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:
Gary L. Francione stated:
"Although some people treat their animals well, many more do not."
On what is this statement based? I am not aware of any studies that have been done to determine this. Would such studies even be feasible?
Is there any way that such information could be garnered about what happens in "most" pet homes?
Sounds to me like something that would require omniscience on the part of the author.
Call me doubtful...
- magicmistic
April 21, 2009 6:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Hello MagicMystic,
Watch the film Earthlings to find out the statistics and facts in the first section of the film about pets . Millions of pets are killed in animal "shelters" just in the US alone. This should give you some indication about how uncaring pet owners are. HALF of them are turned in by their own owners. A third of them are pedigree animals . Only 85% of the pets in shelters are rehomed, the majority are killed.
Most pets who are abused by their owners would go unreported and unoticed behind closed doors. Even the ones who are reported and get to trial, get let off with a small fine. There is very little protection for companion animals and they have no basic rights. The anti-cruelty laws are there to protect property rights as animal rights do not exist. Anti-cruelty laws only apply to companion animals and not food animals or science animals.
www.earthlings.com
- Desert Girl
June 13, 2009 11:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Okay, Desert Girl. I watched the film. Of course, it is a tearjerker. It's full of graphic images meant to elicit an emotional response. But there were no stats that I heard about pets in that film. In fact, I didn't hear any stats in the film --- just emotional narrative pleas.
As for the stat you mentioned, Desert Girl, about only 85% of pets in shelters being rehomed, while the "majority" are killed --- I must ask where you learned math. If 85% of the pets in shelters are adopted, that is a clear majority. Politicians would love to have such a majority on the ballot!
But let's get back to the actual question we were discussing, which was whether or not most humans treat their pets well. This film does not address that. Most of the images were showing the processing of animals as food , not pets in homes.
As far as euthanasia statistics in shelters, those numbers include all animals euthanized. That means not only animals impounded as strays who don't find adoptive homes, but also feral cats, animals who come into the shelter very ill or wounded and in need of immediate euthanasia (as the kind choice). Also in those stats are, as you suggest Desert Girl, pets whose owners bring them in for euthanasia.
I will give your argument the benefit of the doubt in that there are some folks out there who probably do have healthy animals put down, for whatever reason. Perhaps they don't know there could be a better choice. But there are also folks who have their elderly, infirm animals euthanized at shelters as the kind choice. They do it to allow them to end their lives before they have a poor quality of life...so they are not lingering on in a life full of pain.
When your pets become elderly, what do you do? If they have a medical problem which is an end of life issue, and can't be solved, do you make the difficult decision to let them go...even though you would prefer they are with you forever? Or do you let them linger on, suffering?
As for me and my pets, I would make the difficult but loving decision.
That is the opposite of cruelty. It is the opposite of uncaring.
You also stated: "Most pets who are abused by their owners would go unreported and unoticed (sic) behind closed doors."
Once again, you are making a very broad assumption. You pretend to know what goes on in "most homes," just as the original author who made that statement did.
You do not know what goes on in "most homes." Why do you assume it is evil? Why not assume most pet owners treat their pets well? It is no greater a leap to do so than to assume the opposite.
The fact is, though, that you cannot support either view with any evidence. You and the original author are just making it up, knowing that some folks won't think about your argument critically.
I'm going to get off this silly machine now and go play with my pups. They need a hug, and so do I after indulging in an argument with no basis in fact. *sigh*
- magicmistic June 13, 2009 4:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Most of the animals killed in shelters are perfectly healthy animals. Many of them are adoptable. Half of them are turned in by their owners healthy. Some of them are strays too, but I don't agree with killing any of them no matter what their back ground. There is a humane solution to this put forward by Alley Cat Allies called TNR (Trap Neuter Return) and is proved to be more effective at animal control than the traditional method of killing them, letting them repopulate, kill them, repopulate, kill, etc.
I am in full support of euthanasia for both non-human animals and human animals. But strictly for the very sick incurable and suffering. If euthanasia is carried out on healthy people or animals, it is no longer called euthanasia, it is called murder ! That's exactly what it is!
While we literally murder millions of HEALTHY cats and dogs every year, we keep producing them at the other end of the conveyor belt by breeders, puppy mills, back yard breeders, accidental pregnancies and strays, all the while blaming the mass deaths on "irresponsible pet owners". No. WE must take responsibility and stop breeding them. Stop purchasing them. Stop killing them.
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 10:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It is easy, Desert Girl, to make all these statements you make. You and Mr. Francione can reel off rhetoric until the proverbial cows come home. Yet you provide no proof of your statements. Show us where you get your numbers and "facts" if you wish to make your case.
Here's one for you: shelter statistics are hugely variable in their accuracy. There are no reporting standards that apply from one locale to another. Thus, where are you coming up with all these statements that you propose to be factual? You speak as if they are proven, but they are not.
