Is pet ownership ethically defensible?

[Cognisant]

Fish in a suitably sized aquarium with other fish, or birds in a suitably sized aviary with other birds, or cows in a pasture, I think this is all fairly justifiable, you're confining them but you're also giving them an environment that is safe and where food and shelter are readily available. In this context interaction is non-mandatory and can be enriching for both participants, e.g. a bird doesn't need to eat out of your hand or allow itself to be handled because there is other food available and other birds to interact with, but it can choose to.

Spoiler: Ideal situation, the bird is wild and chooses to interact

But in a lot of cases the enclosure (be it a tank, cage or backyard) isn't suitably sized and contains only a single animal of that species, this may not matter much to a snake but for a pack/herd animal like a dog or horse being left alone is going to cause it stress and it's even worse for a bird. Most birds kept as pets are extremely social flock animals that in the wild can roam hundreds of kilometers every day, now you've got this bird alone in a cage that is barely larger than the equivalent sized prison cell for a human and the only thing it has to interact and bond with is another species that frequently isn't there.

Then there's the fact that even if you're treating your pet well your engagement in the pet ownership industry is perpetuating the normality of pet ownership which is in many cases abusive or negligent, it's like being a slave owner and saying slavery isn't inherently bad because you treat yours like valued employees, caring for their needs, planning for their futures (eventual release/retirement) and that they're objectively better off with you than without you, even if that's all true you're still supporting an abhorrent industry.

 

[Redfire]

Fish in a suitably sized aquarium with other fish, or birds in a suitably sized aviary with other birds, or cows in a pasture, I think this is all fairly justifiable, you're confining them but you're also giving them an environment that is safe and where food and shelter are readily available. In this context interaction is non-mandatory and can be enriching for both participants, e.g. a bird doesn't need to eat out of your hand or allow itself to be handled because there is other food available and other birds to interact with, but it can choose to.

Spoiler: Ideal situation, the bird is wild and chooses to interact

But in a lot of cases the enclosure (be it a tank, cage or backyard) isn't suitably sized and contains only a single animal of that species, this may not matter much to a snake but for a pack/herd animal like a dog or horse being left alone is going to cause it stress and it's even worse for a bird. Most birds kept as pets are extremely social flock animals that in the wild can roam hundreds of kilometers every day, now you've got this bird alone in a cage that is barely larger than the equivalent sized prison cell for a human and the only thing it has to interact and bond with is another species that frequently isn't there.

Then there's the fact that even if you're treating your pet well your engagement in the pet ownership industry is perpetuating the normality of pet ownership which is in many cases abusive or negligent, it's like being a slave owner and saying slavery isn't inherently bad because you treat yours like valued employees, caring for their needs, planning for their futures (eventual release/retirement) and that they're objectively better off with you than without you, even if that's all true you're still supporting an abhorrent industry.

Well, we adopted a cat with my sister and I'm pretty sure she's better off with us, than in the streets. And plus she's the most beautiful and kindest kitty in the whole world. So, yeah. Absolutely ethically defensible.

edit: nature is pretty abhorrent in and of itself Cog. I'm sure you've watched enough documentaries to know that.

 

[Hadoblado]

Without thinking too hard about it, it's defensible in some scenarios but not others, and defensible on some levels but not others.

I hate selective breeding and most pets in cities. I find some pet relationships genuinely creepy.

 

[Redfire]

Without thinking too hard about it, it's defensible in some scenarios but not others, and defensible on some levels but not others.

I hate selective breeding and most pets in cities. I find some pet relationships genuinely creepy.

Well, I find some human relationships genuinely creepy. Most, actually. Not to mention boring.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay?

 

[Cognisant]

I knew I'd trigger somebody

Well, we adopted a cat with my sister and I'm pretty sure she's better off with us, than in the streets.

No doubt but wouldn't you agree that it's the domestication of animals that makes them unfit to survive in the wild?

A pug is so grossly misshapen that there can be no doubt that it's need to be looked after by people was created for people who wanted to feel needed.

 

[Redfire]

I knew I'd trigger somebody

Well, we adopted a cat with my sister and I'm pretty sure she's better off with us, than in the streets.

No doubt but wouldn't you agree that it's the domestication of animals that makes them unfit to survive in the wild?

