Should We Have Pets? Of Course
Friends, I am the Senior VP of Communications for the largest and most effective animal organization in America. Every month, sometimes several times a month, I am confronted with these kinds of wildly ill-informed accusations – in blogs, in web postings, in newsletters and even in newspapers, which should know better. Others throughout the organization are similarly distracted. By sheer repetition, our foes count on winning over the gullible.
I regret the time wasted from meaningful work by having to reassure people that The HSUS has not veered one fraction of a degree from its founding commitment to companion animals. We celebrate them every day. We defend them everyday. When we learn that they are in trouble, we send teams to rescue them.
It often interests visitors to know that 10% of the work-force in my Communications section happens to be dogs. That’s right we don’t just talk about our love of pets. They come to work with us, at least the dogs do. And, oh yes, Louie too – he acts enough like a dog that we quietly allow him in the office even though he’s a cat. Turn me upside down and dog biscuits fall out of my suit pockets.
So, should we have pets? Of course. Pets are creatures with whom we share a world, and we rejoice in their companionship. You don’t have to anthropomorphize to recognize that the feelings are returned. If we are wise enough to see, they teach us about humility and empathy and loyalty. Their eyes hold the spark of life, the same as ours. Let us be close and cherish each other always.
If I may at this point lean on a pair of pioneering animal rights philosophers who lived a century ago, Henry Salt and J. Howard Moore. Here is Salt: “When we have grasped the great central fact about animals, that they are in the full sense our fellow-beings, all else will follow for them; and we shall know, and act upon the knowledge, that in the words of Howard Moore, author of that memorable book The Universal Kinship: "They are not conveniences but cousins."
OV Social
There is no way around it. Those who would ay we should not keep pets or eat other animals also will insist that amn is a animal just the same. So what aside from guilt makes some feel that while animals can man should not. Our ability for compassion and inttelligence gives us the ability to protect other species from unjust treatment and to live and die with dignity. The keeping of pets is not a admission to feeling power or ownership over animals. While all of my immediate family are constrictors and monitors ,should I adopt out ones I have rescued I do not charge a fee. I will not relinquish care of any living creature without knowing It is going to be treated with the care and respect it deserves. If man cannot co-exist with all other creatures our lack of understanding them will do far more damage. The human population will continue to rise while the earth's size does not.
We do not need to cage animals in order to appreciate them and learn from them. I used to be a "horse lover" and ride them. Now I am a "horse respector" and appreciate them from a distance when I see them in the wild. I do not ride horses anymore, I do not keep them anymore. Horses should be free, not riding and companion slaves. Yes McDowelli, we CAN coexist with animals on this planet, but we do not have to put them in a zoo or in a cage at home in order to achieve this! Animals suffer when they are in captivity, no matter how well they have their needs met, they cannot taste freedom.
You have no control over what happens to your animals you sell. You can never really know. I sold my horse once to the best family I could find. A year later I found him skinny, neglected, unridden, locked up and displaying aggressive jealous behaviour to others due to being starved while other neighbouring horses got fed. A friend bought him back for me. I had no way of knowing. Another time I sold a Siberian Husky to a lady who paid top dollar for her and seemed in every way the perfect dog owner. Only months later she resold her when it became inconvenient to keep her. We would never sell our own children if it became inconvenient or expensive. My point is, you cannot REALLY tell how responsible someone else will be for the animal YOU created into existence, therefore it is irresponsible to breed them in the first place. You are taking a risk on the animal's life that the new owner will be responsible. If you are wrong about your judgement of them, it is the animal who pays for it with her suffering, not you.
We should coexist with other species of animals on this planet, but as free individuals, not as prisoners.
While working with reptile rescues in my area I believe this. I myself will not accept money for a animalin my care. When the few that I know I cannot properly care for are given to me or I rescue from bad situations I have rules that I understand not everyone can follow but I keep to insure the well being of the animals .
1) I will not adopt out any animal without seeing the proper habitat in person. This does mean I use my own gas to deliver said creature to it's prospected new home and will not allow exceptions.
