Is it immoral to keep pets?

[The Human Torch]

Yeah...i'm pretty sure more than a few people won't appreciate you comparing pet-owning to the slave trade...just sayin'.

Well, if they don't like it then that shows I've hit a tender nerve yes? ;-)

So, what exactly would you have pet owners do?
Release domesticated animals to suffer and die in the wild?

It's just not really a valid conversation to have right now. As already stated, domestication having already taken place kind of kneecaps any survivablity these animals might have.

Also, another note on the whole `abduction` thing... one of our cats was given to us pregnant and when she had her kittens she rejected them. In the wild they would have died. So I'm pretty sure the kittens were probably happier that we kept them.

To be honest this is more of a hypothetical discussion than a manifesto or actual proposal, if measures were taken to reduce or ban pet owning then likely what to be done would vary by species. Feral cats and dogs exist in many countries though, and more recently pets such as parrots or rabbits have barely changed from their ancestors so I reckon they'd have a good chance of reintergrating into the gene pool.

You don't have a pet, I'm afraid you just don't understand.

I'd argue I understand better than most pet owners, since my judgement isn't clouded by bias or justifications of my own past actions to do with the subject.

Some posters already completely discreted your OP, and have proven you wrong entirely. Yet, I don't see you quoting those posts, but continuing to argue with other posters, in who's comments you see things to nitpick on.

The great, wild outdoors is not so great. It's cruel, unforgiving, most animals die before they turn are even 6 months old. Every day is a constant struggle for food, water and survival.

My cat loved being my pet, he literally jumped in my arms after I came back from a holiday. He slept on my stomach while I lay on the couch, watching TV and the amount of chasing after him in a playful manner gave me so much exercise that I gained almost 10 kilo's after he died.
My cat fucking loved me, and I loved him.

That pet was the best thing that could ever happen to me, and I like to think that I was the best thing that could happen to him. Since I fed him, cleaned his litter box, took him to the vet, brushed him and gave him truckloads of attention. Don't you dare call that very special relationship with him, immoral.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

And the thread is already over.

Dogs don't think the way we do, they don't reason the same. All of my dogs think we're all a big pack, and they obey us because to them, we're higher up in the chain of command. And they don't resent us, they all fucking love us. So, yeah, not the same situation.

This is important. Often when we walk my friends puppy we keep her on a leash while around cars to keep her safe but release her in the park. We can wander whereever and no matter how far excited or interesting something is she will NEVER stray far away or fail to follow us when we move on. Because shes a baby. And we are the pack leaders. She trusts our jugdement. We treat her kindly and reinforce the idea of the pack and the fact we look after eachother. Since we are all naturally so much bigger than her and her temperment is basically not aggressive at all she accepts we will protect her. And when she sees a huge dog she always hides behind us (which is hugely adorable).

And the arbitrary rules thing? Other than a few weird things she cant do (like go in the roads) she understands when shes naughty. You cant claim a dog is ignorant of that. When i pretend to chew her toys she growls and whines and wants them back because its hers. When she chews my shoes a little and i fake growl she jumps back and stares at me all guilty looking. Dogs know when they violate pack law after growing up a little. And since every pack will have different "rules" depending on where they live for survival, dogs are used to taking orders they dont always understand. Its just genetic.

"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."

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.

I'd also think that two years so far studying biology at university would be more of a qualification to speak about animals than simply owning one individual animal, not currently owning a pet also allows me to take an objective viewpoint without letting emotions or justifications get in the way.

I dont own this dog of my friends. I didnt see it for 4 weeks once. I came back and she cried and whined and jumped at me for an hour to make me pet her and hug her. Ive never fed her in my entire life. All ive ever given her is attention and kindness. And a bond formed. Im part of the pack. How could she love me for food when ive never provided anything for her? The display of emotion in a PACK creature is incredibly important! Cmon fellow biologist! Social behaviours? The reinforcement of social bonds within a group. Monkeys groom and play and dogs want to be petted and play. This reinforces the "friendship" like bond. It links empathy. And empathy unites packs creature to work together to ensure survival.

You say a chimp smile means anger, how can you say a dog jumping at me and rubbing her head on my legs then rolling over so i can rub her tummy is anything but a display of the social behavior used to bond members of a pack. When i take part in this behavior by stroking her or playing with tug of war with her she wags her tail. She only does this when taking part in positive behaviours she initiates or willingly takes part in. As such i think it must be a sign of happyness.