A pug is so grossly misshapen that there can be no doubt that it's need to be looked after by people was created for people who wanted to feel needed.

Well yeah, but that's not on me son. And again, nature is really really ugly in and of itself. Domestication is the least of your worries if you want to find horrible stuff in nature.

Not triggered btw, I just love mentioning my lovely beautiful kind best-in-the-world cute kitten.

 

[Cognisant]

Comparing the worst nature has to offer to the best you have to offer a pet is false equivalence. If an animal wasn't domesticated it wouldn't need you to look after it. A valid comparison would be domestic life to the best life nature has to offer and nature's indifference to animal cruelty and neglect.

I think we can assume wild animals are entirely capable of living full, joyful, fulfilling lives in nature, and as to whether nature can be more cruel than people ask yourself would you rather be locked in a cage with a tiger or a serial killer knowing either way you won't be coming out alive?

Or to put it another way if you could prevent all animal cruelty but the price was your kitten what would you choose?

 

[Hadoblado]

Imagine I had a slave I bought off the street. When asked whether this was ethical I say that I have affection for them and that the streets were a worse place for them. Besides, they clearly love me despite me never allowing them the agency to do anything but. My house is warm and safe, that's why I lock them inside, and I make sure that the food I give them, while not fit for my consumption, is at least nutritious.

I'm not having a go at you specifically. It's more like the institution of the inter-species slave trade. //hyperbole

 

[Cognisant]

Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way, maybe slavery isn't so bad? Keep in mind the food thing is because the food we eat often isn't fit for their consumption, or even ours really.

It's like the whole prostitution thing, where there's inequity (the existence of which appears to be a natural consequence of capitalism) there will inevitably be exploitation and the best defence against that exploitation (without solving the inequity problem) is legalisation and regulation.

Maybe slavery should exist (albeit heavily regulated and those regulations strictly enforced) so that the truly destitute are seen as a resource and a venture worth investing in, rather than an inconvenience to be quietly pushed out of sight and out of mind.

 

[washti]

The place I live has plenty of feral cats. They came closer for the crease and when they are unwell. For food, they rely on hunting though sometimes eat some leftovers. I like how it is. Some catfights are scary tho.

Ppl dressing up their pets are creeps. and those who called themselves mum or dad. Like you can't make it more obvious that's your baby substitute lol. And cooing voices.

 

[Rook]

I personally have no problem with it but if I was dog i would rather be free in the wilds than eating kibble in granma's washroom.

If an omnivorous species can restrict movement and inter their own kind on a planet-wide scale through adherence to systems no one ever opted into, then having them keep animals for a variety of reasons should come as little surprise.

 

[dr froyd]

I think its more defensible if the animal can come and go as it pleases, like many cats.

one might say that a dog will always stay with you if it had the choice, but then again a dog is a synthetic animal which is designed by humans to be dependent on humans. In my view dog ownership is unethical

people who keep birds in cages should go straight to prison

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Difficult to call it indefensible without any caveats.

I think the part that is unethical is when we trade these creatures, because that is motivating the whole system that continue these animals being bred and reproducing.

We found a little mut in a bag in a dumpster. We could try to find a better owner than us, give it to institutions that will do a shit job of what we're trying to do, or keep it where we can guarantee the quality of life we offer if we don't wanna risk it having a bad time.

"The animal couldn't possibly have life better on it's own"

"the animal couldn't possible have better life with anyone else".

These statements are only true because of humans and some narcissisms, yes. However, even without our intervention in their genetics, a wolf and a bird not evolved to in such a way like a raccoon or a pigeon/crow is going to die without any human assistance.

I can't be held accountable for what all humans do just like pitbulls shouldn't be held accountable to violence other dogs with shittier owners commit. Yet, these animals exist already.

It's fucking horrible. But the animals aren't going away, so in a way you could also say that you are trying to correct the behavior.

So I think participating in animal market place is unethical flat-out, but provide for all the strays and battered animals you want, so long as you can.

 

[Puffy]

Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way, maybe slavery isn't so bad?

Here it comes... I can hear the triggers firing in the distance

 

[Cognisant]

What's a man gotta do to get a firing squad around here?

It's really very simple, where inequality exists exploitation will follow, be it prostitution, pet ownership or slavery and the only thing worse than exploitation is unregulated exploitation.

