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:
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?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 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
Doesn’t Spaying, Altering or Sterilizing Pets Violate Their Rights?
More exposition needed
I'd like to see Mr. Francione elaborate his view in a bit more detail. Clearly there is utility in sterilizing companion animals in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but this observation alone does nothing to answer the question that was posed. Why does Mr. Francione believe the surgical mutilation of a rights-holder does NOT raise a moral problem?
- hoss August 26, 2008 8:29AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
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.
Not problem, dilemma
And I don't think that Francione suggests there's no moral issue here. But if the approach is a reduction of suffering and exploitation of rights, then less harm is being done in preventing further propagation than allowing more animals created at the hands of humans to come into existence.
The trouble here is that it brings up a more utilitarian world view to which I have trouble aligning. But this may be necessary, since there's a lot of harm that first needs undoing, and we need an acceptable way to do this.
Good point, though
- mike
August 27, 2008 5:09PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
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.
Ah.
I see. Francione actually says "of course not". I would like a bit more elaboration on that one, too. There is definitely a moral issue in killing someone who is about to kill someone else. Whether or not we can argue if it's right or wrong, there is still a moral issue there.
To save those held in Nazi concentration camps, many, many people were killed in the process. Was this killing immoral? I don't know, but I do know that it was a moral issue. There are very few people who would call the behavior of the soldiers as wrong, though.
- mike
August 27, 2008 8:55PM
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.
Pests
If you find ants, mice, spiders or other "rodents" in your home do you kill them? Are you asserting that humans have an ethical obligation to save another human who is unable to defend themself? How about "saving" an animal who cannot save themselves. If the moral obligation supersedes the legal obligation (as you imply) then are you not "duty-bound" to enforce your moral obligation at the consequence of facing the punishment of the legal obligation?
- polobo
August 28, 2008 8:14AM
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.
Answers
Pests: no, but, admittedly, I haven't worked through all of that, yet. I don't think this negates my stance on animal exploitation. There's no question about the sentience of rodents, and therefore relocation is my MO. As for insects and arachnids, I'm just not sure, yet. Most often, I give them the benefit of the doubt.
Saving lives: There are no direct, external punishments for disobeying a moral obligation as there are for legal ones. There would certainly be a great degree of guilt if I was aware of something that I could do to save someone who was in danger and I chose to do nothing, though.
Moral versus legal: yes. Emphatically. I could see myself as having been part of the underground railroad. I could see myself as having harbored Jewish people. I know that in situations where the law is no longer protecting the rights and interests of the citizens it's meant to protect, and the best solution was an illegal one, then breaking laws would never be a problem for me.
- mike
August 28, 2008 4:26PM
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.
Fully Committed
I'll focus on the moral vs. legal item since on a personal level I find all your responses admirable. In the third case you indirectly make my point for me in that only through the successful exercise of power and influence can a "ethical ideology" become a "'legal' reality". From my perspective the claim of righteousness in the first only serves to build the power and influence necessary to affect the second. Such a claim is not backed at some metaphysical level nor is it without its own biases and assumptions; and neither are the "opposing" claim(s). Lastly, the process of change and the end result (which may not be like the envisioned ideal reality), cannot be ignored. We are not magically going directly to this ideal state (nor may we ever get there) so some focus on the changes and the resultant effects is necessary and has not been addressed in depth; in effect assume that the goal of ending animal exploitation is desired then how to go about it. If a satisfactory design cannot be constructed then the status-quo stays by default.
- polobo
August 30, 2008 7:13PM
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.