 

[lord canti]

I for one believe animals can feel love. Have you ever seen a dog who lost someone before? It's a pretty heart breaking scene. While they are no where near as intelligent as humans. They are smart enough to feel love orat the very least strong loyalty.

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

.....
If you are some sort of vegan pussy then don't talk to me about your pets because each and every animal gets the same degree of respect from me, and that is basically that you are on your own in this universe, but if you want to chill for a while and smoke some grass that's cool. Just couldn't imagine why anything would want a chain around their neck.

Not that I wan't to start anything but why cant vegans talk to you about there pets? I'm vegan I have the exact same idea as you, I think it's fucked up when pets get neutered or have their wings clipped.

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

Looking through the posts I cant help but notice a bit of contradiction, animals arn't intelligent enough to under stand they are pets, but they do have the mental capacity to love. To me it just seams that people arn't actually thinking about the question and are imediatly saying 'no' because they love their pets and don't like the idea that their pet might not be happy with the situation.
not having a go or anything just think the question is worth a bit more thought, especially as everyone seems so quick to negate the OP's opinion because they're not and expert on the matter and yet the extent of a lot of peoples qualification seems to be that they owned a pet at some point.

Again not having a go but it all just reminds me of this,
"He promised you order, he promised you peace and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient, consent"

 

[Keltrick]

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

/thread.

Animals are different from Humans. Their lives are often improved by them becoming a pet (assuming they have responsible, loving owners) whereas Humans are supposedly intelligent creatures who can think for and look after themselves; to take that away from us would make us prisoners.

Their lives are often improved because we've systematically bred them to be unable to exist without us. My Mother has an adorable Shih-Tzu that I love dearly. If humanity didn't exist, then that tiny thing wouldn't either. We've genetically de-fanged it, and otherwise whatever species it started as long long ago, could have a fighting chance in the wild.

Yes, we would be prisoners, but the only thing the above paragraph doesn't detail is the hundreds/thousands of generations humans would be bred through, constantly trying to get a creature genetically predisposed to being a 'good human' and unable to exist as we do now, and only really exist with aide from the aliens.

The OP has real validity. We keep, and in some cases make, species of animals for the sheer purpose of playing with it. Species should not be relegated to that.

 

[Keltrick]

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.

Literally never once fed my cat in the two years we've had her (mum does it) and she still takes sleeping next to me over being outside most of the time (we let our cats run around the neighbourhood).

So yeah, care to justify how that's about food?

Shelter, human affection, de-lousing. Just because you have one cat that in some small way probes the rule, doesn't mean the species as a whole isn't more dependent than it would have been without our intervention. My cat specifically comes up and licks/"Grooms" me because if she shows affection to me, its normally returned with neck scratchins.

 

[Guffe]

I understand the way some people view this but as for me I believe I was a good pe owner until my rat died and I think he had a great life, he was at least 2 hours everyday outsid eof his cage running around the whole house and often after that went back to my room to sleep in his favorite spot. Me and mom made him food that was not secondary, we cooked pasta and meat, boiled eggs, gave him sugarfree cereal etc and treated him like a part of family only in his cage during night (which he occasionally escaped from) and when we were away.
But there are people who harrass their "pets" just like people who hit their own children and these people should not be allowed to keep pets just like some people aren't fit to be parents.

 

[garbutt]

A friend of mine adopted a cat from a rescue centre.
At the time of adoption, Whiskey (the cat) was 17 years old, deeply unhappy, half starved thanks to a thyroid problem and not expected to live more than about 6 weeks.

My friend looked after Whiskey and kept that cat well fed, healthy and HAPPY for a year and a half before Whiskey finally died of natural causes. He gave that cat a year and a half of life it wouldn't otherwise have had, and there's no way I can consider how he cared for that animal to be immoral.

Also, I think your example is misleading. You suggest a human (a thinking, reasoning self aware creature) kept as a pet - this would be slavery and as such would be immoral. Animals however, are neither sentient nor self-aware; and as such we cant apply the same rules to them. Would explain in more detail what I mean (dont think I've explained very clearly) but I gotta get to work...

 

[Sansha]

Animals don't want 'freedom', as we know it. They want:

1. Food
2. Shelter
3. Sex
4. Safety

Being a pet gets all of those provided free. Even if you get fixed, you no longer WANT sex so hooray!