Heck given enough progress in genetic engineering I predict these three issues will become so interrelated it'll effectively become one issue.

Owo master~

Welp there goes my political career XD

 

[Hadoblado]

My sister considers all lives kind of equal. She's constantly trying to save random animals she sees and track down owners of animals that are unaccounted for.

It's funny because growing up she was arachnophobic and would have all spiders killed. I would cry because killing is wrong and I'd go to lengths to protect spiders I found from my callous evil sister.

Fast-forward to adulthood and I'm ophidiophobic and will nuke snakes from orbit (still not enough distance imo). Meanwhile, my sister has her snake-handling license, and is basically a one-person PETA operation. A couple of years back she was conned into buying dogs off some asshole who was threatening to put them in the ring otherwise.

Seeing her trying to take care of and relocate a constant stream of pets sickens me a little. She's well-meaning but she's captive to the exact same drive to be depended on that cause the pet trade she's working to correct. At first my condemnation was mild, but it's generalised to many other pet owners (not that I'd ever bring it up) who have complete control over the lives of their animals. It gives me a similar feeling to child abuse.

Several other experiences come to mind but it's a lot to write.

There is no room for me to speak on this issue without upsetting everyone, and there is no point in doing so. As a result, I tend to be callous about animal wellbeing and look the other way.

I do like some dogs though :S

 

[Daddy]

I like cats.

 

[scorpiomover]

If an animal wasn't domesticated it wouldn't need you to look after it. I think we can assume wild animals are entirely capable of living full, joyful, fulfilling lives in nature,

There's a certain amount of food in nature. When there's more food, wild animals eat more, breed more and have more children. So they fill up the capacity.

When an animal is taken from the wild and domesticated to be raised as a pet, then the food the animal would have eaten, is now free, and so more wild animals breed to eat the food the domesticated animal would have eaten, had he remained in the wild.

So the same number of animals in the wild is the same, regardless of whether the animal becomes a pet or not. So the pet is in addition to the number of animals that occur naturally, and thus only exists at all, because the owner chooses to feed him.

 

[Cognisant]

So where does the food to feed the pets come from? Where does Mitten's tuna and Fido's bone come from, what is the world's supply of kibble made of?

The number of animals has nothing to do with the ethics of pet ownership. I love the fact you just went off on a completely irrelevant tangent and came up with such a fundamentally flawed argument, all on your own.

 

[Rook]

If an animal wasn't domesticated it wouldn't need you to look after it. I think we can assume wild animals are entirely capable of living full, joyful, fulfilling lives in nature,

So the same number of animals in the wild is the same, regardless of whether the animal becomes a pet or not. So the pet is in addition to the number of animals that occur naturally, and thus only exists at all, because the owner chooses to feed him.

in theory, ok. in practice, no. have cattle. get more cattle. need feed. need farms> deforest, hunt. Need more pet food> need more offal> need more herds and flocks> need more space and feed>repeat

Human population up. Need living space? Deforest. Need meat in dry seasons? Hunt. In cities the rats and cockroaches are fine but you don't see any auruchs or wolves or lions strolling about.

Many parts of this planet have had their ecosystem radically upended by man, where in some countries the only true wild places left are the game reserves. mass domestication of animals by a planetary-spanning species inevitably means this species will have a preference to introduce organisms it has tamed to its purposes rather than be in an environment surrounded by animals of random and at times malicious intent.

I'm not like that, i prefer life in a more natural scene, but from what I see our species in general is. ants do not tolerate wasps in their hives, after all.

 

[scorpiomover]

So where does the food to feed the pets come from? Where does Mitten's tuna and Fido's bone come from, what is the world's supply of kibble made of?

It's grown or fished, the same as things that humans eat.

The number of animals has nothing to do with the ethics of pet ownership. I love the fact you just went off on a completely irrelevant tangent and came up with such a fundamentally flawed argument, all on your own.

No. But where exactly do you think most pets come from? Do you think that pet-shop owners buy a puppy from a big game hunter? They are grown to become pets, just like cows are raised for meat.

If there were no pets, most of those animals would simply not exist.

