) stating that anything is ethically neutral/good/bad is impossible. I use "ethically neutral" as a substitute for this concept since the different between neutral and non-existent is minimal.
        
        Nazism bothered enough groups that they resorted to the costly use of force to put down the regime. I support this course of action on a personal level and personally feel that our global society is better off for doing so even at the great cost of life we sustained. The reality is that if we could not forcibly end the Nazi regime then we would have had to live with it, regardless of our beliefs, until it collapsed on its own (think U.S.S.R).
        
        - polobo August 31, 2008 12:32PM
        
        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.
  - Response on "quality treatment", etc
    
    I will approach this (as I have been doing) from the perspective of the intrinsic value of sentient beings. The first issue is that we are not intervening to cause reproduction, the animals tend to be happy enough to do it on their own. Granted, keeping them from reproducing might cause some level of hardship, as might removing their children. I would be open to considering ways to minimize or negate these issues. It is very difficult (if even possible) to truly weight the pain of such parts of their lives against the joy and happiness of the rest of their lives. And frankly, if they have a great deal of joy and some bit of pain I think it is worthwhile to give them that life.
    
    (continued in next post...)
    
    - ToddG August 28, 2008 3:47PM
    
    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.
  - Response on "quality treatment" continued
    
    As to the difference between animals and humans, I would argue first the question of autonomy vs dependency (see my argument in one of the other threads). Assuming you accept that argument that in the case of many animals autonomy is not always better than dependency (which you may not), then it is up to us to decide how best to raise and care for the animals we take as pets. While you may imagine a scenario of stray dogs, cats, etc, roaming free, I doubt society as a whole would support that. In the absence of the ability to allow such a life to these animals, being a pet is a good life. Even with the free life, there are greater risks. Moreover many dogs have been bred over generations to enjoy living with people, which may even invalidate a completely free life being better.
    
    - ToddG August 28, 2008 6:53PM
    
    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.
    - Response to ToddG
      
      No, we necessarily *must* intervene or the situation falls outside the institution of “pets.” Assuming the benefits afforded them by our intervention, then, does not do anything to negate the initial act of creating future generations of “pets” to satisfy certain desires for current, existing humans. You imply a situation more analogous to wildlife, which, while raising additional questions, is not a “pet” situation.
      
      Quote:
      
      “While you may imagine a scenario of stray dogs, cats, etc, roaming free, I doubt society as a whole would support that.”
      
      First, we have feral cat populations that society “accepts.” Second, Francione’s (and mine) argument makes clear our obligations to “pets” who currently exist. Therefore, the issue of “setting these animals free” is erroneous. ("Freedom" is a red haring here.) The question is “Should we continue to force-breed animals so as to create future generations of utterly dependent nonhumans to satisfy human ends?”
      
      Quote:
      
      “Moreover many dogs have been bred over generations to enjoy living with people.”
      
      See Francione’s argument at the end of this thread. He sufficiently challenges this position.
      
      - Alex M August 29, 2008 8:29AM
      
      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.
    - Ask yourself ...
      
      Would you be happy as you seem to imagine pets to be, if as a child, you were carried off the Earth and the human society that you are part of, by Martians and taken to their planet as a "companion" human in their service? You are well treated, fed, watered and all, there are no disease in Martian-land. Only you cannot leave the Martian society to be with beings of your kind - humans. You are forever trapped in a society of "other" beings, where you are confined within the walls your ownerschose for you, you eat what your owner decides you must, you go for a walk when your owner decides you must, and you can seek out mates and other human friends only if your owner does not mind.
      
      If you put to use your capacity to empathize, you'll clearly see why our keeping "pet" animals is neither "natural", not good for the pets, because irrespective of the treatment they receive, there is NO way we can satisfy all their preferences and natural innate desires in OUR society. Thats a fact of life, no point denying it. Therefore, to me, owning of pets is immoral.
      