 

[Pat8u]

the only difference here is the animals are safer as pets and cats are a pain when wild so they are better as pets

 

[AstylahAthrys]

My cat is the happiest, sweetest cat I've ever met. We rescued her after she was found locked in a drawer in an unlocked, abandoned house. She was in the wild, starving, unloved and alone. Now she has a warm cat bed, food, toys and more love than you could imagine. She's my baby, and that's a lot like she is. A baby. Or, well, maybe a toddler, because she's smart enough to try and get the cat food on her own when she's hungry and out of food. That's when you drop everything and feed your poor baby. In turn, I am her mother. I make sure all her needs are met, including love and affection. And I have her love and affection in return. She hears me typing right now and is calling for me. She comes when I call her. So, no, owning domesticated animals is not immoral. They're domesticated, meaning they're meant to live in homes with humans. It's symbiotic.

 

[SweetNess_666]

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

Agreed, I have 3 dogs and there always happy n bouncing around with eachother even there food smells good lol so if it is immoral to keep pets then I'm a bad bad person lol

 

[Nvv]

Looking through the posts I cant help but notice a bit of contradiction, animals arn't intelligent enough to under stand they are pets, but they do have the mental capacity to love. To me it just seams that people arn't actually thinking about the question and are imediatly saying 'no' because they love their pets and don't like the idea that their pet might not be happy with the situation.
not having a go or anything just think the question is worth a bit more thought, especially as everyone seems so quick to negate the OP's opinion because they're not and expert on the matter and yet the extent of a lot of peoples qualification seems to be that they owned a pet at some point.

Again not having a go but it all just reminds me of this,
"He promised you order, he promised you peace and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient, consent"

Just because you chose that quite irrelevant piece of video I'll respend to your argument.

First of all I'll explain my "pet-background" so to speak. I've grown up in a family that has always kept dogs. During my lifetime we've had 4 dogs. First two when I was little, and to this day losing them are still the most tragic event in my life. We got our third dog after the first one died and she (the third dog) lived for 15 years. We recently had to put her down because her legs were failing and she was noticeably afraid and in pain, it was not an easy decision, but we did it becuase it would be inhumane to let her live like that.

Now, to your argument.
You rightly point out the incoherency in a lot of the argument here, that dogs (or pets, but let's keep it to dogs as they are probably the most prominent pet.) are not advanced enough to understand that they are pets, but that they understand or show love.

However, I disagree with your statment that claim the responses to this thread are "knee-jerk reactions" because people have, and love their, pets. You see, if you have a pet you'll have more of an insight into the morality of pet-keeping than if you do not keep a pet. And for that matter, I think that the OP's Biology degree (or current study toward a degree) gives him an insight into biology, not psychology, which I would say is the primary field of this discussion. So he has as much of a qualified opinion as anyone else on this forum.

Back to your point of view (assumed from the video and your first argument): You seem to fall on the side of pet keeping being immoral. But would releasing our pets into the wild, or euthanising them, be a better alternative? I don't think so. Dogs have evolved alongside, and been bred by, humans. They are as such, not able to survive on their own. As pets dogs are well-fed, sheltered and cared for both medically and socially. In the wild they would most likely be malnourished and poorly sheltered, though they might be cared for socially they would not be be cared for medically.
Now you might say that they do not understand the concept of love, and I agree with that in the sense that they do not understand the concept of love in a human capacity. However, they do bond with the members of their pack, which in the case of dogs is the family that keeps them, they will be attatched to us in some way.

Also, as a final note: The V for Vendetta clip is just irrelevant. It's about freedom, and freedom is also a human concept. Which dogs or pets by your argument do not have the capacity to understand.

Now my opinion on the matter might be biased, but the OP's initial argument is flawed. If humans were to be the pets of aliens who were much more advanced than us we would still have our current mental capacity. That means that, regardless of the gap between our intellect and that of our "owners", we would still understand the concepts of freedom, captivity, love etc. Dogs, on the other hand, do not. It would be immoral to keep a being that is aware of those concepts captive, but dogs are not advanced enough for that. I still belive that they bond to us though, and that that is very similar to the human concept of love, without dogs being aware of that of course.

