View Full Version : Is keeping pets Cruel ?
Blue_SV650S
29-03-08, 08:55 PM
What gives us the right to breed animals (worse still in some cases capture) to be kept as pets? :smt087
These are living beings, not toys! :(
It has become accepted, but is keeping pets purely for our pleasure not immoral on the highest order?? :scratch:
Obviously you haven't got cats. Apparently I work for their benefit...
Tiger 55
29-03-08, 09:02 PM
I'm guessing our dog wants to be kept as a pet otherwise he'd run away when we let him off the lead!
Blue_SV650S
29-03-08, 09:05 PM
I'm guessing our dog wants to be kept as a pet otherwise he'd run away when we let him off the lead!
That is because it is all it has ever known. Sure a pet can be perfectly happy and as far as we can tell live a sweat life, and MOST (unfortunately not all :( ) owners give great love to and care for their pets.
But the debate is to question if it morally 'right' to breed/keep a living being as a toy? :scratch:
Tiger 55
29-03-08, 09:15 PM
That is because it is all it has ever known....But the debate is to question if it morally 'right' to breed/keep a living being as a toy? :scratch:
Actually he has known freedom. He was picked off the street and taken to the local Cat & Dog home. By the look of him, he wasn't doing too well out on his own. Domesticated see?
And a pet is not a toy, as you well know you naughty devil's advocate [-X
but what about all the ones kept in cages?
Blue_SV650S
29-03-08, 09:30 PM
And a pet is not a toy, as you well know you naughty devil's advocate [-X
Ever read the dictionary definition of 'dog'?? .. a small dog can be referred to as a toy ;)
Anyway, I'd say a dog aligns with many of the other definitions of TOY, not just that one ... e.g. you play with it ;)
But the use of the word 'toy' aside, you must see what I am getting at ... we are keeping a living being for OUR amusement ... you must be able to see the moral implications of that I am trying to highlight?!!? ;)
Balky001
29-03-08, 09:48 PM
it depends if you think a domesticated lifestyle is cruel (are we just talking animals here :D). Living wild has its downsides. There's arguements for and against but as an ideology I think if you look after pets well then there are benefits for both, so not cruel.
I see where you are coming fro though as its a condition of their natural instincts to live alongside man under his conditions but man breeds now couldn't survive so for those there may be no option.
Seeing dolphins perform tricks and live in small aquariums and have shorter lifespans is sad but keeping domesticated pets is another arguement.
... we are keeping a living being for OUR amusement ...
You're ignoring the question ;)
Obviously you haven't got cats. Apparently I work for their benefit...
:)
Tim in Belgium
29-03-08, 10:32 PM
Come down the farm and be educated.....
kwak zzr
30-03-08, 12:00 AM
yea keeping our cats is cruel so why dont they hurry up and run away?
northwind
30-03-08, 12:35 AM
I think sometimes it is... But I also reckon most pet owners do care for them properly and give them a good life. It depends on the pet though, but mainly on the person. My friend rescues abandoned farm kittens (the cats on the farm where her husband works abandon most of their litters) and hand-rears them, most get put out to new homes and she keeps some herself. They're free to roam and being one generation from sem-ferals they're pretty hardy, but they always come back. They're great fun too... really tamed domesticated cats always strike me as pretty sad creatures, they need that air of nastiness and trouble to make them cats. There's 100% guaranteed cruelty-free pet "ownership".
I think where it becomes a problem is people who can't really deal with it- small flats, people who're never home, people who basically don't know how to treat animals...
husky03
30-03-08, 02:48 AM
no-it would be cruel to let domesticated animals roam wild with no control and for them to get ran over by vehicles,starve,and be abused by bad dudes-once a person who is a veggie,and wears no clothing dervived from animal products tells me otherwise i'll never change my opinion on this one
I thought that Man and all of Gods creatures were simple play things for God who keeps us in Zooland Earth.
chakraist
30-03-08, 08:12 AM
That's quite an interesting question, I think that if you were to look at it on a fact-based level, keeping a being alive for the sole purpose of providing you entertainment (even on the basis that it's rewarding, entertaining in an emotional sense as well) is very unethical.
However, there's a certain angle one could look at that statement. You could say something along the lines of, 'Isn't by your rule having a child unethical?'
Taking the first answer, obviously having a child isn't unethical so that's our counter-example to this rule. However, having a child in conditions that you can't bring it up in is unethical, having a child for the wrong reasons, etc.
Therefore, I would argue that keeping a pet (most cats and dogs are domesticated since birth, I'm only arguing for this sort of pet, not birds, etc) is not unethical practice, but having a pet for the wrong reasons or in conditions that you can't bring them up would be.
Also, I'm not vegetarian in any way and I love eating meat. I'm a 'for every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat 3' kind of guy!
There are two different debates here - cruelty and morality - and the two don't always go hand in hand.
The cruelty factor is relevant whether an animal is kept as a traditional 'pet' or as a traditional 'working' animal. The morality question (to a full blooded meat eater anyway) is less well defined.
Originally animals were domesticated for a working purpose, but in doing so, we (humanity) has altered much of the animals physiology and mental outlook to a greater or lesser extent over the past 6,000 years minimum. Natural traits that were desirable were enhanced and 'undesirable' ones retarded and regressed through manipulated breeding.
Modern morality cannot compare with that of ancient man, and shouldn't be - but how we deal with the results of it can.
The morality onvolved when dealing with those animals that fulfill a traditionally termed 'working' role is a very hazy area - and in my opinion based much on the adopted morals of peole with regard to a great deal of their life. For example, a vegan would probably say it is morally wrong to have domesticated working animals... a meat-eater may say differently, an 'eco-meat-eater' may fall somewhere between the two.
