Is it immoral to keep pets?

[Emperor Nat]

So some aliens take me from my current life, then spend an immense portion of THEIRS feeding me, washing me, taking me out on walks, playing with me, doting over me, keeping me healthy, taking me to parks where I get to make friends other humans, and giving me a massage because I've decided to lie on their lap?

Yeah, that sounds like a bad life. *rolls eyes*

In all seriousness, animals don't have the complex cognitive functions that humans do. On the whole, they're thick. This isn't to say they don't have any emotion, but they process it in a different way to humans. You can't 'upset' a dog, for instance.

For evidence, watch the dog whisperer. It's an entertaining enough show, and the animal psychology they talk about is quite interesting. To summarise it: "Dogs are happiest when they are being dominated by a pack leader".

Also, as mentioned in my sarcastic hypothetical, animals live in freakin' luxury. In the wild, there are only two real sensations that an animal will feel - fear and hunger.

 

[Emperor Nat]

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.

:ChallengeAccepted.jpg:

Picture this scene. You are a human, minding your own business, when suddenly the entirety of your biological and psychological processes suddenly shift in focus. This happens without your consent, without warning and often without any method of dealing with the problem. This innate switch then turns you into a near-literal slave, allowing your to debase and humiliate yourself in a way that you would never have considered previously. This all happens without the problem of a solution, and may eventually bring untold emotional strain should your attempts to solve the problem fail.

 

[Orekoya]

Fair points well made, although I did only say that "To me it just seams that people arn't actually thinking about the question..." not saying it is 'cuse I don't know peoples back grounds on the matter, also I have to disagree with you say "...if you have a pet you'll have more of an insight into the morality of pet-keeping than if you do not..." because if someone thought it was immoral then they wouldn't do it, taking the argument to the logical extreme it would be like having to kill someone to have a valid opinion on murder.

Wow, I don't even know how to respond to this paragraph because it starts out telling people that their stance on this morality subject was poorly thought out and ends with comparing an act of compassion and companionship to murder. You even pointed out that it's a logical extreme which means you should also know that it's a logical fallacy that should never be used to support your argument.

 

[NightHawk21]

snip

Well I don't know what I can say that hasn't been said in this thread before, but animals are not like us. They don't have our cognitive ability, and for all intents and purposes (and in very inaccurate non-biological terms) are stupider than we are. While your argument might hold some limited ground for some species (non of which come to memory at the moment unfortunately), it certainly does not apply to common house pets. That said (and this is coming as another university level student of biology), if you are really interested in what they are feeling there are ways to figure that out. There are a variety of experiments that you can run to figure out what exactly is going on, but I'm almost positive (like 99%) that your results wouldn't be contradictory to what people have been saying here.

 

[superbatranger]

It's only immoral if you don't provide all the love and care they deserve. I'm talking about you, people who neglect their pets.

 

[DirgeNovak]

Look at my avatar. Do you think he would do very well in the wilderness? No. We keep our pets safe, some of them keep us safe (not mine, obviously). We keep each other company. It's a win-win situation.

 

[Dryk]

Immoral to keep them happy and safe? Nah. Immoral to let them wander around killing random critters and digging up the neighbours' yard? Much better question.

I assume he's happy as he will actually run across the yard to rub himself around my legs when I walk outside.

When cats rub against people they're marking them, you belong to it now

 

[Aprilgold]

Simply put.

Domesticated animals are fine because its been for thousands of years.

Non-domesticated means either you can't provide a good home or it will likely kill you and leave for the wild.

 

[MalkavianLunatic]

My cat is sort of an odd duck. Like so many other animals around here, he must've been a dump case, left behind when a family moved or something. So he had a good taste of 'freedom'.

If that's preferable, then I ask, why did this little bundle of fur and claws invite itself into my apartment? I'd gone outside for a minute and he followed me in, despite my best efforts to shoo him away. He's been here ever since; even though I'm on an extremely fixed income, I've still bought him food, litter, box, toys, treats... I think this cat knew what he was doing. He's been repaying the kindness in purrs and snuggles ever since.

