Now think about what humans consider fulfilling in their lives. Yeah, *that* staple of the boring 9 to 5 job you don't like keeps you from being homeless, but it's generally regarded as less fulfilling.Navvan said:B) This assumes that the animals lead a life worse or less fulfilling than they would on their own. This is not the case assuming proper care.
That's what you think as a human. Let's face it, all animal species have done exactly the same thing. The ancestors of the modern rodents shared their space with effing dinosaurs!Witty Name Here said:surrounded by thousands of other creatures bigger them in and in a constant state of paranoia
I dont think animals are dumber than humans (Ive seen pleanty of evidence that shows humans can be complete morons, making animals look like geniuses), its just that humans are sentient (is that the right word?)Daystar Clarion said:I mean this in the nicest way possible.
Dogs, cats and other pets are too stupid to know that they're pets.
Also, my dog seems very happy with her life.
Better food than in the wild, better healthcare than in the wild, better beds than in the wild.
The wild seems kind of lame
My cats seem to think they are the masters most of the time. Which I am completely ok with.Daystar Clarion said:I mean this in the nicest way possible.
Dogs, cats and other pets are too stupid to know that they're pets.
Also, my dog seems very happy with her life.
Better food than in the wild, better healthcare than in the wild, better beds than in the wild.
The wild seems kind of lame
I agree with everything but that first point. Humans, even the most stupid ones are much more clever than any animal. But really, the dumb parts of dogs and cats are part of their charm. They don't know any better, whereas if a human is dumb they are probably that because they didn't pay attention in school. Also, the loyalty of dogs is amazing, it's the reason so many homeless people have dogs instead of a friend to keep them company during the cold days and nights. A human would judge them, or be condescending to them, or just ignore them completely. Whereas a dog, with the proper care will give you the most unconditional love possible.WanderingFool said:I dont think animals are dumber than humans (Ive seen pleanty of evidence that shows humans can be complete morons, making animals look like geniuses), its just that humans are sentient (is that the right word?)Daystar Clarion said:I mean this in the nicest way possible.
Dogs, cats and other pets are too stupid to know that they're pets.
Also, my dog seems very happy with her life.
Better food than in the wild, better healthcare than in the wild, better beds than in the wild.
The wild seems kind of lame
What I think im trying to get at is that animals that are kept as pets are not able to realise that they are pet. In the case of the OPs theoretical BS, the main difference is that animals wouldnt realise the position they are in like a human would. Humans would understand the position they were in, because (in most cases of normal people) we have the abiulity to reason.
So no, its not immoral to own pets, unless said pet happens to be a human child, in which case you are a bastard.
Dogs do experience love. It's an evolutionary advantage for the same reason it is in humans. It discourages killing off those around you for short term benifits, then leaving you all alone when a polar bear attacks. Pack animals tend to experience love, otherwise the group would not function, as they'd all kill eachother.nuba km said:Animals are only smart enough to realise certain actions when taken end up giving them a certain things, you can train a pigeon to press a red button by giving it food every time it does so, this was originally done to make a missile homing device (I kid you not) but later used to train pigeons to spot life jacket. just because the pigeon starts pointing out the life jacket doesn't mean it has started loving humans for taking care of it, no it just does this as it know it will get food if it does this.DktrAgonizer said:Yeah, no. You're basically saying that animals are too dumb to experience love. Not true at all, man. Pet owners (and in fact, I'm not a fan of that term since it implies, well, ownership instead of guardianship) treat pets like they're part of the family. (Good ones, anyway, but I'm not going to get into that right now). Pets don't simply like us because we give them food. They love us because we in turn give them love; food, shelter, play, etc. We take care of them, we love them, and they love us. There's a reason for that phrase "Dog is a man's best friend."JoJo said:Dogs aren't that intelligent at-all, they're dumber than pigs by most measures, and I'm not just talking about dogs either in this thread, but all pets. Pet owners tend to give way too much human emotion to animals which only "care" about their owners because they provide food. It's just an extension really of how ducks in parks will swim up to those who feed them bread, and now we humans use that to our advantage.
