Is it immoral to keep pets?

[Patrick Buck]

*Reads OP*
*Looks over at my cat fast asleep on my bed, snoring loud enough for me to hear it 3 metres away.* NOPE.

If the animal is mistreated, then yeah, sure it is. But not if it's kept in a safe, warm, food-filled enviroment. We basically let our cats do what they want. That's eat, sleep on our laps, beds or faces (Not so happy about the last one. -_- ) and they seem content enough.

Plus there's the fact that they really don't know any other kind of existance. Plus both our cats are rescue cats. Plus one's blind and we look after her carefully.
I'd say it's fair.

 

[Bat Vader]

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.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Watch this video then tell me that dogs can't feel love, happiness or attachment to a human being. I dare you!


If keeping a dog, or cat was so "immoral" then why would they be like this when their owner comes home after what I assume ages.

Also, how the hell is living in the wild better for a pet than living in safe captivity. As a pet, a dog or cat gets food, water, shelter, warmth, comfort, love, hygiene and more. They won't remember their family, because they're not as intelligent as us.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

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 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?)

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.

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.

So OP, until you've actually owned a pet and felt the amount of love you have for them you can say NOTHING about it being immoral. Sure, if a pet owner beats their pet and leaves it alone in the dark then yeah, they're immoral twatbags who should be put in jail. But if you actually care for a dog, why should it be immoral?

 

[archvile93]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[BrassButtons]

is it really morally okay to keep animals as pets or do animals deserve the right to be free?

Depends on the pet, and on the ability of the owner to properly care for them.

In the case of dogs, they belong with humans in the same way that clown fish belong with sea anemones. They evolved to live with humans. Dogs are not wild animals (and haven't been since they split from wolves). Separating them from humans would be cruelty. Keeping them as pets (provided the owners are able to properly care for them) is what they need.

 

[Dinwatr]

Humans and dogs co-evolved. Dogs evolved from feral canines, which in turn evolved from wolves. Those feral canines hung around human camps, eating scraps (or whatever else they could get away with). Humans found some of them useful, and gradually these became what we know as dogs. Thus, to argue that owning dogs is immoral is to argue that evolution is immoral--an argument that is, as far as I'm concerned, self-refuting (after all, how can a statistical phenomenon be immoral?).

Cats I'm a bit less clear on--I'm a dog person, and haven't looked into feline domestication. Fish, lizards, and the like aren't developed enough to identify the difference between captivity and the wild (far as they're concerned they ARE wild), so the whole pet ownership thing is irrelevant to those taxa.

But in at least one case, ownership of a pet is simple evolution. And that, at minimum, cannot be considered immoral.

 

[AngloDoom]

I don't know about you, but I don't beat my pets or feed them second-rate food.

I stroke them, give up half my chair for them, and them seem to like the 'second-rate food' to the point of being a bit tubby and trying to break into the bags to eat it when I leave it out.

My pets have never been injured in a domestic environment and have only come to harm as a result of other wild-life, with one of my cats having its leg bitten by a rat. The wound had gone unnoticed for a while and had gotten quite bad, and it was only me stroking its tubby tummy and noticing a cut on the inside of its leg and taking her to the vets that saved her leg and her life.

If you're a half-decent owner, your pets life-expectancy is much higher than in the wild, they can afford to have luxury time, they are much better fed, never dehydrated, given a good degree of mental stimulation and exercise, and (if they are the type of creature to form bonds) they greet you at the door.

EDIT -

What alternative do you suggest? Throwing dogs and geckos out into the wild and seeing how things work out?

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

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?

So many posts I want to reply to but I'm feelin' lazy right now.
When I think of pets I think of..

To me its now become a kind of necasery evil, the whole they live longer when domesticated, the wiled is cruel to them, they would die just doesn't sit with me, I personally would rather have a shorter free life than a captivated long one. Also the whole there not like humans, there not smart enough to understand, will people stop being so arrogant about being human, yes we get it you mastered the precision grip, now if you want to prove your superior actually use it for something impressive.

I have no problem with a pet that has a good life, but I personally can't shake the feeling that they are just a living 'thing' for people to own. Where I really draw the line is when an animal is kept in a crappy or small conditions (I include fish in this) or if an owner neutered or its wings clipped, I can't express how much that pisses me off.
As long as people don't do this I can live with it

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.

Wow that sounds better than my living conditions, bravo sir.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

I think this quote from a TV Show I watch makes a good point on this topic:

Sharpe: What've you got there Harper?
Harper: Just a wee wild bird.
Sharpe: Won't it fly away?
Harper: No. It trusts me.
Sharpe: But you're gonna put it in a cage.
Harper: It knows it'll get a few crumbs in a cage.
Sharpe: I thought wild things like their freedom.
Harper: Freedom to starve is no freedom.


