Is it immoral to keep pets?
- Thread starter JoJo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm looking at my two dogs right now, and they are both lying on the ground sleeping. They greet me and anyone else in my family whenever we enter the house, they try to jump onto the couch/bed I'm on expecting me to pick them up, (they're both small dogs) and they lie on their sides and raise their paws up expecting me to rub their bellies.
They both seem very happy with the life they have now. And I definitely won't forget them when they pass.
They both seem very happy with the life they have now. And I definitely won't forget them when they pass.
This is also very true. My pets will not come up to me and look at me nicely because they're manipulative and want food. They're smart enough to love, and they really do. It's not just because of food, it's because we love them and they know that.DktrAgonizer said:
You simply can't talk about these things without owning a pet. And make sure it's yours. For example, we have 3 dogs, and I'd have one that I consider mine. I'm the one that spends the most time with him, and he likes to spend time with me, and guess what? I'm not the one who feeds him. Sure, he likes the person who feeds him but it's my bed he'll come too, it's me he'll ask to play with first and it's me who he likes to spend time with.
Perhaps you are just used to those yapping little stupid toy breeds I am barely willing to call dogs, but tell that to my grandmother, who bred and worked with show dogs for much of her life, and she'll laugh in your face before proving you dead wrong.JoJo said:
For one example, she once owned a Great Dane who was... selectively destructive when irritated at something my Grandmother did. Not just to the point of chewing shoes or ruining furniture or anything generic and widespread like that, but behavior that was clearly intended as minor revenge. On multiple repeated occasions, the dog would seek out the specific book my Grandmother was in the middle of reading, pull it and only it off the shelf among all of her other books, and destroy that without touching anything else. She never destroyed books at all on other occasions, and never destroyed a book that wasn't being currently used.
As for emotions, learning to read the body language of an animal is quite simple so long as you do not make the (unfortunately common) mistake of projecting humanoid body language onto them. You are correct in stating that such language is not universal, and that communication of abstract concepts is not possible, but that does not by any means indicate that we cannot understand at least some of what they are thinking and feeling, or that they cannot understand the same about us. I've mentioned before that I work on a beef cattle ranch, primarily as a mechanic. I don't mess with the animals directly very often, but when I do, I constantly have to be aware of their mood, and modulate my body language to get the desired response. If understanding their emotions and desires was impossible, the only way I could get my job done would be by the threat of and/or application of brute force, which when dealing with highly excitable creatures that weigh in around 1000-2000 Lbs (or more with some of the bulls) is not particularly safe. Weirdly enough, I couldn't even be threatening to them from the relative safety of one of the trucks, they don't seem to understand that a vehicle is far more capable of causing them harm than the relatively tiny little sucker getting out of it.
University studies have their place, but don't under any circumstances forget that there is a huge difference between what you can understand about an animal through basic biology, and what can be learned by directly working with the animal in a manner that requires knowing as much as possible about their moods/desires/intentions. I'm not just talking about pet owners here, I'm speaking about people in a wide variety of roles, from veterinarians and animal psychologists, to ranchers and zookeepers.
I don't agree with everything that the domestication of animals entails, like breeding increasingly smaller and unhealthier dogs to meet people's demands or euthanising the surplus. However, to suggest that pets are miserable slaves is ridiculous and observably false. The vast majority of owners love their pets and their pets love them back.
Well, for those who feel that pets have better lives under the direct care of their owners and are better off than being in the wild, I have something to share.
In my family's ranch, there is a tradition of owning dogs (usually 2 or 3 at a time). The dogs, though legally bounded by their owners, do not depend on them for anything other than honest companionship. They are able to roam free on the property, interact with other farm animals (they obviously don't harm them), hunt any small animals or scavengers that would occasionally creep into the property, and genuinely allowed to live their lives out unrestrained. We still see the dogs daily, so their not like cats that are constantly absent, and they are very friendly and playful to everyone, even strangers. They are obviously vaccinated when necessary, but other than that, the dogs live long healthy lives, free from any form of disease or medical problem.
And I mean various breeds of dogs. Over the past score, our family has owned Dalmations, Collies, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Great Danes, etc. They have all been very docile and energetic.
That's why when I think about owning a dog, I tend to think twice because I feel that I cannot give them both the freedom and independence they desire to truly live long, happy lives under my ownership.
In my family's ranch, there is a tradition of owning dogs (usually 2 or 3 at a time). The dogs, though legally bounded by their owners, do not depend on them for anything other than honest companionship. They are able to roam free on the property, interact with other farm animals (they obviously don't harm them), hunt any small animals or scavengers that would occasionally creep into the property, and genuinely allowed to live their lives out unrestrained. We still see the dogs daily, so their not like cats that are constantly absent, and they are very friendly and playful to everyone, even strangers. They are obviously vaccinated when necessary, but other than that, the dogs live long healthy lives, free from any form of disease or medical problem.
And I mean various breeds of dogs. Over the past score, our family has owned Dalmations, Collies, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Great Danes, etc. They have all been very docile and energetic.
That's why when I think about owning a dog, I tend to think twice because I feel that I cannot give them both the freedom and independence they desire to truly live long, happy lives under my ownership.
Yes, but your dogs still don't live in "the wild" do they? As you say, they stay on your land, they receive vaccines and interact with humans regularly. I don't think many people would deny that you have a great set up for your animals, but those of us arguing against the "they'd be better off in the wild" argument aren't advocating exclusively keeping dogs in small houses or apartments. There's a reason dogs and cats are more commonly kept in rural areas.CrimsonBlaze said:
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,170
- 143
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
Problem is that everyone and their dog (geddit?) is quoting me in this thread and I have stuff to pack for my flight tomorrow, so I don't have time to reply to everyone right now. Trust me it's nothing personal against you or anyone-else, I probably won't be able to reply to any more quotes for a couple of hours from now.Eamar said:I made this point earlier on in the thread. Strangely enough, OP has yet to respond to it (or any of my other points. I'm starting to feel left out)
Yes, animal behaviour is part of my course as it's a general one, I'm particularly interested in the evolutionary aspects. As far as I can tell, most of my detractors don't actually have any qualifications in relation to the arguments, they just don't like the implications of what I'm saying.
Which beliefs exactly? All of my points about the owner/pet relationship are based on fact, however I'm undecided on the morality of pet-keeping, hence why the topic is a question. I've ended up arguing mainly for the "against" position since that's what everyone is quoting me about, can't have a debate without two sides!
See above, plus I'm talking about bias here, not rigidity of views. I am not a pet nor a pet owner, so I have no reason to be biased in either direction.Zeckt said:
I can't speak to most other animals but specifically with dogs...we've pretty much bred them to be pets. That's what they do now.
There are so many breeds out there that are so far removed from their primal ancestry that they couldn't survive in the wild. The "damage" has been done and at this point it seems to be far more humane to keep them as companions than to let them run wild.
Unless you think a pack of feral Shih Tzu is going to have much chance of survival in the wild.
There are so many breeds out there that are so far removed from their primal ancestry that they couldn't survive in the wild. The "damage" has been done and at this point it seems to be far more humane to keep them as companions than to let them run wild.
Unless you think a pack of feral Shih Tzu is going to have much chance of survival in the wild.
No offence taken, I quite understand and wasn't being entirely serious when I said I felt left outJoJo said:
Thanks for clearing up your area of study, that helps me (and others, I'm sure) take your assertions on the subject a bit more seriously.
I was referring to the comments you've made likening pet-keeping to child abduction and/or slavery. Now I see that you're (at least partially) playing devil's advocate and are not actually decided one way or the other it makes more sense. I was trying to work out how you'd be able to justify killing and eating animals if you held all these extreme positions on pet-keeping.
No.
Most types of pets are social animals. Humans are also a social animal. Species can live together in symbiosis. Both animals benefit, the pet gets food, shelter and medical attention the human gets a companion.
Certain things like the selective breeding of animals so that they have health difficulties are however, something that I would say is wrong. Yes I'm talking about stuff like Crufts.
Most types of pets are social animals. Humans are also a social animal. Species can live together in symbiosis. Both animals benefit, the pet gets food, shelter and medical attention the human gets a companion.
Certain things like the selective breeding of animals so that they have health difficulties are however, something that I would say is wrong. Yes I'm talking about stuff like Crufts.
No its not immoral to keep pets. It is the right thing to do because house pets tend to live longer, are healthier, and do not have to worry about dying too young.
A) This assumes that animals have the same cognitive abilities as humans, this is not the case.
B) This assumes that the animals lead a life worse or less fulfilling than they would on their own. This is not the case assuming proper care.
C) This assumes that animals don't express genuine emotion, something that is not the case.
So yes I think so long as you treat the animal kindly and give it proper care I think its entirely ethical to have a pet.
B) This assumes that the animals lead a life worse or less fulfilling than they would on their own. This is not the case assuming proper care.
C) This assumes that animals don't express genuine emotion, something that is not the case.
So yes I think so long as you treat the animal kindly and give it proper care I think its entirely ethical to have a pet.
Having thought this over, I'd like to make a few amendments to my stance. While I certainly don't think it's immoral in and of itself to keep pets, there are some circumstances in which I'd have a problem with it.
For example, I think it's unfair to keep a large dog in a small house or apartment unless you have access to a large garden/field where it can roam free, stretch its legs and get enough exercise. Just as you wouldn't keep horses in a stable 24/7, I think you should think long and hard about making sure a dog has enough space.
I'm not too keen on keeping birds in cages either. It just seems unfair to me. At least give them a proper aviary or something.
I also think some people should put more thought into deciding whether or not they can really give a pet the attention it deserves before they get one. My parents would have liked a dog in the last 20 years, but they decided that since they both work full time it wouldn't be fair to leave a dog alone in the house all day. Hearing the neighbours' dog whining all day when its "family" was out wasn't a happy experience. They'll probably get one when they retire and have the time to devote to it, which I think is a good compromise.
I'm not going to get into cases of abuse, because that should be obvious.
So basically I don't agree with the specific points the OP has raised, but I do think people should put more thought into their choice of pet sometimes.
For example, I think it's unfair to keep a large dog in a small house or apartment unless you have access to a large garden/field where it can roam free, stretch its legs and get enough exercise. Just as you wouldn't keep horses in a stable 24/7, I think you should think long and hard about making sure a dog has enough space.
I'm not too keen on keeping birds in cages either. It just seems unfair to me. At least give them a proper aviary or something.
I also think some people should put more thought into deciding whether or not they can really give a pet the attention it deserves before they get one. My parents would have liked a dog in the last 20 years, but they decided that since they both work full time it wouldn't be fair to leave a dog alone in the house all day. Hearing the neighbours' dog whining all day when its "family" was out wasn't a happy experience. They'll probably get one when they retire and have the time to devote to it, which I think is a good compromise.
I'm not going to get into cases of abuse, because that should be obvious.
So basically I don't agree with the specific points the OP has raised, but I do think people should put more thought into their choice of pet sometimes.
I guess I should elaborate.Eamar said:
Though the dogs are kept in the property, there is really nothing preventing them from leaving the property, as there are ways for them to leave. We have found them outside of the property, sometimes because they choose to or often times because they were hunting down food, but when we see them, we bring them back to the property and they do so with no resistance. They have never caused any trouble when they have been outside of the property without our knowledge, so it's safe to assume that even though they spend time in "the wild," they still find comfort in living in the property, and returning to their owners.
Animals are only smart enough to realise certain actions when taken end up giving them a certain things, you can train a pigeon to press a red button by giving it food every time it does so, this was originally done to make a missile homing device (I kid you not) but later used to train pigeons to spot life jacket. just because the pigeon starts pointing out the life jacket doesn't mean it has started loving humans for taking care of it, no it just does this as it know it will get food if it does this.DktrAgonizer said:
The same is true for why your dog wags its tail or claws at your door or looks into your eyes sadly as it know these action have gotten it what it wanted. Also if you keep the pigeon away from a red button for long it will tab it more frantically next time expecting more food having build up.
This whole discussion is ridiculous animals are way to stupid to release they are pets. I grew up on the countryside of whatever you call it, a big house next to a forest with a few neighbors around. We had 2 cats who had previously been owned by a friend who had his own apartment, all they were doing was lazing around in the house or just outside. After a while one of them died of old age and we got 2 new ones that were much younger, they went around and played but were always close enough so you could get them to come back without raising your voice to much. They were given total freedom and if they wanted they could have left whenever they felt like it. They didn't, the first 2 were just lazy, happy and never did anything but sleep, play and eat. The second 2 were really energetic and would always run around and play, but they would still never leave the neighborhood.
There's nothing wrong with keeping pets as long as you do it right.
There's nothing wrong with keeping pets as long as you do it right.
The problem with your argument is that Humans are both self-aware and sentient, we have empathy, opinions and a greater ability to learn than animals such as cats or dogs, also, people don't always cage pets as you describe, dogs get walked without leashes and in my case my catflap is left open for a large majority of the day, shut late at night for safety's sake, My cats return, and in any case, there are a lot of things which when laid out in certain circumstances become horrible and barbaric, it doesn't mean we should do away with the concept s a whole.
Ok and you know what emotions a dog is cappable of?JoJo said:
They are more intelligent than you think.
And perhaps you don't realise how dead these pets would be in the wild with their own species.
Because a dog is not a wolf, a dog cannot live in the wilds anymore.
Just look at homeless dogs in the streets and then tell me again how happy they would be in the wilds!
So by your logic:nuba km said:
Why is my dog happy when i come home?
Why is my dog trying to comfort me when i am sad?
Why does my dog rather sleep in my room, when he has multiple places to sleep, all of which are just as comfortable?
I don't give him food for doing it, so theres no reason he should do those things.