“Pets:” The Inherent Problems with Domestication
As a practical matter, there is simply no way to have an
institution of “pet” ownership that does not involve the problems of treatment
that I discussed in the previous entry.
But you might ask: “What if it were possible? If, as a
hypothetical matter, we changed the legal status of dogs and cats so that they
were no longer property and they had a legal status closer to that of human
children, would our continued production of dogs and cats (or other nonhumans)
and our keeping of ‘pets’ be morally justified?”
My answer to this purely hypothetical question is that we cannot
justify the perpetuation of domestication for the purpose of keeping “pets.”
Domesticated animals are dependent on us for everything that is important in
their lives: when and whether they eat or drink, when and where they sleep or
relieve themselves, whether they get any affection or exercise, etc. Although
one could say the same thing about human children, the overwhelming number of
human children mature to become autonomous, independent beings. Domestic
animals are neither a real or full part of our world or of the nonhuman world. They
exist forever in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything
and at risk of harm from an environment that they do not really understand. We
have bred them to be compliant and servile, or to have characteristics that are
actually harmful to them but are pleasing to us. We may make them happy in one
sense, but the relationship can never be “natural” or “normal.” They do not
belong stuck in our world irrespective of how well we treat them.
We cannot justify such an institution, even if it looked very different from
the situation that now exists. My partner and I live with five rescued dogs,
including dogs who had health problems when we adopted them. We love them very
much and try very hard to provide them the best of care and treatment. (And
before anyone asks, all seven of us are vegans!) You would probably not find
two people on the planet who enjoy living with dogs more than we do.
But if there were two dogs left in the universe and it were up to us as to
whether they were allowed to breed so that we could continue to live with dogs,
and even if we could guarantee that all dogs would have homes as loving as the
one that we provide, we would not hesitate for a second to bring the whole
institution of “pet” ownership to an end. We regard the dogs who live with us
as refugees of sorts, and although we enjoy caring for them, it is clear that
humans have no business continuing to bring these creatures into a world in
which they simply do not fit.
I understand that many people will be bewildered by my argument about the
inherent problems with domestication. But that is because we live in a world in
which we kill and eat 53 billion animals a year (not counting fish) and where
our best justification for that practice is that we enjoy the taste of animal
flesh and animal products. Most of you who are reading this right now are
probably not vegans. As long as you think it is acceptable to kill and eat
animals, the more abstract argument about domesticating animals to use as
“pets” is not likely to resonate. I understand that.
So go over to the Opposing Views debate, “Should We Eat
Meat?” and read my entries there. Think about the issue of veganism and then
consider the matter of “pets” !
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
A philosophical argument that we should not keep pets cannot address the powerful emotional connection humans experience with pets. Even Koko the gorilla had a pet cat and loved it. Humans like other animals and want to have them in their lives. That is the point about pets. Pet birds and animals bring enrichment to humans and increase their emotional connection to nature and the world at large. There is no philosophical discussion that can bring sufficient arguments forward that can eliminate the power of a strong relationship between a human and their animal friends, whether or not those animals are domesticated.
Gary, you can make any kind of imbicile argument that you want to about pets, but the fact is there will continue to be cats and dogs born "without homes" and a few of them will be fortunate enough to live with a family who cares for them.
Organizations such as HSUS continue to support loving pet ownership and the beneficial relationship between pet caregiver and pet has been demonstrated since recorded time; the majority of people in the West will continue to support the notion no matter what lunatic arguments you plan to throw at it.
Any point can be stretched until it is elliptical; you aren't the first to promote a crank notion, and I don't think you'll be the last
The author states that "We love them very much and try very hard to provide them the best of care and treatment. (And before anyone asks, all seven of us are vegans!)". Is he not imposing debatable human morality regarding the appropriateness of meat-eating on animals that are in their nature carnivorous? Does this really count as providing them with the best of care? It seems to me that there is a strong element of hypocrisy in saying that it is wrong to own pets because it is not a natural way for them to live, and at the same time imposing upon them odd and un-natural dietary habits.
if your pet is a cat - I honestly cannot see how it can be vegan! If it is a dog- that may be fine since dogs are more omnivorous. But I cannot agree with forcing cats to be vegan- it is cruel.
