Is it immoral to keep pets?

[Eamar]

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?

"Animals are not complex enough for the emotions their owners ascribe to them"... start talking about Stockholm Syndrome. A complex, human psychological disorder. *confused*

Also, our pets' species do not exist in the wild. They are the result of thousands of years of selective breeding/evolution and are designed to live almost symbiotically with humans. So not only would they never be able to live "in the wild with their own species" but they'd also most likely not survive beyond the first week or so, if that.

Going back to the original post, I'd say your analogy is flawed because a pet, unlike the human child, is not living in a "natural" (non-domesticated, though as I've pointed out, domesticity is actually the closest thing to "natural" for these species) state prior to its "abduction." They're taken away from their mother once they are no longer reliant on her, just as happens with wild species. Most animals have no concept of family, especially not carnivores like dogs and cats. The young are driven away from/leave their mothers as soon as possible.

As for the "scolding/hitting when you break seemingly arbitrary rules" part, first of all the vast majority of good pet owners do not hit their animals, and secondly, how do you think children are raised? A toddler will run out into traffic and is scolded when it does so. Thus it learns to accept the rule of not running out into the road. The child is too young to understand the possible consequences of its actions, and so the rule seems "arbitrary" to them.

The "crocodile tears" part is just insulting to anyone who's ever owned and loved a pet. As others have said, creatures like dogs, cats and horses very much become "part of the family" and are often mourned as such. Hell, when my sister's guinea pig died a few years ago the whole family was cut up about it for weeks. We still get teary eyed when someone mentions him (seriously, he was one hell of a guinea pig). With all due respect, I don't think you quite know what you're talking about.

 

[DarkRyter]

Well, morality doesn't really exist, what with everything being dust in the wind.

So, no. Keeping pets isn't immoral.

 

[JoJo]

Animals really, really like being pets. They love being it. Domestic animals =/= humans.

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.

Have you had a pet?

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.

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 ;-)

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?

Well, considering we rescued one from the wild who had practically died, I really doubt it.
And dogs are actually more intelligent then you think.
You really have to have a pet to see what we're talking about

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.

 

[Secret world leader (shhh)]

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.

Maybe by not looking at individual characteristics and read into their overall behavior. A chimp may smile when angry, but I'm pretty sure they're probably doing other things as well that makes their anger very apparent.

Anger isn't the only negative emotion. It's not surprising that pets often don't appear to show dislike towards their owners when they're conditioned strongly via rewards and discipline to react in a way their owners desire. What's interesting is the similarity between many of the arguments on this thread and the arguments made by slave owners several centuries before: "they aren't like us", "they have a better life as a...", "they couldn't survive on their own".

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

 

[Phasmal]

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.

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.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Anger isn't the only negative emotion. It's not surprising that pets often don't appear to show dislike towards their owners when they're conditioned strongly via rewards and discipline to react in a way their owners desire. What's interesting is the similarity between many of the arguments on this thread and the arguments made by slave owners several centuries before: "they aren't like us", "they have a better life as a...", "they couldn't survive on their own".

Wow. The difference between slaves and pets is that slaves were human beings. To say that they aren't like us was quite simply false. In the case of a pet it is entirely true that they are not like us because they are an entirely different species that lacks the higher thought processes we have.
The two situations are completely different.
What we were saying wasn't true for slaves because they are exactly the same as us, they possess the same critical thinking and emotional abilities that we do. Animals do not. An animal won't have a better life in the wild than in captivity because, apart from spacial issues, everything is worse. Shelter is temporary, unheated and improvised, often not waterproof. Food is whatever they can scavenge, it may be diseased or there may be none at all, accidents from the environment like falls, cuts, wounds from other animals go untreated, predators are a constant danger, if they get a disease they have no treatment for it. Their life will be short, hard and full of peril.