Either you are repeating the same words some other person has spouted before you, or you are making them up yourself.
You still present no reliable evidence, either way.
For what it is worth, I am in favor of TNR as well as Nathan Winograd's "no kill" movement. I support Bill Bruce's shelter management model.
Unfortunately, the HSUS and PeTA and the like are not in favor of these. They are fighting these programs tooth and nail. They are pushing legislation all across the United States this year that will cause increases in the euthanization of many adoptable animals .
- magicmistic June 13, 2009 11:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Hi Magic! You rightly request references of which I do not have. I am renowned for remembering facts and statistics in my own head. I thought I got them from watching the pet section in Earthlings which I mentioned to you. I could have sworn it was in there. Earthlings is not something I want to watch again!!! I am sorry I don't have the references for you and you deserve them. Really I should arm myself with the reliable references and not just count on what I remember! Cannot help u there, but I'm sure there's a good source of it somewhere. Gary on the other hand, unlike me, would have an excellent source of references available for his facts.
Putting this aside, I believe it is irrelevant how many millions of animals are killed in shelters as just one death matters. I also believe it is irrelevant how many pets are loved and how many are abused. One case of abuse matters. The fact that many pets are abused is not my reasoning for the case against pet ownership . As I said before, I do not take issue with how well pets are treated, I don't think we should be keeping pets in the first place. Why? For the very same reasons we wouldn't keep pet humans.
- Desert Girl June 14, 2009 2:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I can only go by what I HAVE seen -I have witnessed pet cruelty before. Luckily most of the people I know are decent people and treat their animals well. Many of the abused animals are from people in poor socio-economic standards. My uncle was the president of the RSPCA for a very long time so this is where I have got my information from in regards to animals being mistreated. Also I get my facts from the statistics of animals being turned in at shelters. Millions of them are given up for reaons of inconvenience or disinterest or expense by their owners to shelters where they will be destroyed. Millions of people is not a small number to me. These are the REPORTED statistics, so the unreported statistics would naturally be higher. Even in homes that are wealthy, because animals are lower class, they can get mistreated (like being kicked or locked up, chained up, not walked, etc).
Putting aside the abused pets , the very best treated animals are still getting the short straw because they are our property. We would never treat humans in the way our very best treated pets are treated. We never take away babies from their mothers do we? But we do this routinely to cats and dogs -take their babies. The very best treated pets cannot choose their social life, see relatives, go out whenever they choose as a wild animal can. The very best treated pets have been denied the most basic rights that we enjoy as humans -the right to life, to liberty and to happiness. Legally we can kill our healthy pet without needing a reason at all -and this DOES happen in the millions. Although mostly happy in our homes, our pets are under permanent "house arrest" and cannot make any meaningful decisions on their own that they could if they were wild. They are forced to live as if they were children even though they are fully grown adults. They are utterly dependent on us for food , water and affection. Many well treated pets must go without affection and attention when the owners are too busy or have children.
I am not taking issue to whether or not pets are mistreated. I am taking issue with the fact that they are treated at all. We should not own pets any more than we should own slaves. A happy slave is still a slave! (and has no rights).
So sweetheart, I'm not making it up. On the contrary, I feast on facts and statistics. It's what keeps me going. The author of this argument is probably the most educated professor on the subject of animal rights in the whole world. He knows his facts. He has worked on many animal cases and is aware of all the latest stats.
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 10:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
So, do you, Desert Girl?
- magicmistic June 13, 2009 10:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Yes I live with 2 husky dogs. Technically speaking I own them. I got them before I got an education about animal rights . So I contributed to the pet trade and all the misery that ends up at the other end (unwanted pregnancies & death in a pound) by purchasing. Only until recently I was clueless about the issue holding all the usual common beliefs we have about animals . I used to believe it was natural for us to live with dogs and cats and that it was some divine and beautiful symbiotic relationship. I don't believe that anymore after looking at the facts and a few passionate arguments with an educated animal rights activist (I strongly resisted the idea that pets are slaves!). I read a short book called The Dreaded Comparison- Human and Animal Slavery.
I am obliged to care for the animals I have. I will never purchase a pet again, just as I would never purchase a slave! If I ever want a dog again I will be sure to rescue one from a shelter and desex.
- Desert Girl June 14, 2009 2:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Would you write about your experience of watching the film Earthlings on the discussion board? Plus any objections you have about it like what you wrote above?
http://www.earthlings.com/discussion-board/so-you-saw-earthlings.php
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 11:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Hi Desert Girl,
I went to the board and read a few of the comments. Based on a couple of those, as well as something you said in a previous post here, I suspect I saw only part of this Earthlings flick. I saw nothing at the beginning that went into any depth about pets . As I've mentioned before, the bulk of it was images of food animals being processed while a narrator speaks about King Lear and Gloucester, etc.