If you're still skeptical, have you ever seen the videos of dogs welcoming back soldiers from deployment? They're not excited because they just want their food, they're excited because their family is back and they missed them. You can clearly see the love these dogs have for their "parents" in these videos. Here:
http://welcomehomeblog.com/?s=dog
I'm not even going to touch on your other points right now, because I think others are doing a fine job of it.
The same is true for why your dog wags its tail or claws at your door or looks into your eyes sadly as it know these action have gotten it what it wanted. Also if you keep the pigeon away from a red button for long it will tab it more frantically next time expecting more food having build up.
Depends on the pet, and on the ability of the owner to properly care for them.JoJo said:is it really morally okay to keep animals as pets or do animals deserve the right to be free?
So many posts I want to reply to but I'm feelin' lazy right now.JoJo said:This may sound like a horror story but in fact it's the grim reality of the millions of animals kept by us humans as "pets". I often see discussions about the morality of eating animals, or farming them for fur, but rarely this question comes up so I ask you Escapists today, is it really morally okay to keep animals as pets or do animals deserve the right to be free?
Wow that sounds better than my living conditions, bravo sir.CrimsonBlaze said:Well, for those who feel that pets have better lives under the direct care of their owners and are better off than being in the wild, I have something to share.
In my family's ranch, there is a tradition of owning dogs (usually 2 or 3 at a time). The dogs, though legally bounded by their owners, do not depend on them for anything other than honest companionship. They are able to roam free on the property, interact with other farm animals (they obviously don't harm them), hunt any small animals or scavengers that would occasionally creep into the property, and genuinely allowed to live their lives out unrestrained. We still see the dogs daily, so their not like cats that are constantly absent, and they are very friendly and playful to everyone, even strangers. They are obviously vaccinated when necessary, but other than that, the dogs live long healthy lives, free from any form of disease or medical problem.
And I mean various breeds of dogs. Over the past score, our family has owned Dalmations, Collies, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Great Danes, etc. They have all been very docile and energetic.
That's why when I think about owning a dog, I tend to think twice because I feel that I cannot give them both the freedom and independence they desire to truly live long, happy lives under my ownership.
And as always Daystar makes a good point (and gets first post as usual), pets are, well, stupid. They don't think about things in the same way as us.Daystar Clarion said:I mean this in the nicest way possible.
Dogs, cats and other pets are too stupid to know that they're pets.
Also, my dog seems very happy with her life.
Better food than in the wild, better healthcare than in the wild, better beds than in the wild.
The wild seems kind of lame
pack animals do nothing out of love it is only out of advantage, wolfs hunt in a pack as it increases the chance of catching prey for all of them, the alpha male get plenty of wolfs to breed with and takes the most food as he can dominate any of the other wolfs, not because the other wolfs respect his abilities and the weakest wolf gets any left overs after the others eat but at least he gets something as he would most likely not be able to eat anything by himself.archvile93 said:Dogs do experience love. It's an evolutionary advantage for the same reason it is in humans. It discourages killing off those around you for short term benifits, then leaving you all alone when a polar bear attacks. Pack animals tend to experience love, otherwise the group would not function, as they'd all kill eachother.nuba km said:Animals are only smart enough to realise certain actions when taken end up giving them a certain things, you can train a pigeon to press a red button by giving it food every time it does so, this was originally done to make a missile homing device (I kid you not) but later used to train pigeons to spot life jacket. just because the pigeon starts pointing out the life jacket doesn't mean it has started loving humans for taking care of it, no it just does this as it know it will get food if it does this.DktrAgonizer said:Yeah, no. You're basically saying that animals are too dumb to experience love. Not true at all, man. Pet owners (and in fact, I'm not a fan of that term since it implies, well, ownership instead of guardianship) treat pets like they're part of the family. (Good ones, anyway, but I'm not going to get into that right now). Pets don't simply like us because we give them food. They love us because we in turn give them love; food, shelter, play, etc. We take care of them, we love them, and they love us. There's a reason for that phrase "Dog is a man's best friend."JoJo said:Dogs aren't that intelligent at-all, they're dumber than pigs by most measures, and I'm not just talking about dogs either in this thread, but all pets. Pet owners tend to give way too much human emotion to animals which only "care" about their owners because they provide food. It's just an extension really of how ducks in parks will swim up to those who feed them bread, and now we humans use that to our advantage.