2)The people I work with in finding homes with proper care are rescues who specialize in the particular type or species who are able to feed them thru donations and sponsorships that ensure they will never go hungry. These rescues are not the type that hold adoptions or adopt out animals. They are run by enthusiasts who oppose breeding as well. While I understand not all rescues can afford to be run like this those are the types that I work with. We may have little if any social life but because of our love for the animals we wouldn't have it any other way.
As I am sure this is just a habit of speech, you didn't intend to mean it this way, but I would like to point out a speciesist term here. You titled your post "Anials are not something to re-sell" -something? Animals are not something full stop! They are someone! I hear in the media all the time animals refered to as "its" sometimes even when the sex of the animal is known!
Anyway, from your post it is easy to see you love your reptiles very much and care a lot about them. That's great! Reptiles are very lovable animals! You should see the dudes I live with here in the desert. Apparently Australia enjoys the richest biodiversity in reptiles anywhere on Earth. We have some amazing reptiles. My favourite is the little thorny devil. She lives exclusively off ants and they look a bit like a leaf. They walk like they are rap dancing or something. When I used to be a tour guide, I had saved a couple from being squished on the road, by stopping and carrying them to the other side before a big bus came along. They are very slow walkers you see! They also drink water just by putting their feet in the water and letting the water creep up into their mouth!
Hi McDowelli. SOME animals eat other animals, not all of them. Many animals eat plants. Our human bodies physically resemble other plant and fruit eating animals such as our very long stomachs, our blunt teeth, our blunt nails, our weak jaw, etc, etc. You are suggesting that we humans, like all other animals are a part of the food chain and not separate from it. Of course we are. We have been established as omnivores (although much proof exists to suggest we should eat a plant based diet ), and as omnivores we have a CHOICE. Lions as carnivores have no choice about what they eat, but we do.
Just because certain species of animals kill and eat other animals doesn't mean we should do it too. We should not model other animal's behaviour in order to form our own moral decisions about how we choose to behave ourselves. While some animals hunt and kill to survive, many animals also choose to rape in order to survive. Just because some animals do this, doesn't justify humans doing it. Some lions will kill baby lion cubs, doesn't mean we should do this either. Killing animals for food is a very violent act. For lions this is a necessary act and a natural part of the balance of the ecology . For us, violently killing other animals for food is completely unnecessary. Also, the ecology would not be disrupted if we stopped killing animals, in fact, the ecology could get a chance to be restored if we stopped killing animals because the environment is suffering a disaster from humans producing animals for food.
I found this entry to be a very poor argument on the HSUS' behalf. It only goes 'knee-deep' into the situation by regarding pet ownership as mutually beneficial. While I agree that the love we bring into an animals life is as genuine as the love that they bring into ours, we have to give this topic more thought and consideration with respects to other areas of the debate rather than focusing only on the "mutually beneficial" argument.
Gary Francione is correct in stating that anyone who does not reprehend the use of animals for food, clothing, etc. will very likely not be able to empathize with the negative aspects of pet ownership. So it would be wise to take a crash course in animal rights before making your argument for this topic.
The HSUS does indeed believe that animal exploitation is morally wrong, but then why can't they see the problems associated with pet ownership that go against their fundamental beliefs as an organization? - That is the fundamental belief that animals' interests have to be taken seriously.
The fact is that we CANNOT have domesticated companion animals without exploiting them! Hypothetically, lets say that there are no longer any homeless cats and dogs, animal shelters do not exist and all "pets" are treated like our human children. The practical matter is that in order for us to continue having domesticated companion animals we will rely on breeding. As a result of breeding, many mothers and their children are being separated at an abnormally early stage in their relationship. Also, a very large percentage of breeders will be breeding for profit thus reinforcing the commodity status and economic use of animals. This is animal exploitation at its roots!
Putting "business" and profits aside, animals are ultimately bread for human companionship. (Without the demand for companion animals breeders would not exist). Once an animal is born you are giving them an opportunity to familiarize themselves with their surroundings and eventually set into a very comfortable state. Animals are social creatures and can find extreme comfort in a setting where they see the same humans and non-humans on a daily basis. They have made friends and have created close bonds- just like we do! What moral justification do we have by stripping them away from all they've ever known and putting them in the hands of what is to them, a complete stranger and a foreign environment?
