Do you remember your first dog or cat? Perhaps even your first boa constrictor? Whatever your preference, pets can play a huge role in our lives, even becoming full-fledged family members. But is domestication really in an animal’s best interest? Does pet ownership create a loving bond between human and animal, or does it only serve our own interests?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Two Choices -One Involves Suffering, One Does Not
I am making the human choice gradually
I have always wanted to visit oz and plan to when I can afford it. Most of the animals in my care are of Australian species. I also love their policy on wildlife. I fully agree with their policy of outlawing live feeding. I have over the last year been converting all in my care to co2 euthanized prey items. While some have tahen to this change with no problem, others are a little more difficult. A few have forced my to do the "Here comes the airplane comin' in for a landing ,open up the hanger" routine for 10 minutes or so. My point about to feed live or prekilled was that alot of people see either as wrong for for it is wrong to keep animals in the first place. I can respect that veiw but I am not planning to up quit anytime soon. I agree that we tamper with nature too much and that life takes it's coarse when it does. You should read my post about animal testing to get the full extent of my opposition (in most forms) to that subject.
- Mcdowelli76
June 14, 2009 2:16PM
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.
Snake Kills to Survive, Human Kills For Pleasure
The only thing that should be required for animals to be a part of the moral community for consideration is sentience.
What did u think of the analogy I made of being faced with a decision to choose which animal gets to live: the snake, or the mouse? Why choose one sentient being over the other? Why is one more valuable or deserving than the other? In the answer lies the discrimination. The snake is more "beautiful", I "like" snakes more, the snakes are my " pets ", but the mice are not, snakes are "iconic", snakes are "cool" animals, snakes are "rare" and deserve protection/to live, mice are "common" and "overpopulated", mice are small and stupid, and in your words; mice are "items". All of these descriptions and labels are irrelevant to morality and what is important in choosing to grant life or death. The only thing that is important to making a moral decision about someone's life is sentience and the ability to suffer. Both the snake and the mouse possess these. Neither species has any more right to life than the other.
When a wild snake kills food to eat, he does it for the purpose of survival, he does it naturally and it is his choice. When a human keeps a snake for the pleasure of keeping a pet, and then kills small animals for the snake to eat, the killing is no longer natural and is no longer the decision of the snake. The killing is done by the human for the pleasure, (not the survival) of the purpose of keeping a pet. The killing changes from being something that was essential (as survival in the wild) to something that is unnecessary and trivial (as owning a pet).
- Desert Girl
June 23, 2009 7:43AM
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.