TL;DR:
1: There are some contradictions in the arguments made.
2: Pets do not have the mental capacity for concepts such as freedom or love.
3: Yet, they do form bonds with members of their pack (us) that are similar to our concept of love.
4: Dogs, especially, are better of as a pet than in the wild, due to them evolving with humans and to them being bred for spesific purposes by humans. Simply put, they would not make it in the wild.
5: The V for Vendetta speech is, by your own argument, irrelevant. If they don't understand the concept of captivity they do not understand the concept of freedom.
6: OP's argument is flawed. Dogs are not as advanced as humans.
7: It would be immoral to keep an advanced being (around human-level of advancement) captive.
8: Keeping dogs (and most pets) as pets is not immoral.

 

[ShaqLevick]

.....
If you are some sort of vegan pussy then don't talk to me about your pets because each and every animal gets the same degree of respect from me, and that is basically that you are on your own in this universe, but if you want to chill for a while and smoke some grass that's cool. Just couldn't imagine why anything would want a chain around their neck.

Not that I wan't to start anything but why cant vegans talk to you about there pets? I'm vegan I have the exact same idea as you, I think it's fucked up when pets get neutered or have their wings clipped.

Actually I'm sorry, I didn't really mean it as such. I guess I've just been in too many arguments with people who seem to care a great deal about their pets but turn around and get in a heated discussion regarding what I would call genital mutilation. Not that I didn't consider a Vegan could possibly share your beliefs, but I guess I did kind of phrase it as Vegan "pussy"... yet again a poor choice of words, but if you don't take up hypocritical viewpoints and stand strong to your beliefs then you're not much of a "pussy" at all.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Some animals such as Sugar-gliders are inner social animals. Meaning they need their own kind to be happy. In that respect I wouldn't ever own one without making sure he had plenty of friends to make him happy.

Cats and Dogs on the other hand are just social. A dog will see you as part of the pack if you play your cards right as will a cat. It is why dogs will protect you with their lives and cats will give you dead mice as presents. They are caring for you because you are part of their family.

My cat is an outdoors cat. It has the freedom to leave whenever it wants, but he just hangs around. I assume he's happy as he will actually run across the yard to rub himself around my legs when I walk outside.


Not all pets are treated the same, the same way some humans treat other humans cruelly some humans treat animals cruelly. Its a sad reality, but its not the rule. I for one treat my animals with kindness and respect. I learn their social cues and try to figure out what makes them happy.

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

Picture this scene. You are a human minding your own business when suddenly, without warning, a gigantic super-intelligent alien steps on you and crushes you beneath its foot. Or alternatively, the super-intelligent alien uses some kind of spray specifically designed to kill you. All you were trying to do is go about your daily routine, but because what you were doing was deemed unacceptable to the super-intelligent alien's arbitrary rules. You have little chance surviving a day or two, and no one will give a stuff about you when you're dead. That is your life.

This may sound like a horror story but in fact it's the grim reality of the millions of bugs killed by humans without so much as a second thought. So, is it immoral to kill bugs?


See, it's very easy to make anything sound ungodly immoral if you put the right spin on it. You could make love sound immoral if you described it in that tone.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Keeping pets is a win-win situation. You get to prolong the life of some unfortunate animal that was probably bent for the lethal injection, gain a companion for 20-ish years (dogs/cats) and you can film them with your iPhone and post your shenanigans on YouTube as much as you like.

The pets? They're just happy to be fed, sleep somewhere warm and have a Chtulhu'ian being that looks after them and cherises their companionship.

Captcha again: all dancing

 

[Vegosiux]

See, it's very easy to make anything sound ungodly immoral if you put the right spin on it. You could make love sound immoral if you described it in that tone.

And now I am cursing myself for having a vivid imagination. Aliens, love, arbitrary immorality, etc etc...I need some bleach.

But yes, your point is correct, appeal to emotion is just cheap and I really hate it too.

 

[Rainforce]

I mean this in the nicest way possible.

Dogs, cats and other pets are too stupid to know that they're pets.

no I'm pretty sure my cat knows who's the boss
well, at least until I politely tell him (once more) that he's somewhat wrong with his interpretation of reality.

also I think dogs know their position very well, they probably just don't know how life looks from our perspective and so have nothing to compare their current situation to. And, let's face it, it's nice to always have someone who gives you food and cuddles you for free : D

You might be right for the rest, though. Then again, it's more a matter of inexperience and good enough circumstances they simply don't need to care, I think.
If things get too unpleasant they will run/scream/scratch/etc. as they see fit.
unless you get bored to death by your owners, then you might get depressed D: