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
Where Do We Turn To Maintain Our Humanism?
No Surprise
This argument from HSUS is not surprising considering what they stand for - that is: using animals as a means to our end is okay as long as we treat them 'well'. The 'Sr. VP of Communications' for HSUS mentions many ways in which pets are good for *us*. However, she or he does nothing to address the serious ethical issue surrounding the breeding of beings into a dependant life - not to mention the commodification of all non-human animals in the pet industry.
As Gary L. Francione mentions, the pet issue is really subordinate to the overall issue of animal use by humans. If you think animals are ours to use as we please, then you won't see anything wrong with having pets. If your compassion has evolved to include all living creatures, then you'll see the inherent problem with the practise - no matter how warm and cuddly they may be (like my rescued rottweiler).
- Niilo John Van Steinburg
August 25, 2008 5:05PM
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.
life isn't black and white
many animals evolve to be dependent on other creatures in the wild. This alone is not unnatural or a definite sign of an unethical state.
"If you think animals are ours to use as we please, then you won't see anything wrong with having pets"
I don't think animals are ours to use any way we please AND I think it's ok to continue having pets. I guess I don't fit into your black and white world view.
- reckoner
August 25, 2008 9:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(4)
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.
many shades
I agree with reckoner on this point. The HSUS does indeed fail to consider the point of view of the animal in most of their arguments. Even in the case in which the animal's perspective is considered, it is a very shallow perspective. Nonetheless, the dependency vs autonomy issue is not clear-cut. I can see the value in either case, depending upon circumstances. In an uncertain world, autonomy would appear to be more beneficial, while in a less dangerous world, autonomy would not be as important and therefore might ultimately be less stressful and more enjoyable. Even humans might enjoy dependency, though we tend to argue for autonomy because otherwise we are likely to be taken advantage of. If we have laws and sufficient enforcement to treat animals well and not let them be taken advantage of, should we stop the practice of giving animals very pleasurable lives? Perhaps this is not yet the world we live in, but we could work towards it.
- ToddG
August 27, 2008 7:44AM
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.
Maybe not any way we please...
but you do believe that animals are ours to use, and you still fail to explain how this is morally justifiable.
And don't worry, I'm not stalking you. It's just this very topic seemed to stem directly from the debate you and I had on the previous topic.
I continue to stand by the fact that neither this nor the meat question works to answer the most fundamental one: by what right can we justify using other species? Successfully argue that point, and I'd logically have to concede on all issues: food, clothing, entertainment, and pets.
- mike
August 27, 2008 3:13PM
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.
Justify to whom
To what authority would such a justification be submitted? It appears that the two fundamental authorities for US citizens, the congress and the UN, while publicly deploring cruelty to animals, have accepted that the persons under their authority have the right to own (use) animals.
Any higher authority is either imagined or, if real, does not publicly enforce any judgments upon the persons under its authority. Given the absence of physical proof of its existence I would conclude that said authority is either imagined or does not in fact judge the actions of the persons under its authority and instead lets them lead lives as they and others sharing their physical world see fit. If I am wrong and will be sentenced to "hell" for owning an animal then that is a consequence that affects only myself and which I am solely at fault in my ignorance and disbelief.
- polobo
August 27, 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.
I don't understand
I don't believe that an authority figure is needed for moral consistency. The effort to identify a behavior as "just" does not need to then be presented to a judging body. Punitive measures are not the primary modifier of human behavior. It's important to believe that once the truth is exposed, people will choose to do what is right.
Morality must be one of these fundamental authorities you speak of, and it must transcend legislation. We've seen it before. A majority of people had to believe that black Americans should vote before legislation had any real authority over the matter. When the people disagree, loopholes will forever be utilized.
- mike
August 27, 2008 8:35PM
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.
Ideal vs Real
I do understand your belief system, since it is one that many people whose parents follow Christian teachings learn. I also accept that you cannot understand mine because it requires that you discard many of the foundations your belief system is founded upon. I am fine with this and actually find many merits in having such a moral absolute. But in my observations of reality and history I find that your system of beliefs, while appealing, do not fit and thus I "reject" it; mainly the implied assertion that humans are imperfect and that there exists some perfection that we can and should aspire to.
As for truth, the main/only truths that can really be exposed are physical truths. Physical truths simply are and do not imply good or bad. Humans die, gravity exists a force of 9.8 m/s; these are physical truths. Metaphysical truths cannot be so measured even if they do exist.
- polobo
August 28, 2008 8:03AM
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.