If you're still skeptical, have you ever seen the videos of dogs welcoming back soldiers from deployment? They're not excited because they just want their food, they're excited because their family is back and they missed them. You can clearly see the love these dogs have for their "parents" in these videos. Here:
http://welcomehomeblog.com/?s=dog
I'm not even going to touch on your other points right now, because I think others are doing a fine job of it.
The same is true for why your dog wags its tail or claws at your door or looks into your eyes sadly as it know these action have gotten it what it wanted. Also if you keep the pigeon away from a red button for long it will tab it more frantically next time expecting more food having build up.
"Every party needs a pooper, that's why we invited you"- some random guynuba km said:pack animals do nothing out of love it is only out of advantage, wolfs hunt in a pack as it increases the chance of catching prey for all of them, the alpha male get plenty of wolfs to breed with and takes the most food as he can dominate any of the other wolfs, not because the other wolfs respect his abilities and the weakest wolf gets any left overs after the others eat but at least he gets something as he would most likely not be able to eat anything by himself.archvile93 said:Dogs do experience love. It's an evolutionary advantage for the same reason it is in humans. It discourages killing off those around you for short term benifits, then leaving you all alone when a polar bear attacks. Pack animals tend to experience love, otherwise the group would not function, as they'd all kill eachother.nuba km said:Animals are only smart enough to realise certain actions when taken end up giving them a certain things, you can train a pigeon to press a red button by giving it food every time it does so, this was originally done to make a missile homing device (I kid you not) but later used to train pigeons to spot life jacket. just because the pigeon starts pointing out the life jacket doesn't mean it has started loving humans for taking care of it, no it just does this as it know it will get food if it does this.DktrAgonizer said:Yeah, no. You're basically saying that animals are too dumb to experience love. Not true at all, man. Pet owners (and in fact, I'm not a fan of that term since it implies, well, ownership instead of guardianship) treat pets like they're part of the family. (Good ones, anyway, but I'm not going to get into that right now). Pets don't simply like us because we give them food. They love us because we in turn give them love; food, shelter, play, etc. We take care of them, we love them, and they love us. There's a reason for that phrase "Dog is a man's best friend."JoJo said:Dogs aren't that intelligent at-all, they're dumber than pigs by most measures, and I'm not just talking about dogs either in this thread, but all pets. Pet owners tend to give way too much human emotion to animals which only "care" about their owners because they provide food. It's just an extension really of how ducks in parks will swim up to those who feed them bread, and now we humans use that to our advantage.
If you're still skeptical, have you ever seen the videos of dogs welcoming back soldiers from deployment? They're not excited because they just want their food, they're excited because their family is back and they missed them. You can clearly see the love these dogs have for their "parents" in these videos. Here:
http://welcomehomeblog.com/?s=dog
I'm not even going to touch on your other points right now, because I think others are doing a fine job of it.
The same is true for why your dog wags its tail or claws at your door or looks into your eyes sadly as it know these action have gotten it what it wanted. Also if you keep the pigeon away from a red button for long it will tab it more frantically next time expecting more food having build up.
The Alpha of any packed is either killed or brudaly injured the moment a stronger wolf comes about as they don't love each other they merely understand that being in a pack is beneficial to the survival of them all and that at the end of the day combat/survival abilities impact your position in life.