Absolute absurdity this is. At one side the author is so much for the rights of animals, and how wrong we are to keep and breed them as pets, while on the other side he himself is going against nature and feeding carnivorous animals that were wolfs thousands of years ago with vegan seeds and vegetalbles. This is as much cruelty as it is cruelty for letting your pets starving. Besides, the pet food industry and what they say is "good" for the pets - serves whom? Their own pockets above all, and definitely not the good of the pets. The best thing for pets (cats and dogs) is to feed them with raw meet. As it has been proven that all coocked meal (canned food or dry food) is very much a bad idea for cats - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPCOGSnjP5w - watch it all...and also for dogs: www.dogworksagility.com/images/FreePatMcKayBook.pdf
And vegan cat or dog food is an absolute cruelty in my book, and don't kid yourselves that because you humans are vegans it is normal and perfectly good food for your pets too.
Your video link regarding Pottenger's cat experiment does little more than advocate for a healthy, raw, vegan diet for PEOPLE. Hopefully, you took this to heart and are now practicing what Francione advocates briefly in his argument: that you go vegan for any number of reasons, least among them, to understand the argument against pet "ownership." And I don't believe anyone here has even mentioned a vegan cat diet, and most educated vegans understand that cats are obligate carnivores, so your point was somewhat irrelevant anyhow.
How can a vegetarian diet for a dog constitute cruelty in your book? Have you looked into the science and anecdotal evidence behind the fact that dogs can actually THRIVE on a vegetarian diet? They are unlike cats in that they are not obligate carnivores. They are highly adaptable where diet is concerned, and there is plenty of evidence supporting the idea that they're natural omnivores. So if they can live long, happy, healthy lives without the meat , then why, as the ethical person you claim to be, would you pay someone else to inflict immeasurable cruelty on other animals for the sake of food that's not even necessary to your dog?
Dogs, I believe are related to bears and bears are omnivorous as we know- some are even complete vegetarians ie the panda bear and the south american bear- cant remember his name.
Ok, to start with - no, I am not a vegan because a raw vegan diet will not do for me. And when I eat raw vegetables I am getting problems with my stomach within 30 minutes to an hour. My metabolic type is protein type.
And this is an excerpt from the article of William Wolcott - Diet Success - Know Your Nutritional Type - Part II, on Dr. Mercola's site:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/12/18/metabolic-typing-part-one.aspx
•First and foremost, there is no one diet that is right for everyone, i.e., there never has been and there never will be a universally healthy diet.
•Second, the only healthy diet is the one that meets one's genetically-based requirements -- not what some book or diet expert says is right. Eat a diet that is right for your metabolic type and not only can you stay healthy but you can reverse degenerative conditions as well.
•Third, there are no good foods and there are no bad foods, except in terms of foods that are right or wrong for your genetic makeup. Think meat is bad for you? Then how do you explain the Inuit (Eskimo) who eats up to 10 pounds of meat a day, yet there isn't even a word in their language for cancer or heart disease. Think a high carb diet is bad for you? Then how do you explain the Quetchus of South America or the East Indians who have lived for countless generations on a near vegetarian diet? Think dairy is bad for you? Then how do you explain the Swiss whose ancestral diet was largely based on dairy and rye?
And about your 2nd question: "How can a vegetarian diet for a dog constitute cruelty in your book?" - let's just simply agree to disagree in regards. As I stated earlier - the types of dogs that I am talking about have as ancestors wolfs. Would you tell me that wolfs are omnivores too? Or are they carnivores?
And as for your last question: ..." then why, as the ethical person, you claim to be, would you pay someone else to inflict immeasurable cruelty on other animals for the sake of food that's not even necessary to your dog?" - Since I am not a hunter, and am not a farmer either - I cannot provide for the food needs of my pets, and am obliged to purchase their food where available. And the same goes for myself. And since when am I a non-ethical person because I am a meat eater - omnivore?