All of my three cats are rescued and I can admit that most companion animals will quickly adapt to their new surroundings... However, in reality many animals are sent from home to home several times in their life for a variety of reasons (behavioral problems, not getting along with the other dog, allergies to animal fur, etc). This is socially and psychologically unhealthy for any animal just as it is unhealthy for a human child to hop from foster home to foster home.
So unless we ALL suddenly start taking our relationships with companion animals more seriously (without the possibility to pass them off to someone else for our own selfish convenience) and we truly and genuinely take animal interests seriously then we will stop the breeding...because their is no way to have relationships with domesticated animals that is 100% favourable to both human and nonhuman sides. The favour will always lean towards us...and that just isn't fair to the animals.
I love sharing my home with cats...and I will NEVER give them up. I care for them like I would my own human child. It hurts me to think of a life without the loving companionship of animals. But the reality is that we cannot continue to have domesticated companion animals in a world that shows them equal consideration to our own human interests. Sad but true.
They are cousins, not conveniences. Yes, very much so! Pet ownership and the market behind it exploit these animals, not allowing them to develop into their natural state.
The fact that many of our pets are strays, or pets with otherwise gloomy futures, is irrelevant because they wouldn't BE there in the first place, if it weren't for the market demand! Stop the industry altogether, and focus energies on providing shelter for the pets that need it today.
As the institution of "pets" relies on human intervention in some form for its continuation (i.e., breeding, human ignorance), doesn't this intervention raise an ethical dilemma if we take seriously the premise that nonhumans are not our property? From your line of reasoning it seems to follow that you disagree and would approve of human intervention to maintain the institution. This is at least implied.
We shouldn't misunderstand this argument though. It doesn't follow from Francione's complaint that our companion animals should be taken from us or released. We have an obligation to them. We can and ought to co-exist. Given the millions of "pets" that are already in existence, I won't ever be without a rescued dog, cat, etc.
However, intervening so as to create more for personal, selfish reasons raises an ethical question that should be considered.
Wouldn't ending the institution of pet ownership effectively result in dogs and cat becoming extinct?
There is no "right" answer to the question; only an answer that satisfies those (in much of the world) elected to represent the people (i.e., in power). Taking the assumptions of majority pet owners and meat eaters the public clearly wants to be able to raise animals as pets and for food. Since I do not really fear any pet rebellion nor is some higher authority punishing me for my love of steak and my pet Bandit any ethical concern is hollow and merely a mechanism for those who oppose treating pets as animals to voice their displeasure and indirectly bash their opposition.
Your set of morals and values does not make for a set of ethics our society needs to abide by.
Yes- and that would be so good! Cats eradicate wildlife and many dog breeds are completely unhealthy (for the dog).
Is there a "right" answer to "Is racism morally justifiable?"
Taking the assumptions of the majority of Americans during the 30's, 40's, and 50's the public clearly wanted to be able to relegate black American's to the status of 'not-quite' human. Since most didn't really fear any successful rebellion during the 1920's nor was it believed that some higher authority would punish them for their love of cheap labor and the front seats on the bus any ethical concern is hollow and merely a mechanism for those who opposed treating blacks as blacks to voice their displeasure and indirectly bash their opposition. The abolitionists of our past had a set of morals and values that didn't make for a set of ethics their society needed to abide by.
I suppose that in your world view completely void of any ethical code existing outside the confines of a legislative edict, you can remain consistent. It is legal to eat meat, therefore eating meat is right. By your terms, killing thousands of Jews was once ethically sound. The government sanctioned this behavior, and a large number of people felt it was ok. Therefore it was right...right?
Rights and morality are not entirely relative. There is a logical way to approach each of these. Once we explain and are all using the same language, semantics wars become obsolete and we can actually get down to logic and fact.
I say that morality should always stem from viewing an action's impact on the interests of sentient beings. This removes so much of the ambiguity that comes from people saying that they FEEL things are right. Feelings, while intimately bound to morality, are not necessary in deciding right from wrong.
I know exactly what you are saying, and if fact once held those same beliefs. However, what I am saying that Ethics as you conceive them do not exist. This is an assumption that I make when presenting my position.