Or I'm just really well-trained now. *lol*

If it's the more ethical choice to let animals run free, then you've never seen the packs of strays around here, skinny and, more often than not, mean. You haven't seen a stray cat darting under a fence with one eye crusted closed due to infection. And if it's so horrible to 'own' a pet and they should all be left to run free, then tell that to the little kid who just lost their best dog friend, too.

I'm not going to argue on the subject of what animals think; I'm not one of those animals, so I really couldn't say. But I will say that my cat seems content to steal my seat and chill on the chair, even if the door's wide open.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I assume he's happy as he will actually run across the yard to rub himself around my legs when I walk outside.

When cats rub against people they're marking them, you belong to it now [/quote]

Haha yeah that would explain his presents next to the door.

At this point, if you were to throw all the domesticated animals out into the world, they'd probably all die. Besides, I highly doubt a dog or a cat has any grasp on the concept of "freedom" as we see it. Animals, specifically domesticated ones, have self-preservation and that's it.

Actually many people still have outdoor cats. They can disappear for weeks and come back perfectly healthy so I do believe cats would have a better chance than dogs if we suddenly disappeared. Dogs on the other hand have pretty much evolved around us and most are incapable of supporting themselves. I had one dog that ran off to chase something, never did figure out what.
Anyway he was gone for 3 days and when we finally found him he was beyond starving and injured.

 

[Kodlak]

They are evolved to the point that they are near dependent on humans, if they are in the wild some would survive but the majority would die. (could you imagine a sausage dog surviving in the wilderness?)

In fairness, as pets they have a longer, happier life.

 

[Kingjackl]

I find keeping pets in cages to be immoral and also quite pointless. That's why I prefer cats and dogs, because they can move around and interact with you.

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

Fair points well made, although I did only say that "To me it just seams that people arn't actually thinking about the question..." not saying it is 'cuse I don't know peoples back grounds on the matter, also I have to disagree with you say "...if you have a pet you'll have more of an insight into the morality of pet-keeping than if you do not..." because if someone thought it was immoral then they wouldn't do it, taking the argument to the logical extreme it would be like having to kill someone to have a valid opinion on murder.

Wow, I don't even know how to respond to this paragraph because it starts out telling people that their stance on this morality subject was poorly thought out and ends with comparing an act of compassion and companionship to murder. You even pointed out that it's a logical extreme which means you should also know that it's a logical fallacy that should never be used to support your argument.

I really didn't mean mean it like that, I should have made my self more clear, I apologise.
I didn't mean that people hadn't thought about it, I just meant that it seemed like the responses where knee jerk, I'm not saying they are, it just seems like that to me. Again I'm probably wrong, I was just asking if people could give it a little more thought.

I wasn't comparing pet keeping to murder, I was trying to show the flaw in the statement, "...if you have a pet you'll have more of an insight into the morality of pet-keeping than if you do not...". Because if someone thought something was immoral then they wouldn't do it. There is also a difference between a 'logical extreme' and a 'logical fallacy'. Fallacy is a flaw in the argument, where as a logical extreme is applying an idea to an extreme situation to see if it holds up, that's all I did.

I didn't mean to offend, I was just voicing my opinion.

 

[Benni88]

I think there's a fine line between an appropriate pet and an inappropriate one. Higher mammals have been shown to have simple emotions and to understand things such as empathy and equality. Any organism capable of these should only be kept as pets if they are unable to live among their own i.e. rescue animals, captive bred etc.

The majority of household pets, lower mammals, reptiles, fish, all function primarily using their instincts, and thus we might reasonably assume that living with humans is a good deal safer, more healthy and fulfilling than living in the wild.

 

[Ultra Man30]

I think this thread was a great idea. The guy knew that he wouldn't be able to use the internet until September so he intentionally made a thread that would make a lot of people, myself included, upset. I am actually kind of impressed at his craftiness. It's almost as if he never left.