I actually have a parrot that does free flying. Which is as you might expect, it flies around outside without any restraints when I take it to places like the local park. It chooses to come back to me, because it trusts me and knows I will keep it safe.

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

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.

Dogs choose to be so excited when 'master' comes home that they pee themselves because thats what they want to do. They don't pretend to be excited in order to get a treat. They have been bred specifically for human companionship.

My cat chooses to sleep on the pile of laundry in the back all day because thats what it wants to do, it doesn't give a shit. It gets to live in absolute peace and has some ugly human serve it three square meals a day, I know more than a few people who would love that kind of life.

It would be more cruel to set them all free. How many of those cats, dogs, hamsters, budgies etc...would surive for more than a few days in our modern cities?

 

[BENZOOKA]

No.

The statement in the original post is too ridiculous to give a more elaborate response.

 

[nuba km]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Luca72]

This question deserves more thought than people are giving it. I've never seen a cat that seemed one hundred percent happy with its situation. Cats are basically a current high point in evolution - a super efficient solitary mammal KILLER. Same way a human likes to eat an omnivore diet,.sleep at night, have sex, etc., a cat probably really likes to kill. We just keep them around because they're fuzzy and too small to hurt us. The only cats I've ever run into that seem to "enjoy" their situations are outdoor cats that get to leave and hunt as they see fit. Indoor cats just become neurotic and cranky after a while.

Dogs seem to enjoy being "owned" though. A lot of that has to do with selective breeding and forced domestication, but dogs seem pretty happy as long as you treat them well and let them outside.

Reptiles, fish, birds - I think those animals would PREFER to be outdoors and free, but it's hard to tell if they even know. They're at a state of evolution where they're so concerned with eating and conserving energy that there's probably no way to know if they actually "think" about anything in the way we consider it. But owning one of these kinds of animals is just - weird. Why not let them run around and be part of the natural cycle, instead of shoving them in a box because you feel lonely?

 

[ToastiestZombie]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Every party needs a pooper, that's why we invited you"- some random guy

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.

 

[nuba km]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Every party needs a pooper, that's why we invited you"- some random guy

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 once had a hamster but it was ungodly evil, attempted to assassinate my sisters hamster, luckily I was there to stop it.

But anyway, like many others have said and I have explained the thing you think is love is not, I have also in that post explained how dogs to not have "unconditional love" with members of their pack, otherwise they wouldn't kill the alpha the moment he is weak enough to take on (and then often kill his offspring) and after that all the animals go pack to their buisness.

 

[Signa]

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?

I suddenly don't think you're qualified to have this conversation.

Dog's minds are about as complex as a two-year-old's. If a two-year-old can feel it, a dog probably can. And like a two-year-old, if you put a bunch of two-year-olds together, they are going to find ways to be happy without adults around. If you assume they could feed themselves, flee from danger, and reproduce, then there would be little difference between them and dogs.

I could go into all the stories about my pets, the wild animals we've fed, or the dog I almost hit and the realization of death that was on its face, but since you haven't had pets, you're just going to keeps asking "how do you know?" and all I can say is I just do.

 

[Rose and Thorn]

I consider the cat that lives with me as a friend. Everytime he leaves the flat he always comes back, so he can't hate it here.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

I think we've decided that you can't tell if a pet is happy unless you've actually experienced it. Really JoJo, this isn't something that you can just explain, you have to experience it for yourself to see it.

 

[ShaqLevick]

Not that I really care but there is nothing worse than "fixing" your cat/dog. No man wants to lose his balls. Damn all of you individuals who boast loving your pet, and yet proceed to do something so terrible... Damn you all to Hell!

Speaking as a man, and just say I was imprisoned for whatever reason. And just suppose I was about to be castrated, "just kill me now" is about all I can say to that. Your dog may not be capable of higher reasoning, but if the reality of the situation could be described to him I bet a good 99% of the population would not be onboard! Fuck Bob Barker and his Nazi ideals.

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.

 

[Dangit2019]

You can't understand more than a word or two of their language and most of it's simply unlearnable by human ears for various reasons, yet they scold or hit you whenever you do something against their arbitrary rules which to you make no sense.

What is your idea of domestication? Because I never hit or scold my dog for not understanding English, that would be insane; not to mention pretty much illegal.

Also, what everyone else has said. Animals simply do not reason the same way we do. If we reasoned the same as dogs, we'd all be naked and would constantly trying to lick our crotch.