Again, where's your argument?
Your nihilistic world view is just too difficult to support and I don't feel you have. While I admit I struggle with the potential metaphysical implications of recognizing seemingly absolute truths, being the atheist I am, I'm not worried. I recognize that there is one consistent trait in us all that works to explain why the Holocaust was wrong. It's called empathy. Perhaps a truth such as this does not exist outside of humanity, by must it in order for it to make sense to those of us with this innate ethical characteristic?
You can try and marginalize my arguments by suggesting that I am similar to those raised with dogmatic religious ideals, but I'd prefer if you simply point out the actual flaw in my reasoning: 1) all sentient beings have interests 2) we should be consistent in recognizing rights that stand to protect those interests
Don't rebut by simply saying that "I believe there is no morality and change can never happen." That sounds to me like a leap of faith. :-)
- mike
August 28, 2008 3:56PM
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.
red herring
"but you do believe that animals are ours to use"
I think this is a red herring. I don't not believe that animals are commodities that we have absolute control over and I won't fall into the trap of framing this as a false black and white dichotomy.
There is a fundamental difference between a farmer having a well cared for cat that they "use" to hunt mice, and a factory farm that "uses" animals in the most disgusting way. Conflating the two is not a convincing argument in my eyes and forcing people to pick "use" or "not use" is a false choice.
- reckoner
August 28, 2008 11:22AM
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.
Then give me an example
One that is void of our tradition-entrenched predisposition. Give me an example with human beings.
You seem to suggest that these arguments are trickery, when in fact it is your views on the welfare of beings that are not allowed to make fundamental decisions for themselves for their entire lives that I call into question.
There can be an enormous (and perhaps an ever-growing) difference between how a small town farmer treats his heifer and how a factory farm milks them dead within a fifth of their life expectancy. THAT has never been my argument. What I came to realize, though, is that the mentality of using animals to any degree is what will keep us, as a species with incredible potential to control with seemingly unending might, from ever recognizing our speciesist attitudes. It is these very attitudes that makes arguments for the betterment of welfare for animals that we enslave moot.
- mike
August 28, 2008 3:15PM
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.
Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, carnivores gotta...
Do sharks have to justify their use of (tasty) seals and other animals to some committee?
What about hawks? Is it necessary for them to appeal to some moral "authority" in order to eat mice and other rodentia?
Do bullfrogs feel constrained to explain why they eat insects, fish, other frogs?
Would you have felines (of any stripe) petition to be allowed to follow their nature as obligate carnivores, lest it impinge on the rights of some other species not to be eaten?
I could go on and on...
- magicmistic
April 21, 2009 8:52PM
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.
People see grey when it suits them
I suppose I should allow for those who refuse to see that the breeding of animals into a dependant life is "using" them. The same as those people who eat meat and don't really think about the fact that it comes from an animal who was killed for their taste buds.
I contend that that if you feel it is okay to breed animals into master-pet relationships, then you *do* feel that they are our to use as we please. I can't see how you can deny this, unless, as mentioned above, you refuse to see the logic.
As for your comment on evolution, that has no basis on morality. It's the same flimsy logic that people use to defend the eating of animals - by saying that such an act is performed continually in the wild.
- Niilo John Van Steinburg
August 28, 2008 8:09PM
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.
allow me to repeat myself
There is a fundamental difference between a farmer having a well cared for cat that they "use" to hunt mice, and a factory farm that "uses" animals in the most disgusting way. Conflating the two is not a convincing argument in my eyes and forcing people to pick "use" or "not use" is a false choice.
- reckoner
August 29, 2008 9:11AM
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.
Inaccurate comparison
You say: "many animals evolve to be dependent on other creatures in the wild. This alone is not unnatural or a definite sign of an unethical state."
Firstly, don t know what you mean by 'depending' on other animals. I imagine you are talking about symbiosis : An ecological relationship between two animals of different species for mutual benefit AND by mutual consent. With our ownership of animals that were bred to serve us as companions in our society, and totally removed from theirs, there is neither mutual benefit, nor mutual consent.
Second, even if I were to concede that wild animals do depend on others, this point is not relevant to pet ownership. "Pets" wouldn't depend on us naturally if we din't bring them in our society and leave them helpless in the first place. So basically, we artificially create their dependence on us and then use the self-righteous pseudo-argument of dependence. Thats like robbing a person of all his money, and then saying : "Well, we've gotta help the poor guy, you know? He depends on us for his very survival." and then taking the credit for satisfying his artificially created dependence on you.