With regards to those animal who have made the transition from working to pastoral (pets) the above human examples may find themselves more in line with each other. Then again, they may diverge again with regard to those animals that have entered directly into the pastoral role without having a previous association as a working or 'food' animal - for example exotics like snakes.
Yet even there there is a basis of domesticity - many reptiles are routinely captive fed, and have been for millennea (sp) as a source of high quality meat protien by tribes in South America, Africa and Asia.
Perhaps it is better to place a balance on the question - which is more moral - the keeping of pets or the abandonment of such animal to the wilds where they would be placed in direct competition with thier ancestors. Is it moraly right to upset the eco-system, any more than we already have, by the abandonment of humanities legact of domestication?
Then you also have the question regarding the definition of a working animal and one that is a 'pet' - there are those, professional medical people, that have stated that the keeping of pets aids things like stress management, blood pressure and mental health. So perhaps there are more incidences where a pet is actually perfoming a vital role in its owner's life - and therefore could be considered as 'working'.
Personally I do have a problem with breeding to humanities fashionable definitions rather than its working ones.
Bulldogs being bred with such big heads (because they are 'fashionable') so that natural birth is impossible and each litter must be delivered by cesearean = wrong.
Miniature Daschunds being bred shorter and longer so their leg bones virtually fuse and cause inherant chronic arthritis = wrong.
But perhaps, as the demand is already there - exotics such as lizards, snakes or tortoises being captive bred for the pet industry, so that the wild population suffers less, and in some cases is even bolstered or saved = right?
Samnooshka
30-03-08, 09:19 AM
Bulldogs being bred with such big heads (because they are 'fashionable') so that natural birth is impossible and each litter must be delivered by cesearean = wrong.
Miniature Daschunds being bred shorter and longer so their leg bones virtually fuse and cause inherant chronic arthritis = wrong.
Very controversial subject and i think if you look at what breeds of dog we have now days, they are so far removed from their ancestors, i don't think they would actually survive being "let loose" into the wild now as they do not have the sufficient instinct and in some cases, tools to do what comes naturally...
as regards to K's post i have quoted above... there are other horrible things that happen in breeding that make you sick to the stomach... a while ago a woman was prosecuted for trying to breed labradoodles... but instead of using a standard poodle and a labrador, she used a male lab and a female minature poodle... the poodle died when the pups were physically too big to give birth to. Such a waste of life to make a bit of cash... for as far as i'm concerned a fashion statement as they have become widely popular now.
For me its not the fact we keep animals as pets, as all of you know i have a dog myself (a completely spoilt one maybe!!), for me its the money making side of it that really gets my back up. The breeder we have chosen for our next pup doesn't breed to make tonnes of cash, she breeds to better the breed and bring something new to the show ring and breeds fantastic working dogs... due to the popularity of Alaskan Malamutes and Siberian Huskies, and this popularity is growing by the day... many what we call puppy farmers are getting in on the act and breeding without relevent health checks and without registering with the Kennel Club and also breeding a bitch every time she comes into season.... to me this is very Wrong!!! Dogs are kept in small kennels and the pups are taken away far too young and due to no health checks on the parents, problems can arise not only during pregnancy but problems with the pups when they are born.... read about Mia on my kennels webpage ;) She was also a case of people having an Alaskan Malamute but not doing their research first!!
I keep my dog not just as a pet, but as a worker, we do it because he loves it, and of course we do to. We find him entertaining, not just because he is our pet, because he has a huge personality. He is also a damn good worker too!! The day he backs out of his harness is the day we retire him from running/pulling. I think Lupo would do better than some dogs if he was to be let loose, Malamutes are one of the most basic dog breeds, and has a very high prey drive, hence why he is only allowed off lead in enclosed places for his own safety and safety of other small animals. I was on a walk with him on Thursday and he managed to catch a mouse that was stupid enough to walk out in front of him... he did that 2 paw pounce that polar bears do in the snow!!
I think i have gone off topic a bit but thought i should add my views :)
Sid Squid
30-03-08, 10:08 AM
Is keeping pets Cruel ?
No. HTH.
Blue_SV650S
30-03-08, 11:36 AM
Some interesting and passionate views there :smt038
But we are not concentrating on the concept I am primarily concerned about. So, Ok, lets reduce the debate and keep it bounded to the area I am primarily interested in...
chakraist got what I meant (then went on to drop the ball after the following comment mind you!! :D)I think that if you were to look at it on a fact-based level, keeping a being alive for the sole purpose of providing you entertainment (even on the basis that it's rewarding, entertaining in an emotional sense as well) is very unethical.
That is the angle I am looking at, indeed I probably opened the gate to how animals are kept/treated/bread by using the term cruel so loosely ... I am actually more interested in the morality issues as outlined by chakraist's quote.
Oh and what I am saying here is should we keep/breed animals in the first place?, not suggesting we release all the existing ones into the wild!! :D These animals would never have existed. And as it was raised, for the species to survive, we have to have human children (I'd say we don't need as many mind!), we don't NEED pets.
Oh and making an animal 'work' for a living is surely even more morally questionable than having a pampered pet?!?! ;) ... thanks for your views so far in that area, but lets leave that separate debate to another day as it will distract from the larger morality problem I am trying to get views on here.
SO in summery
Is it not highly morally questionable to keep another sentient being for our own use/pleasure? :smt017
I think it is!!! :study:
If you need something to understand how it could be so immoral, think of it as akin to human slavery. Sure you are feeding, clothing etc, but they are your slave (however well kept/treated), again as a parallel, many were born into slavery too ... SO unless we think humans are more valuable than other animals, it is the same thing no?!!? :scratch: ;)
If it is considered immoral to own a human (not talking children) What gives us the right to think we are better than or can own another sentient species?!? ;)
Think about it ...
slark01
30-03-08, 12:12 PM
I love my dog loads and I have no problems with keeping animals as pets, however when I look at it from an outside point of view then yes morally it's wrong.