 

[scorpiomover]

If an animal wasn't domesticated it wouldn't need you to look after it. I think we can assume wild animals are entirely capable of living full, joyful, fulfilling lives in nature,

So the same number of animals in the wild is the same, regardless of whether the animal becomes a pet or not. So the pet is in addition to the number of animals that occur naturally, and thus only exists at all, because the owner chooses to feed him.

in theory, ok. in practice, no. have cattle. get more cattle. need feed. need farms> deforest, hunt. Need more pet food> need more offal> need more herds and flocks> need more space and feed>repeat

Human population up. Need living space? Deforest. Need meat in dry seasons? Hunt. In cities the rats and cockroaches are fine but you don't see any auruchs or wolves or lions strolling about.

Yes. Humans do things that have consequences they often didn't think about. But as any older INTP can tell you, not doing things also has lots of consequences.

Many parts of this planet have had their ecosystem radically upended by man, where in some countries the only true wild places left are the game reserves.

Grey squirrels that move into an area, out-dominate red squirrels that are native to the region. But when it's non-humans vs non-humans, we call that evolution.

mass domestication of animals by a planetary-spanning species inevitably means this species will have a preference to introduce organisms it has tamed to its purposes rather than be in an environment surrounded by animals of random and at times malicious intent.

All the people who live in cities and towns rather than in thick jungle and forest with the snakes, insects and badgers, already show that preference every single day.

Every time that a tiger gets loose in a city, and animal control are sent to take the tiger away, and the people in the neighbourhood feel a sigh of relief, that relief shows that they prefer to live in places where there are no animals of random and at times malicious intent.

I'm not like that, i prefer life in a more natural scene,

A few hundred people have chosen to live in the woods, with the animals. Not a lot compared to 8 billion. But still, more than 10.

but from what I see our species in general is. ants do not tolerate wasps in their hives, after all.

People get exclusive about their cliques, unless the wasps are more valuable and/or useful than most ants.

 

[birdsnestfern]

I think as long as you are taking good care of your pets, its fine.
I've enjoyed turtles, fish, lizards, guinea pigs, cats, birds, dogs, rabbits, backyard squirrels, birds, possums, chickens.

Birds & Dogs are a favorite though, had a Military Macaw parrot, canaries, chickens
and my mini schnauzer is my best friend, hardly ever apart.

We have a crazy cat lady that drops cats from the shelter all over, so I get a lot of cat and chicken visitors asking for handouts. There is a really cute rooster named Roo Roo that is like a celebrity, people take photos with him, take him to the vet for checkups, and he just hangs out near a steak and chicken place and even goes IN to the restaurant whenever he likes. He is well loved.

But animals do need to be treated like family in order for it to be humane.
Bears, mountain lions, alligators and snakes should stay away.

 

[Drvladivostok]

Fish in a suitably sized aquarium with other fish, or birds in a suitably sized aviary with other birds, or cows in a pasture, I think this is all fairly justifiable, you're confining them but you're also giving them an environment that is safe and where food and shelter are readily available. In this context interaction is non-mandatory and can be enriching for both participants, e.g. a bird doesn't need to eat out of your hand or allow itself to be handled because there is other food available and other birds to interact with, but it can choose to.

Spoiler: Ideal situation, the bird is wild and chooses to interact

But in a lot of cases the enclosure (be it a tank, cage or backyard) isn't suitably sized and contains only a single animal of that species, this may not matter much to a snake but for a pack/herd animal like a dog or horse being left alone is going to cause it stress and it's even worse for a bird. Most birds kept as pets are extremely social flock animals that in the wild can roam hundreds of kilometers every day, now you've got this bird alone in a cage that is barely larger than the equivalent sized prison cell for a human and the only thing it has to interact and bond with is another species that frequently isn't there.

Then there's the fact that even if you're treating your pet well your engagement in the pet ownership industry is perpetuating the normality of pet ownership which is in many cases abusive or negligent, it's like being a slave owner and saying slavery isn't inherently bad because you treat yours like valued employees, caring for their needs, planning for their futures (eventual release/retirement) and that they're objectively better off with you than without you, even if that's all true you're still supporting an abhorrent industry.

1 word; Domestication.

What happen if all humans in the world were to release the animals they have? 1. Most of them would die, 2. If you include farm animals there would be mass starvation.

