I think having pets is fundamentally unethical. Your dog lives in a tiny fraction of the world with absolutely no agency and only “loves” you because it is literally programmed to after centuries of breeding for traits that promote that. Your pet did not choose you and if it “loves” you at all, it’s only because they are utterly dependent on you because they have been taken far from where their species can survive or that place has been ruined by humanity. Animals cannot consent period and by extension cannot and never do consent to being property.
I’m not a PETA freak. I don’t shame people for having pets, but I’m unable to think of pets without considering these facts and it makes the entire thing seem gross and wrong to me. I rarely bring it up because it never leads to an engaging or productive conversation. No one ever really has an argument against it besides something along the lines of “Humans have had pets for millennia” or “It’s too late to put them back” which don’t actually prove me wrong in any way.
if it makes you feel better, there are different ways to take care of a pet (or companion animal if you prefer that term)
my dogs (**my **as in they are under my care, like children) don’t know tricks, they are free to perform any behavior that doesn’t put them or any other animal in danger
around me they are free to keep doing whatever they want or ask to be pet, the only orders I give them is to sit down and stay still when I give them treats so they don’t start a fight over it and to move from one part of my yard to another when we need to move heavy stuff
whenever the capitalist system let’s me keep enough energy after my chores I take them out for walks but when that’s not the case I play with them in my yard
Domestication is interesting because your average German shepherd is arguably living a significantly higher quality of life than a wolf living in the wild. While they may not have the same “freedom” as a wolf living in the woods, the wolf lives in its own shackles, always fighting for food, shelter and protection from predators. While I don’t disagree that having pets is fundamentally a problematic concept, I also think its always a bad idea to attribute abstract human traits and concepts onto animals, most of which want food, water, safe territory, and engagement.
Almost every animal specialist I talked to never talks about animals as if they were people, they always have a sense of respect for them being an animal and of a different species. I suppose they have a greater understanding of what an animal “wants”.
The second part of the question was were you right, and I think you’re probably wrong most of the time on your stance, but there are definitely areas where you are correct.
My argument would be that even though many of these pets have ingrained psychosocial issues that make them more amenable to being owned as pets, the counterpoint is, is there is no fundamental and absolute right way to live.
If there’s a tiny little section where people and animals can be happy, then there’s nothing wrong with that happiness.
Blaming someone for not taking the entirety of the universe into account for something that gave them happiness is generally considered a dick move.
I’m not really blaming anyone. It’s a complicated idea. I don’t expect every person to philosophize about the problem. Ultimately I’m just one person who gets uncomfortable when I consider what a pets life really is. It’s not a high priority to me and I don’t get preachy about it. There are more pressing issues in the world to me.
To your point of an “absolutely right way to live”, I agree, but my belief is that living things should ideally have the freedom to choose how they want to live rather than someone assert their personal opinion of the correct way to live. Pets however have absolutely no freedom to choose how to live. They don’t choose their owners nor the conditions they live in nor can they truly do anything about how they are treated.
The fact that they are (sometimes) happy makes it an easier pill to swallow except for the fact that their happiness comes largely from a variety of factors that limit their perspective. That’s not even considering the unknowable number of mistreated pets there are or innocent creatures that lived entire lives of misery and abuse due to uncaring owners.
I mean you can make the same argument for many humans, we as children don’t choose where we are born and who are our parents. And each country and society will decide for them the “correct” way to live. If anything, you could say we are currently treating tiny humans as pets.
Yours is a fascinating perspective that I haven’t considered before.
My “shooting from the hip” response is to consider the life of an animal in a 2x2 grid.
The first column is pets, the second column is non-pets (i.e. Animals living in the wild).
The first row is animals with sufficient access to food, shelter, and overall wellbeing. The second row is animals without those needs being met (i.e. Suffering under the hands of either humans or nature).
In my opinion, based on my personal life experience, and only if you consider the animals that are not typically used for food (that’s an entirely different, but also important discussion), the number of animals in the top left quadrant are second only to the number of animals in the bottom right. Because of this, I believe that the concept of pet ownership is an overall net positive.
That still absolutely does rob the pet of the free will to decide their own destiny, and that is still absolutely a moral quandary.
Edit: Another way to frame my opinion that pets are a net positive is that we humans have done a great deal to improve our general quality of life (for better or worse to the world at large), and have mostly brought our pets up to a similar quality with us. Food, water, and shelter are usually provided to pets at a minimum, but those are anything but guaranteed in the wild. Pets lives also greatly improve compared to wild animals if you consider modern heating and cooling, pet friendly dietary considerations, veterinary care, and an overall pet friendly society.