But what the hey, when you think about it it's been going on for thousands of years.
As long as the animal is happy and looked after properly then I say sod morality.
oh blue its sunday morning, gies peace.
pets are nice, they make people feel good, they give kids the opportunity to care for something other than their own selfish reasons. every one should have a gerbil before they get married so they get used to looking after a rat like creature. lol
Blue_SV650S
30-03-08, 01:04 PM
oh blue its sunday morning, gies peace.
pets are nice, they make people feel good, they give kids the opportunity to care for something other than their own selfish reasons. every one should have a gerbil before they get married so they get used to looking after a rat like creature. lol
Pets are nice and bring happiness to many and can teach responsibility. Its safe to say most pets (especially cats and dogs) live a pretty pampered life, and for all intents and purposes live what seems to be a happy life. :cat:(unfortunately some are abused :( but then so are some humans ... but that is a whole different debate ;))
But none that makes any odds from the fundamental morality of it all point of view! ;)
Just trying to get people to think about this sort of stuff .. the argument it has been done for years and years carries no weight ... human slavery was widely accepted for years and years ;)
I just tend to have these random philosophical thoughts questing what 'we' do from time to time .. I'd just like to think by voicing some of my thoughts like this from time to time it/they can be thought provoking for others too :oops:
northwind
30-03-08, 01:56 PM
oh blue its sunday morning, gies peace.
It's sunday afternoon, slacker :rolleyes:
I'm going to do something really Blue-like here and throw in a total curveball... Is having kids cruel? Most people do it for the wrong reasons, as far as I can tell, and for selfish reasons or stupid reasons- because they're worried about leaving it too late, or because they're worried that their other half wants it and will leave them, or because they're drifting apart and for some insane reason they think kids will bring them back together, or because they just feel like it. How many people do it out of the interests of the unborn child? I'm not sure anyone does, though I'm no expert. So by Blue's logic, having kids is fundamentally cruel and unethical.
Of course it's not, but you can create an argument that it is.
chakraist
30-03-08, 02:14 PM
Lol, dropped the ball. Blue, I meant the child thing as a counter-argument, one that proves or disproves your argument by using the same premisses just in a different context.
Northwind, I think you were getting what I was saying there. And many people get pets for the same reason they have children. And you're right about the argument as well, some might consider it a bit of a 'slippery slope' fallacy of logic but it's not too far of a jump.
I spend far too much of my time talking about this sort of thing in class, it's normally about something ridiculously boring so it's nice to take a time out! Ethics is pretty interesting, because everybody tends to have a different opinion on it. I haven't studied it in a while so have forgotten all the terminology, but I think basically it's all relative and that there are no or very few fixed points of morality, it mostly depends on popular opinion; obviously in this day and age there are some things that have always been morally wrong, but we have no place for comparison.
Sorry, that was a bit of a ramble. About keeping pets, I think it depends on a few things. First off, there is the way the animal is treated.
1 - The intention of the owner in purchasing the pet.
2 - The way the owner takes care of the pet.
3 - The general living conditions of the pet, is it well exercised, etc.
If none of those conditions are met, I would say that it is unethical practice to own a pet.
There are also other things to consider- is it ethical to ever hand over money in exchange for a life; sure, the dude in the pet shop wants you to take care of that cute little doggy, but if you don't, it's not going to bust his back- he happily sells animals with that risk.
It's interesting. I do feel that the guilt trip adverts for RSPCA etc are ethically flawed though.
Tiger 55
30-03-08, 03:58 PM
When you start shouting, I stop listening!
fizzwheel
30-03-08, 04:04 PM
Is it not highly morally questionable to keep another sentient being for our own use/pleasure? :smt017
I think it is!!! :study:
So are you a vegetarian then blue, because surely keeping, breeding and feeding an animal just to then eat it is worse than keeping a Pet for personal pleasure isnt it ?
I dont think keeping pets is cruel as long as they are well looked after, kept in a proper environment etc etc.
I think though by far the worst pet trade of all is fish keeping, some species of tropical fish are injected with coloured dye to change their colour and Neo Tetra's are so in bred that their breed is full of weak genes and most die. Alot of fish stores dont know what fish go with what.. and give out rubbish advice when you go to purchase.
I've lost count of the times on the tropical fish forums I've read horrible stories, about fish dieing and diesease and species of fish being kept together in a tank where one is the others natural prey, but its OK they are only fish so it doesnt matter...
Blue_SV650S
30-03-08, 04:46 PM
...
I am a omnivore, so yes, I am not proud of it (and nor should anyone else be :( ), but I eat other sentient beings!! A bit like the human kid argument, eating animals is a bit less clear cut than the animal as a pet argument ;) I have thoughts on that too mind ... and sure enough, as we are omnivores, we don't NEED to eat meat, so is it immoral to do so? .. but again, that is another argument again (we can cover at another time if you like).
Oh and don't get distracted by how animals are kept/treated/bread ... lots of injustices can be quoted and conversely lots of tails of joy, I shouldn't have used the word cruel, just the word unethical.
When you start shouting, I stop listening!
Its emphasising the important bits so people don't have to read all the waffle too ... e-SHOUTING IS DONE IN CAPITALS ;) if you don't like my writing style or thoughts, then move along ... nothing to see here!! :D
...
.
The kids thing is a whole other argument and one that I was going to bring up at a future date, I have many thoughts on it and you have touched on a few there (funny, perhaps reassuring how you have come to a similar conclusion on the points you highlighted ;)).
