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
Praising Pets and the Idea of Pets is a Joyful Exercise
Understood, but
This line of reasoning is consequentialist: Pursuing questions of this sort will make an otherwise open public (?) closed to a discourse about ethics and nonhumans, which will further impede the just end of ending animal exploitation; therefore, as a means to stopping the "greater" injustice of meat consumption, for example, we ought to avoid raising them. This is an interesting argument. However, it by no means provides the foundation that you imply it does to your argument that as a question of ethics this discourse is an “idle abstraction.”
On our own premises regarding nonhumans and property, those who adhere to an animal rights-type philosophy should recognize that Francione's complaint follows. Avoiding the question by appeals to consequentalism (Doesn’t this problem arise with our entire project then?) isn’t valid as a matter of ethics.
- Alex M
August 26, 2008 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.
Ethics and just ends
A conseqentialist's perspective of ethics: Bad actions have negative (relative) consequences for the actor. If unethical actions are considered bad actions then there needs to be some form of negative consequence? What are the negative consequences *for the human* who treats animals as property by eating meat and owning a pet? Without the "consequence" the ethical concern is nothing more than abstraction meant to disparage those who oppose the "animals are property" view.
Because consequentialism logic results in your beliefs being incorrect you resort to attacking the method as opposed to the message; or at least acknowledging that in fact the fundamental difference between consequentialism and deontology is the heart of the disagreement.
- polobo
August 27, 2008 4:04PM
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.
Debate
You imply that the debate's goal is to end animal exploitation, this is wrong. A debates purpose is to persuade, understand and discuss. If the goal is to end animal exploitation then you are better off speaking to or running for a seat in Congress since there is where actual laws are passed. Indeed, the very fact that we live in a society based upon the rule of law supports consequentalism as a valid and proper means to resolve debate and affect action and change.
- polobo
August 27, 2008 4:11PM
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.