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
An evolving relationship
Question for ToddG
How can we "assum(e) quality treatment of the animal" if we must necessarily intervene in the lives of two sentient beings (who therefore have lives of their own) to re-produce our "pets" for human ends, which, therefore, makes these animals our property? We cannot assume "quality treatment," if this is to be intelligible given the context of this discussion, if the object being treated as such is merely property: an object with extrinsic value only. We can easily, though invalidly, justify our actions by assuming some benefit to the animals being created. However, on this line of reasoning we could similarly argue that forcing two humans to procreate so that we can take their children from them is justified if the two children live "comfortable" lives. The question, however, remains: Should we be forcing procreation so that the products can be used for our ends?
- Alex M
August 27, 2008 3:16PM
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.
Symbiotic Relationship
Does the established relationship, however thus arrived, represent a symbiotic relationship whereas the ability for our pet species to live depends on their being cared for by a human? If you do not support extinction of pet species then into what environment do you propose to release them once you have given them the status of individual beings?
In a order-of-dominance world those with dominance can and do force lower dominance beings to act/exist for the betterment of the dominant species. This is a matter is empirical fact without asserting right or wrong. I assert that our world indeed exhibits such an order-of-dominance characteristic and our current state of being is a natural consequence of that fundamental fact. To argue that we should change the status-quo without presenting benefits relating to our rank in said order turns the argument into a metaphysical description of a "Utopia".
- polobo
August 27, 2008 6:11PM
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.
Polobo
You are assuming that we can benefit a non-existent being. You're implying the following: Our actions allow future generations of "pets" to be born; therefore, without our intervention, they wouldn't be born at all thus I need to justify depriving them of the benefit of existence. Why this assumption is problematic should be clear: A non-existent being cannot be benefited nor can it be harmed or experience anything; it doesn't exist. Your complaint doesn't follow as a matter of logic.
For the "pets" that currently exist, Francione has made it quite clear that we have an obligation to care for them. The question arises, "Should we intervene so as to force-produce more animals as a means to satisfy our desire to have "pets"?" (The benefit here is strictly for humans currently living.) Francione's negative answer to this hasn't been refuted yet.
- Alex M
August 28, 2008 8:31AM
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.
"Might makes right"
Quote:
"In a order-of-dominance world those with dominance can and do force lower dominance beings to act/exist for the betterment of the dominant species. This is a matter is empirical fact without asserting right or wrong. I assert that our world indeed exhibits such an order-of-dominance characteristic and our current state of being is a natural consequence of that fundamental fact."
Isaac Bashevis Singer wrote,
"As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behavior toward creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right."
- Alex M
August 28, 2008 9:19AM
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.
Man is inherently racist
I would not disagree with this assessment but neither will I judge whether this is good or bad. Indeed, I would assert that this is nothing more than a fact of our existence and thus inherently is "ethically neutral" since we cannot not choose that with which we were born.
- polobo
August 30, 2008 11:46AM
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.
Polobo?
Is "might makes right," then, a valid ethical principle? And further, ought we to allow our inherently ingrained impulses to govern our actions with impunity? An impetus may be "ethically neutral," but action is not; therefore, if that impulse is the application of force, can that be challenged as unethical or not? If not, are you justifying Nazism, for example? We are not challenging "thought" so I don't understand the point of your rebuttal. You seem to be using a lot of words to not say a lot here.
- Alex M
August 31, 2008 12:01PM
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.
"Ought we allow..."
Please pardon the mistype.
- Alex M
August 31, 2008 12:11PM
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.
Might Makes Right
I feel that it is a satisfactory model of ethics as they exist in the real world. Your "further" point is impossible to setup since any actions or decisions we make have consequences. Might does not equal physical force; as a society we have recognized there are other ways to influence the actions of others without resorting to the costly use of force.
Assuming the absence of "ethics" as they are generally applied (i.e., acting toward a metaphysical truth or perfection) stating that anything is ethically neutral/good/bad is impossible. I use "ethically neutral" as a substitute for this concept since the different between neutral and non-existent is minimal.
Nazism bothered enough groups that they resorted to the costly use of force to put down the regime. I support this course of action on a personal level and personally feel that our global society is better off for doing so even at the great cost of life we sustained. The reality is that if we could not forcibly end the Nazi regime then we would have had to live with it, regardless of our beliefs, until it collapsed on its own (think U.S.S.R).