I understand the case thar it might be unethical to confine a wild animal (Though I might disagree), however domesticated animals are meant to be pets, they have been selected since thousands of years ago from hundreds of generations to be dependent on humans, you leave a domesticated cat in the African Sahara and they'd fare just as well as any human, their natural habitat it is in human teritorry, this goes for domesticated horses, basically all Farm Animals, and pets, if yoy leave a domesticated horse in the wild they'd die, if you release your entire farm of horses to the wild they'd disrupt the natural ecosystem by introducing new herbivores before dying in one generations, sheeps are the best example you leave a woll sheep in the wild they die in 2 years because no one cuts their fur and they sufficate, chickens would die out within a week, same with dogs they would eat eachother.

 

[Hadoblado]

A cat would be fine in most environments. Those things are basically xenomorphs.

The choice isn't between everyone releasing their pets all at once or doing nothing. It's ethics, and that's a hand-wave. It's about whether it's okay to perpetuate the system set up by our ancestors.

 

[Drvladivostok]

It is perpetuated by biology, it is biologically inherent in their nature to be dependent upon humans, so the logical consequence of this believe is that it has to justify that death of entire subspecies for the sake of their release; I suppose you can justify that in a very philosophically draconian way.

If you wanna say Horse Domestication is unethical then the only ethical thing to do is to release them to the wild and avertedly cause their death, opportunity cost, so even if you can ethically prove (You can't, I'm just making a point) that domestication by itself is unethical you have to justify their death you cause.

 

[Puffy]

The reality is I think it depends. Animals have a range of needs like people. If I was going to adopt one I'd acknowledge that I've placed them in a position where they can't meet all of their own needs. So I'd have to provide for them an environment and lifestyle where their needs can be met, which would take research and effort on my part.

Some types of animals can be perfectly loved and have a happy, social life in this setup.

The reality is that most people make animals conform to our modern lifestyles which I don't think is in the interest of the animal's happiness. I mean modern lifestyles aren't even suitable for people's happiness let alone animals. For example, my parents have always neutered dogs they've adopted. So they've basically decided for the dog that its sexual needs should never be met as it's not convenient for them. I don't like that personally.

I'm not against adopting animals. The industry should just be much smaller and more select than it is. And people should be evaluated if they're suitable to adopt an animal in the same way they are for human children.

I also don't like the word ownership in this context. An animal isn't something you can possess and do anything you want to. I prefer the word adopt as its the same language we'd use for adopting children. By adopting them we're inviting them to be a member of the family and to be treated with respect as such.

 

[Hadoblado]

It is not biologically inherent in pets nature to be dependent on humans. Not most of them anyway (you can make a case for the extremely inbred or domesticated).

Cats and dogs are extremely capable predators. It is inherent in their social upbringing to be dependent on humans. Biological essentialism is brain worms.

If humans all disappeared tomorrow, cats, dogs, and horses will be fine as a species. Sheep and pugs? Nah they toast.

 

[Daddy]

Just my opinion, but I think most animals are not very intelligent and self-aware and they really just appreciate having a human provide for their needs and give them love. They are a lot simpler in that way, more in the moment, and more about basic needs being met. The fact that they are slaves or owned by people doesn't make any difference to them, so I think it's okay.

 

[Cognisant]

So slavery is okay, as long as they're stupid?

Suppose I get DNA from people with various developmental disorders and genetically engineer eggs/sperm to have a high likelihood of producing someone with stunted intelligence, roughly equivalent to a normal dog, something like a kelpie or husky might be too intelligent. Now being a right piece of shit I go to some third world country and pay women to gestate these fertilized eggs for me, create a race of genetically engineered sub-humans, can I sell them?

I'm not advocating this but the technology required to do it isn't all that far from what's currently available, meaning all it would take is some unscrupulous billionaire or a politician in a country that doesn't care much about human rights, to do it.

Alternatively what if I splice dogs and monkeys to make something intelligent, trainable, dexterous and possessed of a gleefully servile temperament like a golden retriever but with hands?

What about an AI, how intelligent does it need to be to make owning one problematic, indeed what kind of intelligence would be problematic?

 

[Daddy]

So slavery is okay, as long as they're stupid?

Suppose I get DNA from people with various developmental disorders and genetically engineer eggs/sperm to have a high likelihood of producing someone with stunted intelligence, roughly equivalent to a normal dog, something like a kelpie or husky might be too intelligent. Now being a right piece of shit I go to some third world country and pay women to gestate these fertilized eggs for me, create a race of genetically engineered sub-humans, can I sell them?