Obviously you haven't got cats. Apparently I work for their benefit...
Dogs have owners.
Cats have staff :cat:
what about wabbits, mice, hamsters and such like being kept in a little cage........... that cant be much fun
Blue_SV650S
30-03-08, 04:59 PM
what about wabbits, mice, hamsters and such like being kept in a little cage........... that cant be much fun
That is not really putting thought into the burning question ...
Is it ethical to 'own' another sentient being for your recreation or to have it work for you? ;)
It is very akin to slavery, which is now seen as totally unethical in humans regardless of how 'well' the slaves would be kept ...
who really cares.
Pets are pets. We have a persian cat. it gets waited in hand and foot!
There are more pressing issues in the world then a debate about animals like dicks that rob people and people that dont know what a good meal with there family feels like
We should care because then we can consider whether it is wrong or not, and if it's wrong we can think about whether to stop it or not. That applies to everything, not just this.
I feel like I have done a good thing by giving my dog a home when he didn't have one. He's not there for my enjoyment alone. I think it totally depends on the intentions of the "owner".
We should care because then we can consider whether it is wrong or not, and if it's wrong we can think about whether to stop it or not.
and you think a discussion on the org will stop the world wide abuse of animals?:confused:
slark01
30-03-08, 06:24 PM
morality changes thoughout the years all due to someone deciding that something is wrong and persuading other people that he/she is right.
So is having a pet morally wrong, erm i guess it's your point of view of what is right and what is wrong:confused::confused:.
I like the arguement regarding children cos it's sooo bang on, had that chat with a couple of mates a few weeks ago.
-Ralph-
30-03-08, 07:49 PM
Sorry, too tired to read the whole post.
Keeping dogs and cats is not cruel. Take your average stray dog or cat and they fare a lot worse than your average pampered pet. A good owner is doing the animal a huge favour.
and you think a discussion on the org will stop the world wide abuse of animals?:confused:
Hah, okay. We can't change what the world does, so let's not care about anything we do ourselves.
i didnt mean to come across like that. I have a cat. I grew up with dogs and cats and rabbits. I dont think it is cruel one bit. Just saying we cant change the way people have acted for years.
Wayluya
30-03-08, 09:42 PM
What gives us the right to breed animals (worse still in some cases capture) to be kept as pets? :smt087
These are living beings, not toys! :(
It has become accepted, but is keeping pets purely for our pleasure not immoral on the highest order?? :scratch:
Right and wrong? Moral and Immoral? Good and Bad? etc etc - These do not actually exist. They are just mutually agreed behaviours within groups of Humans...........so therefore you have the "right" to do anything to an animal that your group of Humans has agreed.......in the UK this means it is OK (at the moment) for Dogs to be kept as Pets. In Korea it is OK for them to be Lunch.
Animals are simply animals. As Humans are, except we are higher up the food chain.
leemole
30-03-08, 09:43 PM
NO
MiniMatt
30-03-08, 11:02 PM
I tend to side with the pragmatism that's displayed in this thread. Ie, the moment a dog or cat says to me "actually, I'd really rather not live like this" then I'll let them be. Meanwhile, as the dominant and most evolved species on the planet we kind of have both the luxury and the responsibility to utilise the resources of the world as we see fit within our own moral compass.
Personally we own two cats, they were both rescue cats, one found on a rubbish dump, the other in Homebase car park. By human standards their lives were pretty crap before we took them, and via free access to a cat flap whenever they choose it could be argued they have chosen to live with us and are given the freedom to change their mind if they wish. In purely statistical terms they certainly will live longer healthier lives than if they carried on their feral existence. And I'd like to think happier lives as a result, but happiness really is more of a human concept.
Yes, we make them do things they don't like, such as taking them to the vets every now and again for vaccinations and the like; to use the analagy that has already been bought up, people do the same thing with their own children - we know, or at least we think we know, that we're doing these things against free will for the long term good of those for whom we're responsible. Your kid might cry when vaccinated, and she might not want to eat her veggies, but tough, currently it's "us" who are the dominant creatures and we use the responsibility of our dominant position to do things which the subject might not totally agree with. In the case of kids, they won't agree with you at the time, but in the future may well agree with you and thank you for your actions. In the case of pets, well, they're never going to develop the intelligence to verify the actions you took which they previously thought "bad" - your cat will die without ever saying "thanks for taking me to the vets, I know I moaned at the time but I know you did it for the right reason". We are left purely with our own moral compass.
My personal let off is that I've only ever had rescue pets. In this case it's easy to argue I'm doing the right thing as I'm not directly contributing to the breeding that has made animals this way, I'm merely making life tolerable for those critters who have been created as a result of past breeding.
We're left with the choices of our ancestors, rightly or wrongly. Would we embark upon a new program now then I might have a different view - whilst domesticated two foot tall elephants would be cool, it would probably be "wrong". But pragmaticsm mode engaged, we're going to have cats and dogs on the planet for a long while, they may be the result of our ancestors breeding programs but we are not responsible for the sins or otherwise of our forfathers. We are responsible, however, as the dominant species, to make the lives of those created as a result as good as we can within the human framework concept of "good".