As I said earlier, an owl can be expected to live 4 times as long in captivity than in the wild because its living standard is so much better.
The only drawback to living in captivity is one of space. and animals don't need as much open space as you would think. The only reason they need so much in the wild is because they have to hunt for food, so they need an area large enough to contain enough food for them, but as pets they get their food handed to them, so that space isn't necessary. If you ever go to a farm you will probably see dogs, cats, chickens etc. wondering about the farmyard. Funny thing is, despite being open to the entire countryside they never really leave the actual small yard because they have no reason to, their food is handed to them, they have room enough for a bit of a run, it's all they need.

 

[Zeckt]

Sorry to say but I don't think you understand cats and dogs like you say you do. You say my cat only shows me effection when she wants food but I think her actions speak otherwise when I wake up after a nap and her belly is full with a full dish of food and immediately gets excited and shows me affection and meows happily every time I come in the door from work.

She eats like a queen, fed kibble with only the highest reviews that keep her strong and healthy and every other meal gets premium meow mix wet food and literally bounces for joy after eating it which includes meals of all types of fish / chicken / liver she would never otherwise eat.

We seem to have some kind of otherworldly connection where we know what each other is feeling. I know when she wants attention, just as she does me. She has never had cause to be afraid or angry and does not even know how to. She loves everybody.

I think she's very happy the way she is, where the alternative would be a constant fight for survival and constant rape from stray male cats where her and her constant litter of kittens would starve to death. I read your points, and I never punish her and she has total freedom. You don't have a pet, I'm afraid you just don't understand.

 

[teqrevisited]

If my cats didn't want to live here anymore they know where the doors are. As it is they keep coming back. They'd be able to survive out there, too. They've got birds, mice, rats etc all of which they are capable of catching.

 

[Esotera]

For things like dogs which have been domesticated over thousands of years, I'd say that it's fine, as they enjoy it, and the same with cats, pigs, rabbits, et cetera. If you're keeping something like a tiger, then you probably can't provide an adequate home for it, and it would in all probability enjoy the wild more, so then it becomes immoral.

 

[JoJo]

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.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

Animals really, really like being pets. They love being it. Domestic animals =/= humans.

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.

Have you had a pet?

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.

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 ;-)

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?

Well, considering we rescued one from the wild who had practically died, I really doubt it.
And dogs are actually more intelligent then you think.
You really have to have a pet to see what we're talking about

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.

You say they are very dumb and have simple desires and emotions, then say they have stockholm syndrome?

Yeah....

You can tell when a pet like a cat or a dog is happy or sad, just like you could tell if a mute person is happy or sad.

And what about the people who have cats that go loose all the time? That have no restrictions? I know a couple that have a cat - they don't feed it, it goes out hunting. It has a bed, but often sleeps outside. It only comes back because it likes the people. We house sat for them for a while, and at first the cat just wouldn't come back, because we weren't its family, but after a while it got more used to us, and started warming up and returning.

Also, I have to point out, animal biology and animal psychology are very different things.

EDIT: This is one of those things where you need to have a pet to get it. Like saying a psychiatrist that has never actually talked to someone would be better at diagnosing someone they've never talked to than someone who has. Bit of a weird analogy, but still kind of applicable.

 

[Eamar]

You say they are very dumb and have simple desires and emotions, then say they have stockholm syndrome?

Yeah....

I made this point earlier on in the thread. Strangely enough, OP has yet to respond to it (or any of my other points. I'm starting to feel left out )

Also, I have to point out, animal biology and animal psychology are very different things.

Seconded. You can be the best biologist in the world, but saying you study "biology" could mean anything from single cell organisms up. And yeah, psychology =/= biology in most cases. If the OP does have any particular experience in animal psychology I'd be genuinely interested to hear about it though.

EDIT: also OP, if I recall correctly from the veganism thread, you're a meat eater. Do you actually hold these beliefs, or is this meant to a purely theoretical discussion about ethics?