Since no one comes and steps up on my feet - vegans are entitled to live their life's and eat whatever they choose to. And I keep with my opinion that it is a cruelty to feed dogs with a vegan diet as these dogs are carnivores for the most part, and are not omnivores as you people claim them to be.
And of course - there are always 2 parts of the coin, and I also do not agree with the inhuman circumstances in which animals are kept in the mass meat producing industry, and we always try to purchase our meat from farmers that we know, and their animals live free on their land, as well as the chickens, and thus their eggs, and cheese, and butter are produced in other circumstances and are much healthier.
Are you in the veterinary field? No, ok, while cats are obligate carnivores, dogs are not carnivores, they are omnivores and can live wonderfully healthy lives on a vegetarian diet , in fact some dogs have meat allergies and have to rely on a plant-based diet.
As a vet- can you tell me if my cats can be vegans ? I am told no. I wish they could.
progressisdead, no I am not in the veterinary field, no. I did have a German Sheppard and have now a husky to take care for, and let me tell you - these dogs of mine are definitely carnivores. And these two races are definitely descending from wolfs. Since humans have created many races of dogs there might be some that could be classified as omnivores, but, than again, the dogs descending from wolfs cannot be classified as omnivores, or could they?
Dogs and cats are already living in an unnatural situation with humans in houses, so changes to their diet shouldn't make a difference to disrupting the already grossly disrupted natural way of life.
There are quality brands of commercially made dog and cat food that pass the American dog food standards association for nutritional requirements. By eating a vegan dog food diet, other animals whom we don't know do not have to suffer and die in order for our pets to live. My vegan family of includes two young children and 2 lovely active Siberian huskies. The longest living dog in the Guinness Book of Records is a 27 yr old collie dog named Brambles. He gets 4 walks a day and still plays fetch. He eats what his master eats -organic vegetables, lentils and rice! Yes. He's a vegan!
So you have dogs living with you? But I shouldn't have pets ! I just looked up the word hypocrite in the Websters, sure enough there you were.
I agree with all your comments- excpet one thing- there is no way a cat can be vegan and not die. Cats are the most carnivorous mammals- their diet has to be at least 50% meat - please do not tell people to feed their cats a vegan diet. Consult a vet first.
Hi Sor,
Thanks for your thoughts. I am not sure what I think of cats on approved vegan diets yet which is why I have avoided adopting a cat. I think it should be looked at on a case by case basis. While dogs can easily live a healthy life on a vegan diet , cats have extra needs because as you say they are carnivores. The commercially prepared vegan cat food can meet all of their nutritional requirements and pass the pet food standards but some older male cats have been reported to have urinary problems. But there are also plenty of examples of cats living long healthy lives on a vegan diet. And yes a veterinarian should be consulted first, but find an understanding one!
DG
While I agree that many pets are mistreated and many people should not have pets, I think it is absurd to argue that no one should. A lot of people treat their pets very well and are very attached to their pets and vice versa. We should find ways to stop bad treatment and to take pets away from abusive or neglectful owners. Thirty years ago many people believed parents could do pretty much what they wanted to do with their kids, it was almost impossible to take a child away from abusive parents. It is still hard. There is no reason to go to extremes, e.g. no one should have children -- or pets.
While we may treat our pets similarly to our children, pets are definitely NOT children. Yes it would be extreme to ask an adult human they cannot have children to avoid some chance they might abuse the child. But this is different to deliberately breeding a different species for our own purposes. Humans do what we do anyway -we have children and this is natural. The endless breeding and then the dumping into shelters and killing of 280,000 healthy pets every year in the US is just not necessary. Let's play switch the species. How would u feel about owning a human pet? In the past, some African slave babies were kept like cute pets until it was time for them to get to work. Many, many slaves were abused. Many more were treated well and loved even. Some slave masters claimed as we do our pets today that their slave was like a member of their family and that the slave loved them in return. If a man is raised and conditioned in this environment and knows no other life but as a slave, it is only natural he may love his masters and even show desires to stay as a slave if offered freedom. This is the same for our pets. Put the pet in a different situation like their natural habitat in their natural form and then ask them if they want to live with you. Would a wolf be your pet?
Your words express exactly what I felt from the animals when I consulted with their "owners" on nutrition and behavior. Thank you.
"They exist forever in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything and at risk of harm from an environment that they do not really understand."
Francione: ''As long as you think it is acceptable to kill and eat animals, the more abstract argument about domesticating animals to use as “pets” is not likely to resonate. I understand that.''
Like all other domestic animals, ''pets'' are property, brought into existence for human purposes, to be used exclusively as means to human ends, and while the use of dogs and cats generally implies (in Western countries) a different treatment than that of cows, pigs, and chickens and does not require their being killed, it does not protect them from being put down as their owners see fit, either. What it means to be a ''pet,'' even under the best circumstances, as vividly described by Francione, is anything but an abstract issue and leaves no doubt that there is nothing desirable about it. The use of animals, for whatever purpose, is morally unjustifiable. Go vegan.
It feels like this is always where people bring the conversation as soon as they are stuck. It immediately marginalizes the entire concept, because most people don't even think about animals. Ever. We've got pets and we've got steak. Only one of them is a commodity, and it's not even an animal. It's a steak.
Truth is, it's like asking a slave owner to understand why a black slave should be allowed to vote. That's simple. They are not white, and they are not male. Heck, they're not even free. They are not equipped to make such decisions. Even after legislation had to arrive at the logical conclusion of the right to vote only 5 years after all slaves were freed, black Americans weren't really allowed to vote until nearly 100 years after.
The questions should never have been should we eat meat or should we keep pets. It should have been "Are we morally justified in using animals to our own devices?"
The answer to the question is personal. There is no argument from either side which will answer this question once and for all. Those who argue against pet ownership can state their platform only to have it rebutted by the other side. Those of us who want to love, care for and receive the love and tenderness of our pets in return, I say - we should be able to continue. Those of you who think we should not keep pets – then by all means, do not.
Recent pet food industry sales figures have shown a continued growth in pet food and related items. It seems obvious therefore, that more people are pet owners and seem to want to do right by them.
There are unfortunately, too many situations where pets are abused. We must all continue to stand up and make our voices heard against this abuse whenever and wherever we find it.
http://www.petfoodindustry.com/0711PETboom.aspx
"Those of us who want to love, care for and receive the love and tenderness of our pets in return, I say - we should be able to continue. Those of you who think we should not keep pets – then by all means, do not."
thats like saying : 'Those of us men who want to rape women, tenderly, sweetly, and receieve their love "in return" I say - we should be able to continue. Those of you who think we should not rape women - then by all means, do not.'
If you are gonna violate the essential rights of a sentient being, then you've gotta have very valid reasons to do so - for instance, if your very survival depended on an act of animal exploitation. Clearly, in the matter of pet ownership, there cannot be any doubt that the interests of one class of beings is being over-ridden in favour of the most trivial rights of another class.
What you are saying does not make any sense. I'll have to say you not only are incorrect in your reply, but you are really very wrong because you are basing your opinion on issues which are not equal. Try keeping a pet in our present society and see if you will go to jail. What do you think happens to the individual who tries to - or does rape a woman?
Do you think it is also wrong to keep plants growing in pots inside a home? They too are creations which may or my not have feelings. They tell us if they need water, fertilizer, sunshine or shade by their reactions to the lack or over-abundance of these things.
Is that the best you can do?
I wasn't trying to say that the two acts are the SAME. (Although an unassailable argument can be built for suggesting that morally, the two acts are not very different).
What I implied was that the (im)morality of purchasing companion animals is not a matter of opinion, as you seem to think.
If you really believe that purchasing a cat from a pet shop, because you want to enjoy his companionship at home, is not immoral, then the onus is on you to show why. The 'Yes' side has made enough arguments that are awaiting a response.