 

[Orekoya]

I wasn't comparing pet keeping to murder, I was trying to show the flaw in the statement, "...if you have a pet you'll have more of an insight into the morality of pet-keeping than if you do not...". Because if someone thought something was immoral then they wouldn't do it. There is also a difference between a 'logical extreme' and a 'logical fallacy'. Fallacy is a flaw in the argument, where as a logical extreme is applying an idea to an extreme situation to see if it holds up, that's all I did.

Except there are things you cannot know without experience, like childbirth. As a man, my knowledge of it is incomplete and thus I am not an authority to speak on the subject matter. Companionship, compassion and love would be other things I would say you cannot know without experience. Also I was referring to the logical fallacy of appealing to extremes where one erroneously attempts to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes. Of course "logical fallacy of appealing to extremes" is wordy so some refer to it under its sibling fallacy of "slippery slope" or just call it as a logical extreme after the hypothesis testing method of the said name.

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

Except there are things you cannot know without experience, like childbirth. As a man, my knowledge of it is incomplete and thus I am not an authority to speak on the subject matter. Companionship, compassion and love would be other things I would say you cannot know without experience. Also I was referring to the logical fallacy of appealing to extremes where one erroneously attempts to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes. Of course "logical fallacy of appealing to extremes" is wordy so some refer to it under its sibling fallacy of "slippery slope" or just call it as a logical extreme after the hypothesis testing method of the said name.

I guess that is where we disagree then, when it comes to something like childbirth I don't have all the information, so yes, I lack some variables to understand that fully, but I only accept something if it can be applied to all similarly structured situations at the same time.
Allowed to have an opinion on pet keeping > Must own a pet
Allowed to have an opinion on killing > Must have killed
The only thing that has changed is the variables, the core concept stays the same.

The thing is though everyone dose this all the time, we can look at a posted or trailer for a film or a game and because we have seen all the individual elements before we just know weather or not we will like it, now someone who has never seen a particular film can't really judge the quality of the film but they can still tell if its for them. E.G. I haven't seen the last four Harry Potter films because I know I wouldn't like them but I do also accept that means I don't have all the individual variables to say weather or not it is objectively a good film.

My point is if someone thinks that keeping a pet is immoral then they wont keep a pet to see if its immoral.

As for the statement, "Also I was referring to the logical fallacy of appealing to extremes where one erroneously attempts to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes."
I don't really know how to argue against this because apart form the "erroneously" and "reasonable argument" it's true, using extremes is a way of showing the flaws in any argument, not just ones that are perceived as reasonable. The best example I can think of is Schroedinger's cat.

Also for the record, in my original post I actually say I'm not against pet keeping as such just the fact that we're in this situation now, and I have actually owned pets so unlike Harry Potter I do have the variables for this particular situation.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Picture the scene. You're just a human kid minding your own business when suddenly without warning, super-intelligent aliens take you away from your mother and into a strange new place run by other aliens.

That would make a whole lot more sense if household pets were wild animals. You know, because you imply they're being taken from the wild and not, say, a shelter and what have you.

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. You are fed either scraps from the table, or second rate food they buy specially. You have to pretend to be eager and be a "good human" when your masters return if you want to ever get any treats. If you're unfortunate, they may live in an environment which you can't survive in and so the rest of your life will be confined to one small tank.

...second rate? You're already getting food bought specifically for you, and you're a completely different species than your resident overlord. Aren't you in the least concerned with the possibility that their food might not be good for you?

When they go out, you are left alone or in the car or tied up outside, or if you're lucky you might get to come along with a rope tied around your neck so you can't escape from your "family".

Yep. Because that's the thing on every dog's mind: escape from the horrible, two-legged creatures that've been holding it prisoner. Not "Run around and explore before returning" or "Find out what's making that awesome smell" or "Investigate and/or have sex with that dog of the opposing gender you see."

If the aliens keep more than one human of different genders, then there's a good chance that they'll have you castrated to prevent the inevitable,

Oh no! How horrible to wake up and no longer feel boiling rage at the sight of other human males within my territory, or overwhelming lust at the sight of females. I sure would hate being able to interact with others of my species on levels more complex than "Fight or screw."

or perhaps worse maybe use you as a breeder and then take your kids away before they're grown. The aliens have far longer a lifespan than humans and so when you get old and too expensive to keep, they have you euthanatised, cry a few crocodile tears and then forget about you when they go buy a new pet human. That is your life.