I would like to comment as you suggest, but I think it would be better for me to do so only after seeing the "full" version of the film, if I can find it.
- magicmistic June 13, 2009 11:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You can purchase the dvd from the site I gave you. You probably only watched the trailer. You can watch the full film online at this site for $2.50 or something. Otherwise you can watch it for free at a couple of other websites like Youtube and free film (or whatever it's called).
Warning- it is extremely difficulty to watch the whole film, but worth it to extract the truth! I have a very hard time convincing anybody to watch this movie!
- Desert Girl June 14, 2009 2:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I am sure it is hard to watch. The trailer gives an idea of that. But I won't shy away from being open to other viewpoints, even though I can see the agenda. I will watch it as soon as I get back from a trip I am leaving on tomorrow. Thank you for explaining the trailer situation.
- magicmistic June 14, 2009 5:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Whoops! Correction! I was tired...
85% of the shelter animals are killed. Only about 15% find homes. Making the vast majority of shelter and pound animals the ones that get killed.
In my small town of 28,000 people, 30 cats and kittens are killed every week at the local RSPCA while only one or two are adopted. Similar figures exist for dogs.
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 10:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Hey, Desert Girl, that's cool. I get it that we all make errors, especially when we are tired.
Still, 85% is a statistic found --- where? Only in your town?
If so, I am sorry to hear about the way your shelter is apparently being managed. There are better ways.
You state the 85% number as though it applies to all shelters everywhere. That statement is unsupportable, as far as I can find.
For example, the "shelter" run by PeTA in Virginia actually has a kill rate of closer to 97%.
According to CCF Director of Research David Martosko:
"An official report filed by PETA itself shows that the animal rights group put to death nearly every dog, cat, and other pet it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 animals . Not counting pets brought to PETA for spaying or neutering, the organization killed 2,981 of the 3,061 “companion animals” it took in. According to VDACS (Virginia's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services), the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in Virginia was 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA's "kill rate" was 97.4 percent."
In stark contrast to PeTA's statistics, the city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada has nearly the opposite rates:
"Through outreach, licensing discounts for altered pets, and appropriate enforcement of licensing and nuisance provisions, Calgary has increased licensure compliance to 93%, increased its return-to-owner rate to 88%, and reduced dog bites and shelter intakes. Its canine euthanasia rate is now 6%, and confined to dogs with significant health or behavioral issues!"
So please let us know, DG, where does the 85% figure come from? To what program(s) does it apply? It is a specious argument to put that number out there, implying that it applies to all programs everywhere.
Once again, I am 100% with you on the desire to avoid killing healthy animals in shelter situations. To that end, I am involved with a rescue group. We pull dogs from shelters and get them into new, loving homes --- thus taking some of the burden away from shelter personnel and giving more dogs a chance at avoiding that needle.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the entire question of keeping pets. I am for it and I don't see that changing. But as far as answers for preventing cruelty and unnecessary killing is concerned, we can continue debating it.
I believe there are answers. Folks need to be willing to open up their eyes and ears and look at all sides, see real facts, not just stay open to the one viewpoint with which they have currently aligned themselves.
*****
***
*
- magicmistic June 14, 2009 12:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Yes u r totally right, statistics vary where ever u go. I know they change all the time in my town. The 85% pets killed in shelters was an AVERAGE of the united states. Even that would go up and down year after year. I heard about the boom in unwanted pets since the housing crisis in US as one example. We would never give up our children in a time of crisis, so much for pets being like "members of our own family" -yeah when it's convenient!!!
I'm certain the source of it was in the narration of Earthlings. But maybe it wasn't. I have nothing on hand as to where it came from. You were pretty good at digging up some stats yourself. It was these stats that I used as my main reason for demonstrating that a large number of people are irresponsible in caring for their pets (and the litters of unplanned pregnancies) because they ended up on the streets and in shelters. This is proof enough. Millions is a big number.
Most people are welfarists. If you are interested in at least hearing the rights perspective for animals , feel free to read the blogs, FAQ and listen to the radio podcasts, and watch the short video presentations on my favourite website www.abolitionistapproach.com
Have a good trip away.
DG
- Desert Girl June 14, 2009 7:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Hi Desert Girl
I've read many of your posts and I think that you are coming from a good point of view mostly of which I agree with, as a vegan and abolitionsit. However some of your comments perhaps need a bit more thought, like the one above about the housing crisis.
The housing crisis means people are becoming homeless and having to live in their cars , on the street or in motels. Most people in that position have no choice but to relinquish the animals they previously shared a home with.