There are various ways to enforce moral righteousness upon others. Laws work pretty well for members of the same geographic and idealogical society. Such a society, however, is solely a mechanism for individuals to pool their collective power so that they may live in the way they so choose without fear or redress by others. That society needs some other means of "leverage" in order to enforce those beliefs upon others. Consider another entirely separate and self-sufficient society holding different beliefs. Neither society is more right or wrong in their beliefs vis-a-vis the other since there is no common super-authority that both societies are judged by (assumed by stating "entirely separate").
Therefore - keeping in mind that we are having a discussion as a means to convince people of the illogic of their position (not force) - following this line of reasoning, in a patriarchical society, could a legitimate challenge be made against sexism? Or would you argue that the anti-sexist side is engaging in a hollow discourse because, due to subjectivity of ethics (and "right in numbers"), the sexists are right and ought not be criticized?
To label this an appeal to "absolutes" is erroneous. This project, better represented in the "Should We Eat Meat" debate, is the unfolding of our own premises regarding suffering, leaving, I think, objectivity/subjectivity aside.
I have no qualms and indeed resort to an appeal of like-mindedness regarding morals. However, I do not claim absolute superiority and indeed try and understand the foundations of the beliefs held by the opposing parties. Your assumption that my position is inherently illogical since it results in my treating animals and humans different is what I take issue with. You also consider the issue as being inherently good/bad whereas I simply see two (or more) possibilities either of which is possible.
Tell me why abolishing the status quo benefits our society without appealing to morals. I've quickly read into some of the meat comments and pointing out that - it costs more to grow food and feed it to animals that we then consume as opposed to just eating the plants ourselves - is the kind of argument that I am referring to.
If your goal is to build a consensus based upon shared personal beliefs and then use that consensus to force change you will have validated my underlying assumption that "might makes right" is our reality. Given this reality I will, and expect others to, act to make themselves as powerful (individually or by submitting to a group) as necessary to secure those things they value.
People who would only ever behave a particular way as a direct result of the benefits with no regard for empathy or morality? We call them sociopaths. What I mean by this is that yours is a very unrealistic approach to social issues. An appeal to morality will always be a factor in arguments of human behavior. The argument of logic comes when trying to determine consistency. If you feel this way and consequently behave this way, then logically, in order to be consistent you would also behave this way. I allow for the fact that there can be variables, because it isn't exactly black and white. But once you start to define what an animal's interests are, and you break down what it means to place your desires above an animal's right to interests, then the conclusion is usually the same among caring, empathetic individuals. Trapping, relocating, caging, enslaving, manipulating, and commodifying an independent creature with interests that do not coincide with any of these actions is wrong. That is my hypothesis, and it can be proven only in a situation where enough empirical data is collected to support it. As is the case with any hypotheses. It's not "might" it's a trend in a data set. And while there will always be outliers, I don't believe that most people need to be forced to do what is right.
There. You win. No absolute moral truths. And that will never have an impact worth considering, because there are "rights" and "wrongs" that seem to resound throughout the world on a very fundamental, ethical level. The effort, now, is to try and expose enough truth so that people have a chance to utilize their empathy.
It's not the "might" that comes from a moral majority. It is a set of empirically obtained data trends. When A occurs, humans most often have B reaction. Following basic principles of induction are the only way I can conclude with a high degree of certainty that if I push my laptop off of the desk, it will fall to the floor. Therefore gravity exists. I
Removing human empathy from the equation would require some serious tampering with conditions.
It, therefore, is my hypothesis that
"An appeal to morality will always be a factor in arguments of human behavior." This is as it should be since in any argument the persons arguing have a sense of morality (not necessarily the same sense) that is driving their position. However, it is only one factor; utility is another key factor that is necessary to explain human behavior.
You claim that outliers will always exist but in reality those "outlier" positions have become the status-quo. Therefore your outliers belong to the norm in some alternative model. In that alternative they could be acting quite consistently and bashing them over the head saying they are not consistent when you do not even recognize that the alternate model exists doesn't accomplish anything.