- polobo
August 31, 2008 12:32PM
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.
Response on "quality treatment", etc
I will approach this (as I have been doing) from the perspective of the intrinsic value of sentient beings. The first issue is that we are not intervening to cause reproduction, the animals tend to be happy enough to do it on their own. Granted, keeping them from reproducing might cause some level of hardship, as might removing their children. I would be open to considering ways to minimize or negate these issues. It is very difficult (if even possible) to truly weight the pain of such parts of their lives against the joy and happiness of the rest of their lives. And frankly, if they have a great deal of joy and some bit of pain I think it is worthwhile to give them that life.
(continued in next post...)
- ToddG
August 28, 2008 3:47PM
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.
Response on "quality treatment" continued
As to the difference between animals and humans, I would argue first the question of autonomy vs dependency (see my argument in one of the other threads). Assuming you accept that argument that in the case of many animals autonomy is not always better than dependency (which you may not), then it is up to us to decide how best to raise and care for the animals we take as pets. While you may imagine a scenario of stray dogs, cats, etc, roaming free, I doubt society as a whole would support that. In the absence of the ability to allow such a life to these animals, being a pet is a good life. Even with the free life, there are greater risks. Moreover many dogs have been bred over generations to enjoy living with people, which may even invalidate a completely free life being better.
- ToddG
August 28, 2008 6:53PM
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.
Response to ToddG
No, we necessarily *must* intervene or the situation falls outside the institution of “pets.” Assuming the benefits afforded them by our intervention, then, does not do anything to negate the initial act of creating future generations of “pets” to satisfy certain desires for current, existing humans. You imply a situation more analogous to wildlife, which, while raising additional questions, is not a “pet” situation.
Quote:
“While you may imagine a scenario of stray dogs, cats, etc, roaming free, I doubt society as a whole would support that.”
First, we have feral cat populations that society “accepts.” Second, Francione’s (and mine) argument makes clear our obligations to “pets” who currently exist. Therefore, the issue of “setting these animals free” is erroneous. ("Freedom" is a red haring here.) The question is “Should we continue to force-breed animals so as to create future generations of utterly dependent nonhumans to satisfy human ends?”
Quote:
“Moreover many dogs have been bred over generations to enjoy living with people.”
See Francione’s argument at the end of this thread. He sufficiently challenges this position.
- Alex M
August 29, 2008 8:29AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
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.
Ask yourself ...
Would you be happy as you seem to imagine pets to be, if as a child, you were carried off the Earth and the human society that you are part of, by Martians and taken to their planet as a "companion" human in their service? You are well treated, fed, watered and all, there are no disease in Martian-land. Only you cannot leave the Martian society to be with beings of your kind - humans. You are forever trapped in a society of "other" beings, where you are confined within the walls your ownerschose for you, you eat what your owner decides you must, you go for a walk when your owner decides you must, and you can seek out mates and other human friends only if your owner does not mind.
If you put to use your capacity to empathize, you'll clearly see why our keeping "pet" animals is neither "natural", not good for the pets, because irrespective of the treatment they receive, there is NO way we can satisfy all their preferences and natural innate desires in OUR society. Thats a fact of life, no point denying it. Therefore, to me, owning of pets is immoral.
- Sandy
August 30, 2008 9:12AM
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.
Maybe, maybe not
If I were the result of generations of breeding such that I enjoyed being around the Martians and were well cared for, as well as if I were mentally incapable of more complex thoughts about what I want to do with my life and achieve, then perhaps I would be happy in such a circumstance. I can imagine choosing such an existence over none at all. The fact is, there are massive cognitive differences between ourselves and the current breeds of dogs that are in use as pets. I could be wrong, as it's a very hypothetical situation, but I can at least imagine circumstances under which being a pet would be good/preferable to non-existence.
One thing to add is that I would promote more modifications to our pets such that they are even happier to be with us and not have certain relationships or experiences that they currently may want but that even with the best owners they cannot have (freedom to leave the house any time, the urge to breed, etc). We can get into more details if you want.
- ToddG
September 5, 2008 1:41PM
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.