EDIT:
Damn - the missus just pointed out that thanks to our benevolence and good will to all the little furry animals, our tom cat no longer has any b0llocks, and our lady cat had various internal reproductive bits scrambled. Both doubtless considered responsible pet owner actions but also things that I couldn't imagine our pets ever thanking us for at any stage of their lives. Putting those operations into a human context - if you were given the choice of keeping your manly bits, versus free healthcare, free food and free housing, it'd be a damn hard choice. So perhaps we aren't acting in our pets interests afterall, just acting out our own selfish desires to have a furry pet. Hmm, I'm going to have to sleep on this. If it's any consolation, there's a good chance one of our cats will drop a mouse head on our pillow overnight (I knew showing them The Godfather was a mistake).
lukemillar
31-03-08, 06:36 AM
For me its not the fact we keep animals as pets, as all of you know i have a dog myself (a completely spoilt one maybe!!), for me its the money making side of it that really gets my back up. The breeder we have chosen for our next pup doesn't breed to make tonnes of cash, she breeds to better the breed and bring something new to the show ring and breeds fantastic working dogs... due to the popularity of Alaskan Malamutes and Siberian Huskies, and this popularity is growing by the day...
I was walking past the pet store in town the other day and there was a Husky pup in the window. Now, while looking quite cute, I wondered how ethical it was to breed/import a dog breed to a climate that is far removed from their native climate! The UK is different and has quite a changeable climate, but Sydney!?? Warm and sunny? Just doesn't seem right.
Tiger 55
31-03-08, 08:35 AM
e-SHOUTING IS DONE IN CAPITALS ;) if you don't like my writing style or thoughts, then move along ... nothing to see here!! :D
Gaaaaar! He's right :( Bugger Bugger BUGGER
*moves along*
MiniMatt
31-03-08, 10:12 AM
Here's a way of thinking about it:
I don't "own" our cats. I'm responsible for them. We make considered decisions about their lives on their behalf. That responsibility extends not just to the individual critter but the entire species. We had our cats neutered, and that's definitely not for their own benefit but to better manage the species as a whole.
In the same way, I'm also responsible for the cow that provided yesterday's yummy steak.
And I'm responsibe for the other cow that provided my bike leathers. And the kangaroo that supplied the hide for my gloves.
And I'm responsible for the rabbit which died in the process of testing the drugs I use, whether those be life sustaining drugs, or simply the ibuprofen needed to clear my hangover.
All these furry critters fulfil human needs, the need for food, the need for warmth and protection, the need for medicine, and the need for recreation. Recreation is arguably just as important a human need as the others, perhaps not as immediately fatal as the others if withdrawn but nevertheless critical to human survival.
If the uses we put these creatures to are considered, the urgency of the need weighed and the creatures cared for "humanely" as best as possible, then yes, I'd consider their use ethical.
MiniMatt
31-03-08, 11:35 AM
who owns your cats then?
Legally? UK law treats cats as objects, things, no different to a stereo or telly in terms of legal ownership; as such speaking purely legally, our cats are "owned" by my other half.
But that's purely a legal definition. By pure legal definitions it could possibly be argued that you and I are not free but ourselves owned subjects of the Queen.
But stepping out of pure legal definition I'd say our cats are ownerless, myself and my other half are merely responsible for their well being. They began life as ferals and thanks to free access to a cat flap they're able to leave and revert to a feral life should they wish. The rare occasions we deny them of their liberty are to act upon other areas of our responsibility, ie to take them to vets occasionally, or when the "rights" of our cats conflict with our responsibility to some other furry critter - ie. when our cat drags a half dead critter through the cat flap we're now also responsible for this other critter too and will seperate them.
Alpinestarhero
31-03-08, 11:44 AM
I dont see anything wrong with keeping pets; most owners provide a safe environment for them to live, and food is always in supply, as well as a warm place to sleep.
Maria has a few pets; A cat (tigger), two guinea pigs which are allowed to roam around the garden at their pleasure (they are locked away at night though so the foxes dont get them), and two tortoises, also permitted to roam the garden at their pleasure (also have a suitable cage to put them in at night, so they dont get taken).
They are all healthy, happy and free :D
The cat dosnt do much anyway, it can go out if it wants but chooses to sleep, mostly on my work.
Matt
Our cat Frankenstein (yes black, but no not a she poor confused creature) can come and go as he pleases but is normally in the house when we are home and isn't co-erced into staying. Ok the rabbit doesn't, but when we put her in the garden she just hops to her run and waits by the door until we open it.
When they are ill they go to the vets, the eat the healthiest food we can get them, just spent 30 euros on a drinking dome for the cat because he doesn't like drinking from a normal bowl.
So no I don't think it's cruel. I think having pets and not looking after them is cruel - but that'sa totally different question :)
Stu
What gives us the right to breed animals (worse still in some cases capture) to be kept as pets? :smt087
These are living beings, not toys! :(
It has become accepted, but is keeping pets purely for our pleasure not immoral on the highest order?? :scratch:
Interesting questions Blue. I have considered them before but not come to a satisfacory conclusion.
Capturing wild animals to have as pets is a bit different to having domesic animals as pets and definitely not something I could consider moral.
Breeding domestic animals to have as pets is a difficult one and I really can't decide. Although I err on the side of thinking that it probably isn't moral.
But I'm a hypocrite and have 2 cats.
Ablazze
01-04-08, 02:47 AM
SO unless we think humans are more valuable than other animals.
We are..
The End...
Jas...
Blue_SV650S
01-04-08, 07:41 AM
We are..
Why?
What makes us so darn important?!!? :(
Why?
What makes us so darn important?!!? :(
because god says so?
Blue_SV650S
01-04-08, 09:32 AM
because god says so?
Lets not go there ;)
Lets not go there ;)
:lol:
Why?
What makes us so darn important?!!? :(
Nothing - other than the fact we think we are. ;)
Is keeping children not like having pets? They have no choice in the matter until 16ish :smt064
Shellywoozle
01-04-08, 08:10 PM
My doggy don't think it's cruel, he won't leave my side and cries when I leave him and e falls to sleep nicely on my sofa without grumbling :)
And he gets his freedom...... in fact his life is better than mine !