When given the freedom to treat animals as they wish (without imposition by external authority and without linked observable negative consequences) humans most often will choose to treat those animals as property. Can you point out where the above sentence, which matches your moral majority model, fails when observing the real world as it currently stands?
"expose enough truth so people have a chance to utilize their empathy" - people right now can choose to utilize their empathy and become vegans. If everyone did this (as you imply they would if exposed to some truth first) then the issue would be moot since non-vegans would exist in very small numbers (outliers). Maybe you are right and our current condition stems from ignorance and can be cured simply through education and letting individuals make their own personal decisions. I would only question then why this innate ethical sense that you presuppose requires education to recognize (which is does otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now).
Which would be better stated as:
Presented with fully-disclosed information as to the state of animal exploitation, people will have a reaction such that they will begin to make decisions in favor of respect for animal interests.
So, really, the high number of people that aren't vegan are really just representative of how few people I've gotten to test my experiment on.
I don't think that people have ever been "given the freedom", because there are far too many influences. What you're suggesting is that in a situation where there were no social persuasions to do so, humans would have a tendency to exploit animals to their own selfish ends. You may be right, but I feel we have no good evidence of this in our modern world.
So my experiment will actually have to include working through each moral inconsistency once one fundamental concept is recognized. Pet ownership won't come up right away, because, admittedly, it is not one people understand right away. But I think people naturally align to the concepts that would eventually get them there. In the absence of that base imperative, though, it is true that some may never care for other beings.
I do believe you understand, though rightfully disagree, with where I am coming from. The last thing I would add is that I do not dismiss ethical concerns only that they are simply one of a number of inputs that humans use in their decision making process. You have put your argument, still based upon morals, into a more detailed model as opposed to simply relying on ethics and this is something that I can relate and respond to.
In this particular case I would be interested to see whether a scientific study could show which of our models of humanity is "more correct". I do not doubt that both models (and others) exist to varying degrees in our societies but I have no clue what their relative weights are. We both admit that we lack a scientific backing and are relying mostly on our biased empirical observations. The answer would be meaningful in that it would help people to understand (though of course adaptations to the individuals/groups is still necessary) different ways to affect change in behavior.
In roughly 200 years, which is what I think it will take to make a complete ethical shift. It might be faster than that, since I think the effect will be something on an order better than linear. Also, in this global community, information can travel quickly.
I do know that with a relatively small set of simple arguments that point out the moral inconsistencies in people's speciesism and deliberate ignorance, I have been able to open the minds of several in a short time. I never force, and I never fight for legislation. There will come a time for government to take a role in all of this, but that time is far from now. Most people I meet are appalled at what large industries that place gains above the interests of others are willing to do (and have been doing for years). It is this moral outrage that fuels an open mind.
I may run into people that place utility and personal gains above ideals that I place higher. I find that one of the strongest opponents, though, is not a difference in belief, but rather pure ignorance. This is second only to resistance due to entrenched cultural behavior. Time will tell, I suppose. See you in a couple centuries! :-)
Nice discussion guys. That was a really good read. Just thinking about some recent experiences of my own, my bet would be on Mike's hypothesis. There are two reasons/factors that lead me there. The first is that when people hear what happens to animals (I'm particularly thinking of on large farms and with regards to the vegetarian/vegan issue), they are either outraged or at least say something suggesting they don't like the fact. I have noticed two major issues as to why people tend not to take action.
The first is society. Most people eat meat (or in this case have pets or accept the idea of having pets). Additionally, there's the testosterone fueled "meat is manly" meme. However, take a guy away from a bunch of other guys and their response to these issues is usually more nuanced and accepting of the possibility that treating animals poorly is the wrong way to act.
The second factor is the distance people have from the process of creating their meat or pets. People tend to ignore what is not immediately in front of them.
The one part of Mike's hypothesis that I may take some issue with is that all people will ultimately come to the same conclusion. I would guess that different people would fall at different points along a continuum on how much pain is acceptable to cause to an animal for some good done (whether for the animal or for a human). Not that I necessarily will stick to my current position for all time, but at the moment the way I consider what is good/bad for animals may be a bit different than some others do.