 

[Riki Darnell]

Hmm, i suppose you kind of have a point. I'm sure many cats would rather live in their natural way rather than be declawed and neutered. I know i'll get people saying "oh but they're well fed and safe and loved etc" but is that really worth it? Humans have evolved to live a life of indoor safety and pre-packaged food, why should we enforce that on animals?

My cat was saved from the pound so I'm sure he loves his new life better than his old. Also, a lot of cats DO live with their claws and reproductive parts still intact. My cat has all of his claws and it doesn't bother me when he tears up some of the furniture. He get's to go outside when he wants during the day so he gets his exercise and out-door time. I do buy him cat food, but also feed him table scraps too when it's something he likes.

I think the issue is if the animal wants to be with you. If an animal is being abused or neglected and want's to get away that's something different. But most pet owners love their animals and wouldn't do anything to harm them. I'm one of the owners that sees my cat as family. He will jump up on the table and eat with me, sleep on my bed from time to time, and catch any pesky insects inside

 

[DktrAgonizer]

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.

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."

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.

 

[Phasmal]

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.

I doubt anything like that will happen because you can't really argue convincingly that the act of pet ownership is harmful in and of itself.

Plus, you didnt say what I should have done with my poor abandoned kitty-cats!
Abandoning young is not uncommon in the wild.

 

[Stu35]

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.

So far in this thread you've thrown your education and the fact that you're a "neutral" to try and prove your point.

Credentials don't win arguments, especially on the internet.

You could win this argument with logical, well thought out points, which you don't have. You argue that we can't understand our pets desires and wants in the same breath as you try to explain how you totally understand their desires and wants.

As has already been pointed out, and as I argued in the Vegan thread - Animals don't have a concept of "Freedom", thats a human idea, even then it's a fairly recent human idea (and one that is very poorly defined at best).

Finally, if you do indeed believe that we're enslaving these animals against their will, explain to me why my dogs refuse to go out into the wild and strike out as a 2 dog pack?

This is despite the fact that the German Shepherd can open doors and they can both jump our back garden fence (which opens out into some woodland).

I would argue it's because they see me and my family as part of a pretty damned successful pack already - we have a den, we hunt effectively (i.e. they get fed), and there are tasks to be done within the pack - herding the young (next door neighbours children), fending off intruders, Chasing and returning the ball (because that's a job to a dog, and they love their work)... etc. etc. etc.

But hey, it could be that they have Stockholm Syndrome... Why go for the obvious answer when you can assign a Human psychological issue that animals would most likely not be able to feel or understand to every single pet on the planet?

 

[Zeckt]

It's ironic that you say my opinion is too clouded, when you yourself seem completely dead set in your views. Just saying.

 

[Eamar]

I'm sure many cats would rather live in their natural way rather than be declawed

Sorry to pick out one part of your post, but I just want to point out that declawing is illegal in the UK and a whole lot of other European countries, so it's not the same worldwide.

 

[scorptatious]

I'm looking at my two dogs right now, and they are both lying on the ground sleeping. They greet me and anyone else in my family whenever we enter the house, they try to jump onto the couch/bed I'm on expecting me to pick them up, (they're both small dogs) and they lie on their sides and raise their paws up expecting me to rub their bellies.

They both seem very happy with the life they have now. And I definitely won't forget them when they pass.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

Snips

Yeah, no. You're basically saying that animals are too dumb to experience love. Not true at all, man.

This is also very true. My pets will not come up to me and look at me nicely because they're manipulative and want food. They're smart enough to love, and they really do. It's not just because of food, it's because we love them and they know that.

You simply can't talk about these things without owning a pet. And make sure it's yours. For example, we have 3 dogs, and I'd have one that I consider mine. I'm the one that spends the most time with him, and he likes to spend time with me, and guess what? I'm not the one who feeds him. Sure, he likes the person who feeds him but it's my bed he'll come too, it's me he'll ask to play with first and it's me who he likes to spend time with.