Blue_SV650S
01-04-08, 08:22 PM
Nothing - other than the fact we think we are. ;)
Quite ;)
My doggy don't think it's cruel, he won't leave my side and cries when I leave him and e falls to sleep nicely on my sofa without grumbling :)
And he gets his freedom...... in fact his life is better than mine !
But wouldn't he be just the same if he had grown up naturally with other hounds?? ;)
As I alluded to before, most pets get a pretty easy life compared to what it would be like in the wild, but that doesn't mean enslaving them is 'right' ;)
Shellywoozle
01-04-08, 08:31 PM
But wouldn't he be just the same if he had grown up naturally with other hounds?? ;)
I can be a right hound if I need to be, ask me ex LOL :cheers:
No I know what you mean, he is at his happiest fighting for alpha dog, but in my dogs case he always looses and Mummy had to rescue him, so in Samsons case he wouldn't live very long. :smt010
Ablazze
01-04-08, 10:07 PM
Why?
By been able to reason that question prooves my point...
Jas...
they claim were about 6 days from civilization collapsing ( i.e if & when the oil runs out ) if thats true by next monday you will be out clubbing baby seals with me....
Why?
What makes us so darn important?!!? :(
Nothing - other than the fact we think we are. ;)
Quite ;)
Which can make your question a moot point - how can it be decided if it's morally right, or wrong, when morals are things set by a superficially 'superior' species that bear no relevance from the perspective of the 'subjected' species.
Our superiority is soemthing that humanity is happy to be deluded by...
... whilst cOckroaches sit calmly by, biding their time to rule the world. ;)
Blue_SV650S
01-04-08, 10:13 PM
By been able to reason that question prooves my point...
Jas...
they claim were about 6 days from civilization collapsing ( i.e if & when the oil runs out ) if thats true by next monday you will be out clubbing baby seals with me....
No, I'd be out with a machine gun reducing the human population as much as possibly, so it increases MY chance of survival, I'd quite happily kill 3 billion people over 3 billion animals ;)
Oh and I am not a tree hugging veggie hippy, but I see humans as a vermin on this earth, not as a higher species!! :smt109
...they claim were about 6 days from civilization collapsing ( i.e if & when the oil runs out ) if thats true by next monday you will be out clubbing baby seals with me....
As a wise Gremlin once said, better put your money into canned food and shotguns. ;)
This is an open ended question and hence unanswerable...at least, you will get a different answer from every single person you ask. Is it moral? Depends on the moral framework you have been taught to work from. Why do we have the right? We have the right until another species (my money is on cats, btw) develop opposable thumbs and the wish to do the paperwork to rule the world. Would I, given a choice, kill my species? Yeah....I think I would. Everything nice about humans only seem to be applicable to humans. But then, watching "Life After People" cheers me up no end...
I also hasten to add that as a species we suck (IMO) - as individuals...I like ya....
Luckypants
27-11-09, 11:53 AM
Zombie thread.... :grin:
the_lone_wolf
27-11-09, 11:59 AM
Zombie thread.... :grin:
Crikey!!!
The only way to top this resurrection would be for Gary Glitter to make a pop comeback!!!
:smt020:o
Dya wanna be in my gang, my gang my gang? :D
Alpinestarhero
27-11-09, 12:08 PM
come watch maria's cat Tigger for the day. He loves his life, sleeps in whatever room he wants (technically has a whole big bedroom for himself), gets fed regularly, gets let in, let out whenever he likes
damn that cat
Spiderman
27-11-09, 12:12 PM
Wow, way to ressuruct a thread, nice work Vixis!
*laughing* I'm "special" I am ...
What can I say, I dont have much spare time and the interesting threads always seem to be dead with I decide I have 2p to contribute!! Better late than...nevermind.
EssexDave
27-11-09, 12:14 PM
Answering the origional question. I do not think most people keep pets as toys. As lot of people have pets because they care about them. I do not have any myself, but I'd like a dog. Its not because I want something to play with (no comments please) but its the companionship that you can get.
A lot of the animals wouldn't be able to cope in the wild. Yes this is a result of us being here and what we do to the world, but keeping pets can be a better life than letting them free.
This is just my opinion, and at the same time I can see arguments for the other views.
Spiderman
27-11-09, 12:16 PM
*laughing* I'm "special" I am ...
What can I say, I dont have much spare time and the interesting threads always seem to be dead with I decide I have 2p to contribute!! Better late than...nevermind.
Resurrection of old threads is a lost art my love, keep up the good work :)
Dave is pretty much right. Some pets are not seen as pets, more of companions/family members.
I've never lived in a house without a dog(s) for any etended period of time. My last spaniel I had from the age of 4 and he died when I was 18 so it was exactly like I'd lost a family member! There was a 6 month or so period when we didn't have any pets, and the house just felt eerily quiet as if something was missing. If I come home to an empty house it just feels completely wrong! We now have two little rescue dogs.
To answer the original question about is it morally right, most of the breeds of pets, in particular dogs, probably cannot fend for themselves anymore due to the way they have been bred for the past hundreds of years. They are no longer wild animals, and most importantly they are not brought up in the wild so have no idea what to do, how to behave.
metalmonkey
27-11-09, 01:40 PM
Well sister proved resist to all know training methods, but I'm sure as my neice grows up small hands are so much easier at cleaning bikes...
Littlepeahead
27-11-09, 03:12 PM
Isn't there a phrase dogs have owners, cats have staff. I spent all night sitting up with a cat who has a bit of a lurgy, then spent £200 at the vet this morning on antibiotics and a pain killer, blood tests etc. That's on top of pet insurance at £20 per month.
He has free run of the house and garden, sleeps on the bed, sofa or in my helmet bag. Unless I'm asleep too, and then he sleeps on my head.