Some poop at the end as a result of some Ctrl+X, Ctrl+V action. Sorry about that. Disregard the last three paragraphs as something that I'd pasted, rethought, and edited.
No edit button in a discussion forum? Curses!
You are assuming that the only way to enforce moral norms is through a formal legal sanction.
Putting aside that moral critiques of the law are needed for law to change, you really do not understand how moral norms shape behavior. A great deal of our day-to-day behavior is guided by moral norms that have nothing to do with the relatively few norms that are enforced by the legal system. I thought we all learned that in high school, where we encountered what is now called "peer pressure."
GLF
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
This sounds a bit Kantian, to think that there are 'norms' but could 'morality' be competely relative? If that were so, could we have a meaningful legal system? Perhaps morality is relative and the legal systme is an imposition of a morality? After there are cultures where morals may be quite different to Western cultures? Can concepts of right and wrong be trully objective?
A "moral norm" is quite different from an "ethical absolute" which is where much of the commentary seems to have been deriving its justification. The closest we have to ethical absolutes are moral norms; agreements between members of a society whether they be formal (laws) or informal (peer pressure). If the informal means are effective then I agree that the formal ones are unnecessary. In my example the "moral norms" prevalent in one society are no less right or wrong than those enforced in the other since they lack a shared frame-of-reference/judge.
Other means of enforcing moral norms are wars, beatings, brain washing, indoctrination, enticements, leverage/exchange, and ostracizing. Indeed, "peer pressure" is simply a combination of many of these elements so that a group, not having the power to legislate, can direct the actions of individuals that wish to belong; so long as those actions do not go against the higher authorities that the group is bound to abide.
This was intended for polobo, and I misthreaded. Forgive.
The idea of ending animal exploitation is not a mere whim. It is backed by logical arguments of ethical consistency. You've failed to refute these points and have only shown your own blatant inconsistencies. You love one species as a companion and you support the mass enslavement, torture, and slaughter of another species. How do you explain this arbitrary behavior?
In a world that just contains you, you needn't justify anything to anyone. In a world where you impact other members of our planet through your actions, don't you feel you should justify your actions to those who have thoroughly explained why all sentient beings should be protected?
Stop bringing legislation into this argument. There are no intelligent animal rights supporters who feel the time is right for legislation to outlaw the use of non human animals.
Raising animals for food is not enslavement or torture. Animals eat animals. Sit out side for a while and watch the cat eat the bird, or watch the bird eat the worm. As the gentleman above made the point..... we are the top of the food chain. I seen no reason to stop eating meat because it offends you. Period. It is a natural order. How much more simple can it get. It isn't something we made up and decided to do one day out of the blue. We were never grass eaters who suddenly decided to eat meat. We have canine teeth for a reason. It has been part of the evolutionary scheme of life since life's inception. It's pretty basic. Man has raised animals as well to work farms to survive. If you didn't have domestic animals to work with then you never would have had the chance to eat other things besides meat. We would still be nomadic and tribal moving from place to place. It is the way it is because that is the way it had to be. It is natural order. So why in the name of anything should millions of people change their lives because you believe something they do not?
All of those points you bring up have been refuted ad nauseum and are very undeveloped. Please make sure to read more of the discussion so that you don't repeat. The discussion with the previous poster has to do with moral versus legal rights, and has very little to do with your post.
But I can humor your arguments a little.
*Enslavement - defined as being compelled against one's will to perform labor or services
I'm sorry. What did I miss here?
*Animals eat animals
First, that statement would be better read: "Some animals eat animals". But I don't see this as a logical justification for us doing so. If your argument here is that "it's in nature" there are certainly other behaviors you can think of in nature that we humans choose not to do because it's unethical.
*Food chain
No. I'd argue that human cannibals are at the top of the food chain. They are making a conscious decision to use other humans as a food source, irrespective of their individual interests. It would follow, then, that in your world view, cannibalism is ok.
*Canine teeth
Our "fangs" are hardly equipped for catching and killing a living creature. Why couldn't I use that same argument in comparing our teeth to herbivores? Our teeth structures are far more molar-intensive than animals that subsist off of meat. And on the flip side, gorillas have enormous canines used for crushing and tearing plant matter. This is a very antiquated argument.