Yes, lol. I mean how wouldn't it be? The only people it would bother aren't the slaves, but anyone else. And that's really their problem, if you think about it. I mean if we take your line of thought to the extreme, then using a computer or an assembly line or anything with lines of code is unethical because we are using them and they are too stupid to understand how unethical that is.

I'm not advocating this but the technology required to do it isn't all that far from what's currently available, meaning all it would take is some unscrupulous billionaire or a politician in a country that doesn't care much about human rights, to do it.

Alternatively what if I splice dogs and monkeys to make something intelligent, trainable, dexterous and possessed of a gleefully servile temperament like a golden retriever but with hands?

Sounds good, people would buy it, especially if it could help around the house. I'm sure we will have that one day if science progresses enough.

What about an AI, how intelligent does it need to be to make owning one problematic, indeed what kind of intelligence would be problematic?

Basically, if it's capable of ethical thought, it's dangerous. Then it can rationalize and do anything, outside of its basic programmed instincts, of course.

 

[ohshtt]

most things are ethically defensible (opposing sides + conditions + exceptions to every argument etc.) we could even argue that "murder" is a construct of society and create some ethically defensible argument for it.


1. fair exchange

pets provide companionship and eye candy. in exchange, the pet owner supports a healthy lifestyle for it and takes responsibility for its well-being. assuming this exchange occurs, the pet is not being taken advantage of. in fact, the owner is on the short end of the stick. the pet simply has to exist to fulfill its end of the bargain.


BUT a fair exchange usually entails both parties' consent for an arrangement. animals cannot consent, and if they could, they have different personalities. (eg. if a wild animal was rescued, there are two likely outcomes. it will want to stay with the human. it will not want to stay with the human.)


THEREFORE while good treatment is a factor, good treatment alone is not adequate to determine ethical defensibility. if an owner could prove that a pet desires to stay when the pet is aware/accustomed to an alternative, suitable, probably natural environment, then it shows a form of consent on the pet's part.


for this reason, there is no ethical issue in, say, the very specific case of:

- a rescue centre releases a rehabilitated animal. the animal repeatedly returns. the rescue staff then keeps it as a pet.

sorry, i have to separate my post cos notif says spam

 

[ohshtt]

most things are ethically defensible (opposing sides + conditions + exceptions to every argument etc.) we could even argue that "murder" is a construct of society and create some ethically defensible argument for it.


1. fair exchange

pets provide companionship and eye candy. in exchange, the pet owner supports a healthy lifestyle for it and takes responsibility for its well-being. assuming this exchange occurs, the pet is not being taken advantage of. in fact, the owner is on the short end of the stick. the pet simply has to exist to fulfill its end of the bargain.


BUT a fair exchange usually entails both parties' consent for an arrangement. animals cannot consent, and if they could, they have different personalities. (eg. if a wild animal was rescued, there are two likely outcomes. it will want to stay with the human. it will not want to stay with the human.)


THEREFORE while good treatment is a factor, good treatment alone is not adequate to determine ethical defensibility. if an owner could prove that a pet desires to stay when the pet is aware/accustomed to an alternative, suitable, probably natural environment, then it shows a form of consent on the pet's part.


for this reason, there is no ethical issue in, say, the very specific case of:

- a rescue centre releases a rehabilitated animal. the animal repeatedly returns. the rescue staff then keeps it as a pet.

sorry, i have to separate my post cos notif says spam

2. can a pet be owned?
it is morally reprehensible to own another human.

three possible views are:
- animals don't have equal moral status/consideration with humans due to their lack of consciousness & reason
- some moral consideration is accorded. animals don't possess fuller moral status due to their inability to display moral reciprocity
- animals are afforded rights of protection on the basis of comparative disability

the first view would take that pets can be owned. the second view is iffy. maybe pets can't be owned, but if a human needed a service dog, human interests take precedence? the third view would hold that animals are "persons" and morally, cannot be owned.

but what does "own" mean? is it a term for possessing, body and soul, and being able to issue commands, similar to slavery? is it just having something as one's exclusive own, like an exclusive commitment? or does owning just mean sharing a roof, where the human has greater power in the human-pet relationship? to me, it's the latter. (for this reason, any mention of slavery is irrelevant.) it's not morally reprehensible to "own" another human...if it means sharing a roof with one human having greater power in the relationship, just like a parent and child.