He eats expensive cat food, hand carved ham and turkey from the deli, tinned tuna but in spring water, not brine.
And I just bought his Christmas present, the DVD box set of David Attenborough's Life of Birds, which he'll happily watch all day.
He spent the first 5 years of his life in a cat shelter - but now he lives a life of luxury. I've even made provision for him in my will.
If kicked him out and gave him his 'freedom' he'd probably ring the RSPCA and demand that I take him straight back in. No one can tell me that he isn't happy. I just wish all owners treated their pets so well.
gruntygiggles
27-11-09, 03:17 PM
Hmmm, missed this first time round. I can only speak for dogs really and what I have to say is this:-
Don't be fooled into thinking that we are keeping them as pets!
All of todays dogs have evolved from Wolves. They became domesticated not because we chose to capture and train them as we did with horses, but because they chose to come close to our ancestors and USE us. They learned that they didn't have to do all the hard work of hunting and killing and could live quite happily with the scaps of meat left over from human hunts. They became more and more comfortable in the presence of their providers and eventually, man learned that they could use the wolves as well in helping them find the prey to kill. It became a relationship born of each having a desire to make their own existence easier....we too are animals lets not forget.
SO...this relationship, however old, was forged by wolves, not man. Still now, you see remote tribes the world over that have dogs. The dogs are not pets, they get no affection or attention and they live wild...but they CHOOSE to live with the tribe...they know they get an easier meal that way and the tribe have the added benefit of additional protection, guarding, alert to danger by the dogs barking etc.
I wholeheartedly disagree with many of the KC's breeding standards and feel that we, in general have ruined many breeds and made it impossible for those breeds to exists without us. That is immoral. End of.
As for healthy breeds and the majority of owners who do love and care for their animals...I don't feel that this is immoral at all. It a mutually beneficial relationship that, I say again.....was founded by the approach of Dogs to humans....not the other way around.
As for the use of the word "toy" to describe some breeds. Again.....it's foundations can be found in a mutually beneficial relationship formed many many years ago. It goes back to the Tibetan Monks. These animals that hung around them, eating scraps and sleeping in the warmth provided by their fires were found to be an additional form of heating. In short...the dogs sat in the laps of the monks, both were kept warm by this, the dogs got fed and housed, the monks got a kind of hot water bottle and protection in the form of the dogs barking at intruders.
That line of dog is now known as the King Charles Spaniel......due to the way they were brought over here in Victorian times. They came to England in the 16th century and were first known to King Charles I, but are more closely asociated with King Charles II. Ladies of this time would take them on carriage rides to keep them warm....they would also keep down the problem of fleas as the fleas would go from the humans to the dogs.
Anyway...enough of all that. Simply put.....I don't feel the keeping of dogs as pets is immoral. Cats I can't comment on, horses is a difficult one as we did force them into domestication, but hey.....there's not much we can do about it now other than work hard to prevent cruelty and neglect.
My dog, oops our dog, is probably my 2nd best buddy. Through the day, if I'm at my desk she sleeps somewhere around me or under the desk. If I'm out visiting customers she comes with me through choice, and she always wants to come. We cover miles along the beach or in the woods, again her choice. If I'm away with work I always ask after her, and she cries if she can't find me (and sleeps under my desk).
On an evening she will sit next to Mrs B for a while but invariably comes back to me. If she's tired she will go and lie in her cage (door permanently open).
She is my, oops our, 5th Border Collie, covering almost 50yrs, and currently no.2 in my favourites list next to Mollie-dog who died in Jan '92.
Is she a pet? Thats semantics. To some she will be percieved that way but to me she's my no. 2 buddy.
Is it cruel to keep a pet? If its a wild animal thats caught and 'made a pet' then yes its cruel. If its from domesticated stock and given a good home, cared for and loved then it is the opposite of cruel. In my opinion anyway.
My daughter still finds it hard to eat chicken. We don't buy the organic stuff but we do buy free range. So I say to her, 'this animal was reared for food. If it wasn't going to be a food item, it wouldn't have existed. Now which is better - to have lived a happy and contented life, or never to have lived at all?'
Isn't there a phrase dogs have owners, cats have staff. I spent all night sitting up with a cat who has a bit of a lurgy, then spent £200 at the vet this morning on antibiotics and a pain killer, blood tests etc. That's on top of pet insurance at £20 per month.
He has free run of the house and garden, sleeps on the bed, sofa or in my helmet bag. Unless I'm asleep too, and then he sleeps on my head.
He eats expensive cat food, hand carved ham and turkey from the deli, tinned tuna but in spring water, not brine.
And I just bought his Christmas present, the DVD box set of David Attenborough's Life of Birds, which he'll happily watch all day.
He spent the first 5 years of his life in a cat shelter - but now he lives a life of luxury. I've even made provision for him in my will.
If kicked him out and gave him his 'freedom' he'd probably ring the RSPCA and demand that I take him straight back in. No one can tell me that he isn't happy. I just wish all owners treated their pets so well.
I'm glad someone else's cat sleeps on their head! He has a nice comfy scotsman to lounge over but nooooo, decides to pick on the poor defenseless sleeping kiwi! LPH - can I reincarnate and be one of your cats??!
Spiderman
27-11-09, 04:18 PM
LPH - can I reincarnate and be one of your cats??!
You and me both! Before i met him i wanted to be him, when i did meet him i really wanted to be him!!! Hes a cool dude as well as having a most excellent life.
Littlepeahead
27-11-09, 04:32 PM
As you can see, here he is making a bid for freedom. It's no wonder I wake up with hair like Tina Turner every morning.