*If you're suggesting that "we've always done it" is an argument for continuing to do so, then why do we continually rethink the way we treat fellow humans? People of color? Women? Human rights have developed considerably in the past several thousand years, and tradition or status quo has only been the justifications of those who we now look at as "closed-minded" and "prejudiced".
*If your argument is that crop planting and harvesting would never have existed without the exploitation of animals, then you've got your work cut out for you in proving this.
*If your argument is behavior based on norms or numbers, I again refer you to the fact that ethical awakenings happen little by little. No one should change their behavior because of my beliefs. They will change their behavior because of their own. The problem is there is a lot of unlearning to do, because many people are steeped with the illogical, dated arguments much like those you've listed. Once we get past those, then we can get at what people actually believe.
Why in the name of anything should millions of people stop keeping black slaves just because you believe slavery is wrong? It's the way things have always been. We are more superior than they are. Much of the world's economic growth can be attributed to the efforts of slaves. People shouldn't think it's wrong because I do. Slowly, regardless of my personal beliefs, most people will be able to recognize that infringing on the interests of black people is unjustified.
This "arbitrary" behavior is explained that I enjoy the benefits of keeping my pet alive in addition I do not have a problem with the fact that I enjoy meat and thus, through hunting or breeding, must find a source and kill it. In both cases I may be selfish but am hardly inconsistent.
I have (through various shorter comments) justified a position (basically I am fine with the status-quo and I am intentionally ignoring a description of a Utopian state) but one that you will never accept as being valid. I accept this and understand that I do not need your individual acceptance in the matter.
I cannot ignore legislation since that is the foundation of the "ethical" code that I must live with in my daily life. I agree that getting others to accept your position requires time and debates such as these but if your sole defense is "I think we are evil if we do this" then you are unlikely to ever change the status quo.
I have no problem with your enjoyment of meat. I also recognize your enjoyment of keeping pets.
The issue is that these pleasures of yours necessitate the infringement of the inherent interests of others.
It is the identification, clarification, recognition, and eventual protection (first through a moral majority, then legislatively) of these interests that should be the focus of every debate regarding members of other species.
1a) Hitler was only punished once the people of our world joined forces and removed him and his military from power based upon a shared real belief.
1b) Humans are currently in a position to command the resources of this planet in a way that suits their needs and desires (food, shelter, energy, love). To exercise this power is neither right nor wrong but a fact of our existence. Owning pets and killing animals (or harvesting plants) for food is simply one manifestation of this power. Diseases kill human but that fact is no more metaphysically wrong than our killing animals.
1) what is arbitrary is your treatment of species. You've decided to cherish the life of one species and abuse/end the life of another. If I did this to different races of humans, you can bet I'd have some serious justifications to deliver to a majority of people who felt this was wrong for reasons far beyond legal ramifications
2) you say that your "I thinks" and "I feels" are justification, yet you insist that these are the flaws in the opposition
3) you state a conditional "if your sole defense..." but that condition is not met, because while I have feelings on the matter, these are not the source of my defense. It is logic, reason, and a movement towards consistency in belief and action that serve as my defense
4) you believe that your ethical foundation comes from a legislative body, yet a change in legislation has NEVER proven to be the most effective way to alter the status quo (I refer back to African Americans' right to vote).
2) My feelings and thoughts are "right" in-so-much as they match reality. If pet ownership were made illegal then my keeping a pet would be wrong and your beliefs would be right.
3) You forgot assumptions. You simply list tools to lead from assumption to conclusion with the implication that your assumptions are "the truth". I do not claim my assumptions as being truth but in applying logic and reason to my assumptions I come to a view that is compatible with the reality in which I live and thus find such a reality acceptable.
4) Without legislation the fact that a moral majority exists has no legal effect upon those who do not agree with the majority. For those who agree with the majority legislation is unnecessary. Given your beliefs the goal of relevant debates is exactly what you say.
HSUS make the point- Of course, pets are and should always be a big part of our lives. Ask my 86 year old (young) father. His key to happiness and youthfulness is his constant companion Duke, his dog. Shame on anyone who would consider taking the joy away from either one of them.