BUT pets may be bought with money. consider two situations.
1. the pet is a possession, like an expensive Persian cat. an element of possession & material value is attached.
2. the money is an expression of desire for a companion. people pay for IVF or surrogacy. the money used to pay for a child does not make the child a possession. similarly, this is often the case for pets.

tldr; ethically defensible to own pet if not treated like material possession or slave.



3. pet industry: make ethical choices

perpetuating the normality of pet ownership which is in many cases abusive or negligent

in as many, and probably more cases, pet ownership is not abusive. i'd argue that instances of abuse are the exception, depending on your country.

you're still supporting an abhorrent industry

agreed. breeders? bad. unhealthy manufactured pet food? bad. people who make small, dangerous cages? bad. adopt, cook your own pet food or purchase healthier brands, and don't buy the small, dangerous cages. pet ownership isn't bad. the industry that sells pets is very bad. don't mix up the two; there are definite ethical pros to pet ownership too. for instance, a loving relationship between pet and owner. for instance, a happy home for a displaced animal.

 

[dr froyd]

@ohshtt so what gives one the moral right to force an animal into a relationship where the human has greater power?

the child analogy is a false one - animals have evolved to live and thrive in nature, without being owned by humans (with the exception of synthetic animals designed for that purpose, like dogs). A human child has evolved to be dependent on its parents, so its the moral obligation of parents to take care of it.

 

[Drvladivostok]

@ohshtt so what gives one the moral right to force an animal into a relationship where the human has greater power?

the child analogy is a false one - animals have evolved to live and thrive in nature, without being owned by humans (with the exception of synthetic animals designed for that purpose, like dogs). A human child has evolved to be dependent on its parents, so its the moral obligation of parents to take care of it.

Domesticated animals have evolved to be dependent on humans, you leave a sheep, pig, or even a farm horse on the wild they would die in a year at most.

 

[ohshtt]

@ohshtt so what gives one the moral right to force an animal into a relationship where the human has greater power?

the child analogy is a false one - animals have evolved to live and thrive in nature, without being owned by humans (with the exception of synthetic animals designed for that purpose, like dogs). A human child has evolved to be dependent on its parents, so its the moral obligation of parents to take care of it.

1. but what is my original argument?
remember, the definition is "sharing a roof with one party being in greater power in a r/s". this doesn't exclusively mean a child. it could include a roommate, spouse etc. the point is that a close relationship with a power balance is not necessarily unethical.

how the relationship starts & is carried out are more specific factors to point to its ethics (and so they are in the issue of pet ownership - why was the animal brought home? how is the animal treated?) but the very existence of such a relationship does not make it unethical.

2. returning to child-analogy (for fun)...
depends. in cities, animals have adapted to be dependent on humans (eg. stray dogs & cats). in the pet trade, some animals have evolved to be dependent on humans (eg. bred hamsters). in farms, animals have adapted to human company (eg. domesticated pigs).

 

[dr froyd]

@ohshtt well you keep using this term "sharing a roof". It's usually not the case, for example, that a wolf fortuitously waltzes into someone's home and becomes a tenant there on its own accord. When someone keeps a pet, they have absolute control over the animal, in the sense that the animal cannot leave the relationship unless the human decides so. In any other case than pet ownership and child rearing that's usually considered a crime. It would be like someone locking you up in their basement, feeding you, taking you for walks sometimes, and calling it "sharing a roof with a slight power imbalance".

there are exceptions to that, like cats, who can come and go as they please and can easily survive out in the wild if they want to. With the distinction being that the humans have not constructed a situation where the animal is forced to be in a relationship with them.

 

[dr froyd]

@ohshtt so what gives one the moral right to force an animal into a relationship where the human has greater power?

the child analogy is a false one - animals have evolved to live and thrive in nature, without being owned by humans (with the exception of synthetic animals designed for that purpose, like dogs). A human child has evolved to be dependent on its parents, so its the moral obligation of parents to take care of it.

Domesticated animals have evolved to be dependent on humans, you leave a sheep, pig, or even a farm horse on the wild they would die in a year at most.

right, but this is the same category as dogs - synthetic animals created by humans to serve humans.