As I type this he is lying on a fluffy blanket on the sofa watching the cricket.
http://forums.sv650.org/picture.php?albumid=509&pictureid=3728
gruntygiggles
27-11-09, 05:32 PM
My dog, oops our dog, is probably my 2nd best buddy. Through the day, if I'm at my desk she sleeps somewhere around me or under the desk. If I'm out visiting customers she comes with me through choice, and she always wants to come. We cover miles along the beach or in the woods, again her choice. If I'm away with work I always ask after her, and she cries if she can't find me (and sleeps under my desk).
On an evening she will sit next to Mrs B for a while but invariably comes back to me. If she's tired she will go and lie in her cage (door permanently open).
She is my, oops our, 5th Border Collie, covering almost 50yrs, and currently no.2 in my favourites list next to Mollie-dog who died in Jan '92.
Is she a pet? Thats semantics. To some she will be percieved that way but to me she's my no. 2 buddy.
Is it cruel to keep a pet? If its a wild animal thats caught and 'made a pet' then yes its cruel. If its from domesticated stock and given a good home, cared for and loved then it is the opposite of cruel. In my opinion anyway.
This post made me smile so much. This is precisely how Stig is with me. All the others love me and Dan pretty much the same...if anything, they all lean towards Dan a bit more, but that may well be because no dog will ever come close to meaning what Stig does to me. I love them all, but he's my baby. I treat him like a dog not a baby...but he is still my baby. If I'm in the room, it doesn't matter who he is with, even Dan...he'll stare over at me....leaning towards me. He kind of vibrates with anticipation and he's so funny when he does it. Last night he was having Stretchie cuddles, but doing this staring/wishing he was with me thing, so Dan said, "go on then" and he leapt up, bounded across the room and jumped in my lap.
Make no mistake, real and genuine alliances can be made between species.
beabert
27-11-09, 05:44 PM
Is it not highly morally questionable to keep another sentient being for our own use/pleasure?Apply that to having a child... lol
The child doesnt exist, it is of no benefit to the child to exist. A person choses to have a child because they want it to satisify there own needs. Do you believe thats morally questionable? I think so taking over population etc into account.
Littlepeahead
27-11-09, 05:59 PM
The real benefit of kids is when you are an aunt. You can buy really irritating toys that sing in a whiney American accent as presents, teach them swearwords, encourage them to ask mummy how babies are made and fill them up on sweets before handing them back to the parents. And you have an excuse to take a day off work to visit the dinosaurs at the Natural History Museum. Or is it just me that does this?
Obviously you haven't got cats. Apparently I work for their benefit...
lmao
thats is true
heard someone say the other day, dogs have owners, cats have staff, definetly the case for my cat.
I dont think keeping pets is cruel at all, espcially domesticated animals.
I think if you can offer an animal life that is as good as or better than one they would have in the wild then i dont see a problem with it. On the other hand people who treat animals badly are as low as pedos and rapists and should all be killed. by me if necessary. :smt068:smt068:smt068
RSPCA want to ban reptile keeping, what a load of Bol**cks.
Biker Biggles
27-11-09, 06:36 PM
Anyway back to the OP-----Where's Blue?
Milky Bar Kid
27-11-09, 07:06 PM
This post made me smile so much. This is precisely how Stig is with me. All the others love me and Dan pretty much the same...if anything, they all lean towards Dan a bit more, but that may well be because no dog will ever come close to meaning what Stig does to me. I love them all, but he's my baby. I treat him like a dog not a baby...but he is still my baby. If I'm in the room, it doesn't matter who he is with, even Dan...he'll stare over at me....leaning towards me. He kind of vibrates with anticipation and he's so funny when he does it. Last night he was having Stretchie cuddles, but doing this staring/wishing he was with me thing, so Dan said, "go on then" and he leapt up, bounded across the room and jumped in my lap.
Make no mistake, real and genuine alliances can be made between species.
I said it many times the weekend I stayed with you and Dan but Stig was just hanging off of your everyword! I thought it was lovely.
I have had dogs all of my life, we currently have 7, one of which is my wee Buddles! She is a black lab and is about 20 months old.
Dogs are pack animals. As are humans. They enjoy our company as much as we enjoy theirs. Dogs also need leadership and generally are not happy unless they have that leadership.
I certainly don't think it is cruel to "keep pets" and tbh, I think, especially with cats and dogs, if they didn't want to be with you then off they would trott!
gruntygiggles
27-11-09, 07:52 PM
MBK....he really does doesn't he bless him. For ome reason three days after having the plums popped out, he is super playful at the moment.
Milky Bar Kid
27-11-09, 08:05 PM
MBK....he really does doesn't he bless him. For ome reason three days after having the plums popped out, he is super playful at the moment.
He does, he clearly worships you! Super playful? My god, he's bad enough as it is!!
Dogs are a product of human breeding anyway. Most wouldn't survive in the wild as they're bred to work or provide companionship, not to fend for themselves. This muppet that's currently spread across my feet, is far too daft and too slow to catch anything at all.
Littlepeahead
28-11-09, 11:04 AM
I was awoken this morning by my cat jumping all four feet at once onto my windpipe then violently headbutting me for his breakfast. Considering this time yeaterday I was rushing him to the vets I think it's safe to say the antibiotics are working. Had he been out in the wild there would have been no painkiller jab or antibiotics and he would probably have died of dehydration.
I was awoken this morning by my cat jumping all four feet at once onto my windpipe then violently headbutting me for his breakfast. Considering this time yeaterday I was rushing him to the vets I think it's safe to say the antibiotics are working. Had he been out in the wild there would have been no painkiller jab or antibiotics and he would probably have died of dehydration.
cats in the wild? you can rest assured that there would be at least 50,000 to replace him. They're almost as bad as rabbits... at least you can eat rabbits... mmm
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.