I once had a hamster but it was ungodly evil, attempted to assassinate my sisters hamster, luckily I was there to stop it.ToastiestZombie said:"Every party needs a pooper, that's why we invited you"- some random guynuba km said:pack animals do nothing out of love it is only out of advantage, wolfs hunt in a pack as it increases the chance of catching prey for all of them, the alpha male get plenty of wolfs to breed with and takes the most food as he can dominate any of the other wolfs, not because the other wolfs respect his abilities and the weakest wolf gets any left overs after the others eat but at least he gets something as he would most likely not be able to eat anything by himself.archvile93 said:Dogs do experience love. It's an evolutionary advantage for the same reason it is in humans. It discourages killing off those around you for short term benifits, then leaving you all alone when a polar bear attacks. Pack animals tend to experience love, otherwise the group would not function, as they'd all kill eachother.nuba km said:Animals are only smart enough to realise certain actions when taken end up giving them a certain things, you can train a pigeon to press a red button by giving it food every time it does so, this was originally done to make a missile homing device (I kid you not) but later used to train pigeons to spot life jacket. just because the pigeon starts pointing out the life jacket doesn't mean it has started loving humans for taking care of it, no it just does this as it know it will get food if it does this.DktrAgonizer said:Yeah, no. You're basically saying that animals are too dumb to experience love. Not true at all, man. Pet owners (and in fact, I'm not a fan of that term since it implies, well, ownership instead of guardianship) treat pets like they're part of the family. (Good ones, anyway, but I'm not going to get into that right now). Pets don't simply like us because we give them food. They love us because we in turn give them love; food, shelter, play, etc. We take care of them, we love them, and they love us. There's a reason for that phrase "Dog is a man's best friend."JoJo said:Dogs aren't that intelligent at-all, they're dumber than pigs by most measures, and I'm not just talking about dogs either in this thread, but all pets. Pet owners tend to give way too much human emotion to animals which only "care" about their owners because they provide food. It's just an extension really of how ducks in parks will swim up to those who feed them bread, and now we humans use that to our advantage.
If you're still skeptical, have you ever seen the videos of dogs welcoming back soldiers from deployment? They're not excited because they just want their food, they're excited because their family is back and they missed them. You can clearly see the love these dogs have for their "parents" in these videos. Here:
http://welcomehomeblog.com/?s=dog
I'm not even going to touch on your other points right now, because I think others are doing a fine job of it.
The same is true for why your dog wags its tail or claws at your door or looks into your eyes sadly as it know these action have gotten it what it wanted. Also if you keep the pigeon away from a red button for long it will tab it more frantically next time expecting more food having build up.
The Alpha of any packed is either killed or brudaly injured the moment a stronger wolf comes about as they don't love each other they merely understand that being in a pack is beneficial to the survival of them all and that at the end of the day combat/survival abilities impact your position in life.
You must of never owned a pet, because you really don't get it. Tell me that dogs, or cats don't experience love or compassion for another living being when they pounce on you, and become as joyful as can be when you've come home from a holiday. Or when a homeless person's dog stays with him, even though the homeless person can't give him the best of homes or the best of food. The dog stays with them because of the unconditional love dogs have with the members of their packs.
I suddenly don't think you're qualified to have this conversation.JoJo said:I had goldfish when I was a little kid and as far as I can recall they had just two body language signals: alive and dead ;-)GeneralTwinkle said:Have you had a pet?JoJo said:Not to pick on you in particular but I was anticipating this point coming up and I have to ask: how do you know they like being a pet? It's not like they can tell you in words and as a university biology student I can tell you that body language isn't universal across species, for examples chimps "smile" when they're angry.GeneralTwinkle said:Animals really, really like being pets. They love being it. Domestic animals =/= humans.
You can easily tell what they like/dislike, when they're happy/sad etc...
When chimps smile angrily the rest of their body language shows they're pissed.
Dogs especially, are very emotive. The reaction of getting treats is the same as me coming home, or patting and playing with them. If you've had a pet, and you had trouble telling if it was happy or not, I'm not sure you should have one.
But I have friends and grandparents with dogs and cats and I've seen the owners often ascribe emotions or thoughts that are clearly too complex for that sort of animal onto their pet, so I suspect that often what an owner reads as "happy" is actually "give me more food / water / toys" etc or something different entirely. Stockholm syndrome is a thing too, aside from the joking quip by Tippy above me, perhaps your pets don't realise how happy they'd be in the wild with their own species?