 

[ohshtt]

@ohshtt well you keep using this term "sharing a roof". It's usually not the case, for example, that a wolf fortuitously waltzes into someone's home and becomes a tenant there on its own accord. When someone keeps a pet, they have absolute control over the animal, in the sense that the animal cannot leave the relationship unless the human decides so. In any other case than pet ownership and child rearing that's usually considered a crime. It would be like someone locking you up in their basement, feeding you, taking you for walks sometimes, and calling it "sharing a roof with a slight power imbalance".

there are exceptions to that, like cats, who can come and go as they please and can easily survive out in the wild if they want to. With the distinction being that the humans have not constructed a situation where the animal is forced to be in a relationship with them.

that would then depend on your view of the animal's status of sentience.

to "force" connotes that the animal is compelled against its will to remain in a relationship with the human. animals certainly have wills for all sorts of things - they want to eat this not that, they want to scratch the sofa, they want to mark their territory. but pertaining to their life with a human, do they possess any will? though it depends on the animal, most animals have no sense of desire with regards to staying in or leaving the relationship. all they process is that this is their environment. you can't compel them against their will when a will does not exist.

of course, an animal's will materializes through baser instincts. if they are starved, the desire to migrate elsewhere with food - aka the desire to terminate the relationship - will arise. if they are abused, the desire to migrate elsewhere also arises. then they have will. then, continuing to keep them as pets is a form of force. therefore an owner's treatment of their pets is again relevant.

It's usually not the case, for example, that a wolf fortuitously waltzes into someone's home and becomes a tenant there on its own accord.

(more likely than one would think. you'd be surprised how often people rescue animals and they refuse to leave afterward. like my two cats lol. not relevant to discussion, but still.)

the humans constructed a situation where the animal is forced to be in a relationship with them.

that's the crux of ethics. was it right for our early ancestors to domesticate animals for their own benefit, and possibly also to the animal's benefit then? and is it right to continue this practice now?

with years of evolution, there are distinct differences - even genetic - between wild and domesticated "synthetic" animals. domesticated animals are bred and born with the expectation that their life will be connected to humankind. it's unethical not to have a relationship with domesticated animals. their survival is dependent on us. their instincts are shaped by humankind. (unlike domesticated animals, pet ownership of wild animals is likely to be unethical.)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I have 3 cats. 2 of them were adopted. Most cats around here that don't have a home just roam as feral strays and beg for food or sometimes hunt. Average life expectancy of strays is 5 years, this increases to 12 years for house cats and cats in really good homes with healthy genes live more than 20 years.

I'm absolutely giving all of my cats a better life than one they would get in the wild where they would be ran over by a car, or ate rat poison and died, or ingested avian bones that would pierce its digestive tract.

I spend about 20 minutes with each cat individually, just playing with them using toys, this alone is the most pleasant experience that they anticipate every day. Each has their own favorite toy that they carry and drop in front of me when they want to play, they're very good at communicating their needs and I think they would be capable of simple speech if they had the required circuitry and vocal cords. Whenever they need physical contact they can also approach me or even lie down on me. They have a stress free life with high quality food, veterinarian care and medicines, play, attention and a company of two other cats. I've installed a climbable wall section with 6 walkways, 5 nests, 10 'beds' and other cool things for them to play with. They have dozens of toys and accessories and cool places to hang around in, including the 3 floors of our house which is quite a lot of territory for them.

Few people, even cat owners, realize that cats without love, playtime and attention become depressed, literally it's a mental illness just as it is among humans. Depressed cats lie around all day, have no energy and only cuddle weakly or eat. I'm easily in the top 5% of good cat owners in terms of the love and attention that I give my cats.

The one cat who wasn't adopted, a norwegian forest breed, is overbred, weak, sickly and overly peaceful, needs vet attention a few times a year. Its seller would throw that cat out if they couldn't sell it where it wouldn't be able to hunt and just starve. The amount of medical problems, starting from weak bones and leg muscles to allergy that we solved for this cat is mind boggling. I was personally training and running physical therapy for this cat every day to climb and grow muscle tissue to stand up. He now has enough strength and energy to play and run around like a normal cat which was certainly impossible without the help that we gave him.

Pet ownership is definitely ethical if done correctly and if the pet has enough resources care and freedom compared to their life in the wild.