Perhaps you were thinking of the Financial Crisis? I do remember seeing a news piece about people leaving their ' pets ' at shelters because they felt that they were a luxury they could no longer afford, which really put my teeth on edge. Of course for others it might be a choice between eating or feeding the cat, who knows?
I think we have to be careful not appear to only have empathy for animals and not humans - this is something we in the animal rights movement are often accused of. I myself am a vegan human rights activist first and foremost, but I support and volunteer at animal rights organisations when I am able.
Btw are u in Australia? There is a little Australian flag or is it New Zealand that pops up every time you make a post, but I thought you said you were in the States.
I'm in Australia myself.
- Trish108 October 28, 2009 3:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Hey Trish! Well don't we have a lot in common? Vegan, abolitionist, critical thinking, activists, forum posters, animal rights , human rights (isn't that a given?) AND Australian! I'm from the very middle if u want to know where.
For a time there was news reporting a housing crisis in the US and also Australia. People from RSPCA reported increased animals entering the "shelters". Now as you describe, there would certainly be (some) extreme examples of people sleeping in their cars , relatives houses, motels, or even camping/streets, hopefully temporarily. But that would be only a few people. For the most part housing in general would become unaffordable/very expensive, more difficult to find accommodation, lots of people applying to rent but not enough supply, all the while these people must continue living at their current residence, delay selling or moving, or rent temporary accommodation until accommodatation becomes available. We're having somewhat of a housing crisis in my own town, but I wouldn't call it desperate.
Some no-kill shelters have reported to only accept pets given up by their owners if they can prove they are in a true financial or health crisis. The vast majority of people who give up their pets to the pound are not in true crisis -inconvenience maybe. No thought for the life of the cat is given when a couple buy her later to be given up when they become pregnant/move house /get a new job, etc. The cat is like a dvd player.
I have many postings at the Earthlings ( film ) forum. It's a perfect place to communicate with people who have just watched the film and have been shocked and moved by it. They come very ready to hear the vegan message and engage in thoughtful debate. I don't go there very much anymore, but there's certainly plenty of evidence that I've been there! www.earthlings.com
Cheers,
DG
- Desert Girl November 16, 2009 6:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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
Should We Have Pets? Of Course
- From The Humane Society
By The Humane Society of the United States - Celebrating Animals/Confronting Cruelty
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Life without Pets - No way
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.
- Gus August 25, 2008 11:54AM
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.
Agreed, but
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.
- Alex M
August 26, 2008 11:52AM
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.
Logical Extension
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.
- polobo
August 27, 2008 3:27PM
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.
What?
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.
- mike
August 27, 2008 8:48PM
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.
Rebuttal
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.
- polobo
August 28, 2008 7:34AM
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 contradictions
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).
- mike
August 28, 2008 7:46AM
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.
Contradictions
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.
- polobo
August 30, 2008 11:27AM
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.
And just so we're clear
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.
- mike
August 28, 2008 8:06AM
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.
Contradictions
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.
- polobo
August 30, 2008 11:20AM
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.
Food Chain
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?
- faithinlove September 22, 2008 6:00PM
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.
Don't just pop in.
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.
- mike
September 22, 2008 8:41PM
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.
Polobo
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.
- Alex M
August 28, 2008 8:18AM
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.
Yes
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.
- mike
August 28, 2008 3:03PM
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.
Mispost
This was intended for polobo, and I misthreaded. Forgive.
- mike
August 28, 2008 4:29PM
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.
Ethics
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").
- polobo
August 30, 2008 11:39AM
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.
Law and Morality
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
- Gary L Francione
August 30, 2008 12:02PM
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.
Agreed
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.
- polobo
August 30, 2008 6:25PM
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.
Moral norms
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?
- sor666
August 31, 2009 1:05PM
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.
Polobo?
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.
- Alex M
August 31, 2008 12:09PM
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.
Alex?
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.
- polobo
August 31, 2008 1:10PM
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.
And that would be bad?
Yes- and that would be so good! Cats eradicate wildlife and many dog breeds are completely unhealthy (for the dog).
- sor666
August 31, 2009 12:58PM
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.
End quote contradicts his argument.
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.
- sonofwill
September 5, 2008 6:21AM
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.
Animal interests have to be taken seriously!
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.
- Gronlandic Edit
February 2, 2009 9:31PM
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.
We all must coexist
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.
- Mcdowelli76
May 29, 2009 9:10PM
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.
Lions Don't Have a Choice About What They Eat, We Do
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.
- Desert Girl
June 13, 2009 11:29AM
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.
CoExist As Free Individuals
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.
- Desert Girl
June 13, 2009 11:42AM
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.
Anials are not something to re-sell
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.
- Mcdowelli76
June 13, 2009 11:44PM
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.
Animals Are a SomeOne & -Amazing Reptiles
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!
- Desert Girl
June 14, 2009 7:55AM
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.