I think having pets is fundamentally unethical. Your dog lives in a tiny fraction of the world with absolutely no agency and only “loves” you because it is literally programmed to after centuries of breeding for traits that promote that. Your pet did not choose you and if it “loves” you at all, it’s only because they are utterly dependent on you because they have been taken far from where their species can survive or that place has been ruined by humanity. Animals cannot consent period and by extension cannot and never do consent to being property.
I’m not a PETA freak. I don’t shame people for having pets, but I’m unable to think of pets without considering these facts and it makes the entire thing seem gross and wrong to me. I rarely bring it up because it never leads to an engaging or productive conversation. No one ever really has an argument against it besides something along the lines of “Humans have had pets for millennia” or “It’s too late to put them back” which don’t actually prove me wrong in any way.
if it makes you feel better, there are different ways to take care of a pet (or companion animal if you prefer that term)
my dogs (**my **as in they are under my care, like children) don’t know tricks, they are free to perform any behavior that doesn’t put them or any other animal in danger
around me they are free to keep doing whatever they want or ask to be pet, the only orders I give them is to sit down and stay still when I give them treats so they don’t start a fight over it and to move from one part of my yard to another when we need to move heavy stuff
whenever the capitalist system let’s me keep enough energy after my chores I take them out for walks but when that’s not the case I play with them in my yard
I respect and love them in that way
Domestication is interesting because your average German shepherd is arguably living a significantly higher quality of life than a wolf living in the wild. While they may not have the same “freedom” as a wolf living in the woods, the wolf lives in its own shackles, always fighting for food, shelter and protection from predators. While I don’t disagree that having pets is fundamentally a problematic concept, I also think its always a bad idea to attribute abstract human traits and concepts onto animals, most of which want food, water, safe territory, and engagement.
Almost every animal specialist I talked to never talks about animals as if they were people, they always have a sense of respect for them being an animal and of a different species. I suppose they have a greater understanding of what an animal “wants”.
The second part of the question was were you right, and I think you’re probably wrong most of the time on your stance, but there are definitely areas where you are correct.
My argument would be that even though many of these pets have ingrained psychosocial issues that make them more amenable to being owned as pets, the counterpoint is, is there is no fundamental and absolute right way to live.
If there’s a tiny little section where people and animals can be happy, then there’s nothing wrong with that happiness.
Blaming someone for not taking the entirety of the universe into account for something that gave them happiness is generally considered a dick move.
I’m not really blaming anyone. It’s a complicated idea. I don’t expect every person to philosophize about the problem. Ultimately I’m just one person who gets uncomfortable when I consider what a pets life really is. It’s not a high priority to me and I don’t get preachy about it. There are more pressing issues in the world to me.
To your point of an “absolutely right way to live”, I agree, but my belief is that living things should ideally have the freedom to choose how they want to live rather than someone assert their personal opinion of the correct way to live. Pets however have absolutely no freedom to choose how to live. They don’t choose their owners nor the conditions they live in nor can they truly do anything about how they are treated.
The fact that they are (sometimes) happy makes it an easier pill to swallow except for the fact that their happiness comes largely from a variety of factors that limit their perspective. That’s not even considering the unknowable number of mistreated pets there are or innocent creatures that lived entire lives of misery and abuse due to uncaring owners.
I mean you can make the same argument for many humans, we as children don’t choose where we are born and who are our parents. And each country and society will decide for them the “correct” way to live. If anything, you could say we are currently treating tiny humans as pets.
Yours is a fascinating perspective that I haven’t considered before.
My “shooting from the hip” response is to consider the life of an animal in a 2x2 grid. The first column is pets, the second column is non-pets (i.e. Animals living in the wild). The first row is animals with sufficient access to food, shelter, and overall wellbeing. The second row is animals without those needs being met (i.e. Suffering under the hands of either humans or nature).
In my opinion, based on my personal life experience, and only if you consider the animals that are not typically used for food (that’s an entirely different, but also important discussion), the number of animals in the top left quadrant are second only to the number of animals in the bottom right. Because of this, I believe that the concept of pet ownership is an overall net positive.
That still absolutely does rob the pet of the free will to decide their own destiny, and that is still absolutely a moral quandary.
Edit: Another way to frame my opinion that pets are a net positive is that we humans have done a great deal to improve our general quality of life (for better or worse to the world at large), and have mostly brought our pets up to a similar quality with us. Food, water, and shelter are usually provided to pets at a minimum, but those are anything but guaranteed in the wild. Pets lives also greatly improve compared to wild animals if you consider modern heating and cooling, pet friendly dietary considerations, veterinary care, and an overall pet friendly society.
I agree but I think it’s alright to have rescued pets. Would be better if they didn’t need to be rescued but that’s the way it is.
Iffeel the same way, especially about cats.