When you rape a woman, you violate her interests, and our legal and moral laws say therefore, that rape is unacceptable. It is not a subjective matter. But, another act that violates the interests of a being (or beings) - pet ownership - is claimed to be acceptable and its morality is a matter of opinion. Those who think it is right, do it; those who dont, shut up.
Why that inconsistency?
You claim the sentients of all animals , and therefore if ownership of a human is wrong, ownership of an animal must also be wrong. Using your logic, if rape of a human is wrong rape of an animal would also be wrong. However, rape is common in the wild. Is that immoral? Have they sinned?
The truth is that it is extremely unlikely that we will ever agree. However, you don't seem to recognize that people who think like you are at the fringe. You are a small fraction of the population. Most people don't think that pet ownership violates he interest of their pets. You are making the extreme claims. Therefore you are the ones who need to prove that you are correct, not the other way around.
Arguments equating pet ownership to rape are not going to help you make your case. The tasteless nature of the argument simply makes it easier to completely disregard your opinions. It might make perfect sense to you, but it is a discussion ender for most people.
I suggest that you change your tactics. Then people might think about your argument.
1) All sentient beings have equal status and it is wrong for any individual member of a sentient species to place their needs over that of another's. Individuals are responsible for the lives and well-being of everyone else. The individual should sacrifice themself before resorting to taking away the status of another (otherwise #2 necessarily results when the survival of one individual necessarily results in the death of another - the other will want to defend themself).
2) Sentient beings have the sole responsibility to lookout for their own status. A sentient being relying on other sentient beings to reinforce their status risks becoming victim to those able and willing to take away such status. A group of such beings who cannot reinforce their status individually end up joining to together to reinforce their shared status as a group and in return become subject to any agreements between the involved parties.
"then you've gotta have very valid reasons to do so" implies #2 and thus leads back to the current situation where humans, as a sentient species, are "superior" to animals.
Why can't I own a human? I FEEL like I should be able to. I will take good care of it. But it will eat what and when I say it can eat. It will behave how I will insist it behaves. And when I want affection, I will be sure to use that. Maybe I'll even slaughter and eat my pet human when I choose.
This argument is just as foolish as all the others, because all it does is touch on one more cursory issue that confuses, misleads, and distracts people.
Should we be allowed to have non-human animals as property. If yes, then why? Period. All of this nonsense about how cute pets are and how much my nana really wants a kitty is meaningless in the debate about sentient creatures as commodities.
Wives were considered property for centuries. We still think of them this way in various parts of the world. Just because you take good care of your property doesn't mean it is right to consider it as property. People and animals have inherent value not to be subject to other controls and whims. They are autonomous and should be living the life nature has for them.
You are the one who is deeply confused.
Yes, Erinx1 - but there are some wives out there who want to be "kept". We all know that.
To articulate your point and entirely miss mine means that you're not paying enough attention to the debate and instead picking a particular post out of context in an enormous thread.
That said, we are on the same side of the argument. The difference is that I believe you arrived there based on an argument that is too easily toppled (like, say, by quantummechanik). Your use of "should" is highly debatable. A deontological standpoint is not as defendable as a conditional one.
My point was that IF you believe that humans have a right not to be treated as the property of others and that the quality of this treatment does not justify the treatment, itself, THEN the lack of a logical distinction between humans and sentient non-humans leads to the conclusion that non-humans have the same rights.
In short: IF you believe in human rights, THEN you believe in animal rights .
animals have this inherent value? What, in nature, could you point to that says that subjugation is in some way unnatural?
There is no right or wrong answer to this question except in the mind of the person on a particular 'side of the fence'. Pets that are loved and well-cared for seem very happy. If you know pets, well then you are able to judge whether or not they are happy, sad, frightened or even hungry. They show you with non-verbal clues just as humans exhibit non-verbal clues regarding state of mind.
If you sincerely feel that we should not be allowed to have pets, then you should go through the legal process of banning pet ownership. Although I strongly disagree with you, I do not think you are foolish but have a very strong feeling on the subject. That is quite understandable and I do admire people who are passionate regarding their beliefs regardless of whether or not I agree with their points of view.