      - Sandy August 30, 2008 9:12AM
      
      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.
      - Maybe, maybe not
        
        If I were the result of generations of breeding such that I enjoyed being around the Martians and were well cared for, as well as if I were mentally incapable of more complex thoughts about what I want to do with my life and achieve, then perhaps I would be happy in such a circumstance. I can imagine choosing such an existence over none at all. The fact is, there are massive cognitive differences between ourselves and the current breeds of dogs that are in use as pets. I could be wrong, as it's a very hypothetical situation, but I can at least imagine circumstances under which being a pet would be good/preferable to non-existence.
        
        One thing to add is that I would promote more modifications to our pets such that they are even happier to be with us and not have certain relationships or experiences that they currently may want but that even with the best owners they cannot have (freedom to leave the house any time, the urge to breed, etc). We can get into more details if you want.
        
        - ToddG September 5, 2008 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.
Why does the HSUS support breeders?

"How can we find loving homes for all the dogs and cats who need one? How can we gain more ground against indiscriminate breeding that leads to so much homelessness and suffering? How can we instill – and impose, when necessary -- a sense of responsibility in people who have pets and do not treat them right? How can we soften up our society so that we can enjoy more time with our pets in more places?"

These are all good questions, but they ignore the issue of "pure breeds" and breeders. The real question here is:
Why does the HSUS support breeders?

- ElaineVigneault August 30, 2008 1:00AM

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.
three individual wolves

Objection! Actually, specifically, only 3 wolves, three individual wolves became a part of life for humans many thousands of years ago. This was a human intervention onto the wolves. Their genetics was to be grossly altered or mutated to suit human purposes, not to benefit the animal. Every domestic dog today can be traced back to just three individual wolves. From there, dog keeping was introduced to the rest of the world.

- Desert Girl January 6, 2009 9:06AM

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.
- which three wolves?
  
  Desert Girl:
  
  This is a very interesting theory. Can you support this comment about all members of canis lupus familiaris being descended from 3 wolves?
  
  If so, which three wolves? And who were their humans?
  
  Your comment is very vague and makes no specific references. Where did you come up with this theory?
  
  More to the point, what difference would it make to the discussion at hand if what you state were true?
  
  - magicmistic April 21, 2009 8:47PM
  
  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.
  - Slavery is not natural, it is an invention
    
    Hi Magic! Nice to hear from you.
    
    As exciting as it would be to claim as my own research, no I am not the source of this recently discovered fact about the origin of modern domestic dogs. Of course the theory is supported, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. The actual genetics of all dogs can be traced back to no more than three individuals. It's all about genetics. Any one of us could trace back our ancestry through genetics. One could trace back their ancestry to even a particular part of Ireland and discover they were once related long ago. An American could trace back their ancestry in Africa and even a very specific area of the continent like the Zulus. I am sorry I cannot remember where I left the science article about this, so I cannot offer u a reference right now. If I find it again I can come back and provide a link to the research.
    
    Good question about what is point/relevance to the discussion. Well, for all my life I think, until this recent discovery, I believed that wolf domestication was natural and widespread. I believed that hundreds or even thousands of tribes across Europe individually and seperately from one another adopted wolves into their clans and so began the process of taming them and altering their dna by killing the animals who were agressive, and keeping, breeding the wolves who were docile and obedient. But in fact, there would have been only ONE tribe. One single tribe, who got the idea to domesticate wolves. Dogs were the very first animal to be domesticated so this is where it all began. This one tribe who started this most unique behaviour of using wolves in their daily life would have introduced it to neighbouring tribes and to other tribes in different areas where they may have travelled. Then those tribes would have introduced the practice of keeping wolves or giving away puppies to other tribes until the practice eventually covered Europe. This is similar to an invention from an individual person like the invention of the wheel, which then spreads out from there. It only needed to be invented once, and then the technology spread. So what am I saying? That wolf domestication (slavery) by humans was not natural, it was an invention.
    
    Kind regards, Desert Girl
    
    - Desert Girl May 30, 2009 5:29AM
    
    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.

Related Debates

Experts on "Yes" Side

The Humane Society
Celebrating Animals/Confronting Cruelty See arguments

Experts on "No" Side

Gary L Francione
Rutgers University School of Law See arguments

Most Objections

Should We Have Pets? Of Course
5