- Sandy
August 30, 2008 8:47AM
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.
natural fallacy
"With our ownership of animals that were bred to serve us as companions in our society, and totally removed from theirs, there is neither mutual benefit, nor mutual consent."
I don't believe this is true in all cases. Many domesticated animals have much better lives as pets than they'd ever have in the wild. As I've said in other comments, I've personally known pets that choose to be pets and could have returned to the wild at any point.
Your second point is the naturalistic fallacy. X is natural therefore x is good and anything that is not x is wrong. What's funny is that you AR people claim that we are animals just like all other animals, but by making claims about "natural" you are putting us above other animals. If we are animals like all others then anything we do is by definition natural.
- reckoner
August 30, 2008 9:48AM
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.
A gross generalization; A straw man
You may have seen some domesticated animals whose behaviour might have led you to think that they prefer being domesticated. How does that give us the right to bring other creatures into our society as domesticated? Secondly, a domesticated animal cannot survive the way its feral fellows do because they have been physically and psychologically mutated to suit our needs. So how do you expect a domesticated cow to step out of its patch and walk off into the forests ?
Next, your "naturalistic fallacy" counter is a straw man attack. Anyway, i never claimed that natural = good. Perhaps I should not have used the word "natural" because its intended meaning can easily be misunderstood. Essentially, my point was this: You cannot engineer a situation where you unnecessarily put the other being at disadvantage and thereby,force his dependence on you; and then "support" him/her in that situation of disadvantage and claim a moral license for putting them there in the first place.
Your attempt at a response to this latter point was a straw man argument, and I must say, with all due respect, I suspect its the best counter you can come up with.
- Sandy
August 30, 2008 10:03AM
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.
Not Claimed
Just as I disagree with the claim of moral license on the part of those who wish to support the abolishment the pet/mean industries you disagree with those who claim the same in their ownership of pets and meat. In either case who is granting the license? I do not claim, nor need, a moral license (other than a self-granted one) to eat meat or own a pet in my country. See my other recent comments for more details.
- polobo
August 30, 2008 12:38PM
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.
oversimplification
"You cannot engineer a situation where you unnecessarily put the other being at disadvantage and thereby,force his dependence on you; and then "support" him/her in that situation of disadvantage and claim a moral license for putting them there in the first place. "
This situation does not apply to all pets or all breeding. My primary point is that the absolute lines you try to draw do not map cleanly to the real world.
Now the secondary points. I fail to understand your implicit premise which is that the only "right" state for animals is one devoid of man. I think it's clear that many pets have an advantage due to their status, if by advantage we mean survival of the species. Isn't that natural and the purpose of evolution?
- reckoner
August 30, 2008 2:56PM
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.
You refuse to listen
As someone HAS already pointed out to you, neither I nor anyone else here claims to provide ABSOLUTE lines. Your repeated straw men attacks indicate to me an absence of valid recourse within your argument.
My response applies to the institution of pet ownership and not necessarily every individual case of pet ownership. I myself have a pet dog at home, whom I took in from the streets when he was 3 months old. Am I doing something immoral by owning him as my pet? I think not.
The institution of pet ownership on the other hand, involves breeding of pets solely for satisfying our need for companionship from non-human beings. So, in that regard, it is basically slavery because we never pause to consider the interests of the being at the receiving end.
I have also responded to your second argument (which you repeat btw) elsewhere. If you tell me that you see nothing troublesome about the idea of a human being brought up humanely by Martians as a slave companionship (or as a "pet"), then I'll stop right there.
I have also already responded to the 'natural' and 'evolution' pseudo-arguments.
P.S: I am responding to you further unless you put up a genuine counter-argument.
- Sandy
August 30, 2008 9:37PM
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.
Evolution does not mean better
Evolution means that subsequent generations are different compared to their ancestors; nothing more and nothing less. To imply that said evolution leads toward some ultimate manifestation (i.e., god) assumes facts not in evidence.
As for ownership/property; in many ways everyone and everything is the property of something else. Humans as a species are the property of the environment that we live in. We as citizens submit ourselves to the government whose land we reside upon. To remove that dependence may be worse than the supposed disease. Either way, my ownership of an animal does not affect your life and our society as a whole has judge that it is not obliged to protect animals and afford them broad rights as individuals. Thus in granting our individuality we have let each member decide for themselves (for the most part) how to treat animals.
- polobo
August 27, 2008 3:50PM
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.