Wow. Somehow I don't think you've ever had a dog, cat, or anything longer-living than a goldfish. Nor do I think you're very good at concealing ulterior motives and personal biases.

This may sound like a horror story

No, it doesn't. It sounds like a lopsided and poorly-founded attempt at shocking people into siding with you. How about this:

"You're growing up with all your siblings, minding your own business, and suddenly, a whirlwind of spinning metal death cuts you down at the ankles and sucks you into a huge container of some sort. If you live long enough, you'll find yourself minced into tiny pieces, mixed with other people, and then baked into food for a terrible species of giants.

Such is the terrifying life of wheat."

but in fact it's the grim reality of the millions of animals kept by us humans as "pets".

Oh, I get it now. So you interviewed actual pets for this? Because otherwise, it'd be shockingly presumptuous to think that your intelligence and point of view can be shrunk and bestowed upon something of an entirely different species.

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?

...huh. You mention pets and fur...but are farm animals mysteriously exempt from this? Are all animals magically off-limits to human interaction? Because there's a distinct reason why we have canine teeth alongside molars: we're omnivores. We eat meat. We've collectively eaten so much meat for so long that evolution saw fit to give us the means to eat meat more efficiently.

So is eating meat okay, but keeping a dog isn't? If that's your opinion, you're trying to point out a line between the two where no line exists. Though I somehow doubt that you're okay with eating meat, since you strike me as a textbook 'Meat is murder' sort.

 

[Orekoya]

I guess that is where we disagree then, when it comes to something like childbirth I don't have all the information, so yes, I lack some variables to understand that fully, but I only accept something if it can be applied to all similarly structured situations at the same time.
Allowed to have an opinion on pet keeping > Must own a pet
Allowed to have an opinion on killing > Must have killed
The only thing that has changed is the variables, the core concept stays the same.

The thing is though everyone dose this all the time, we can look at a posted or trailer for a film or a game and because we have seen all the individual elements before we just know weather or not we will like it, now someone who has never seen a particular film can't really judge the quality of the film but they can still tell if its for them. E.G. I haven't seen the last four Harry Potter films because I know I wouldn't like them but I do also accept that means I don't have all the individual variables to say weather or not it is objectively a good film.

My point is if someone thinks that keeping a pet is immoral then they wont keep a pet to see if its immoral.

As for the statement, "Also I was referring to the logical fallacy of appealing to extremes where one erroneously attempts to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes."
I don't really know how to argue against this because apart form the "erroneously" and "reasonable argument" it's true, using extremes is a way of showing the flaws in any argument, not just ones that are perceived as reasonable. The best example I can think of is Schroedinger's cat.

Except nobody said you were not allowed to have an opinion on pet keeping, so the core concept isn't the same. The original poster you started the conversation with said "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". He's saying you have more insight if you have the experience than not. Nobody is making the argument in the way you are putting it so you are taking their argument (the level of reasonable whatever you might credit it but I personally would agree that yes, experience does help shape morality since it's one of those four building blocks of morality: empathy, experience, education and reason) and turned it into something else erroneously then compared it to murder.

Also for the record, in my original post I actually say I'm not against pet keeping as such just the fact that we're in this situation now, and I have actually owned pets so unlike Harry Potter I do have the variables for this particular situation.

So wait, you've owned pets and thus have the experiences of pet ownership but you don't see how that experience may in some way also be a part of your personal decision on pet ownership? I give up.

 

[DaKiller]

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 ... 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?

Now wait just a second. You claim that pets cannot have emotions that are too complex but that they can also have Stockholm Syndrome? And if pets could have Stockholm Syndrome, then wouldn't they have it in roughly the same percentage as humans which is not even half of human hostages? And are you claiming that domesticated animals are capable of surviving when in actuality a whole hell of a lot of them would die if they were just released into the wild? These are questions you need to answer if you don't think domesticated animals should be kept as pets.

A little more OT, Domesticated animals can't just be released into the wild for the same reason that wild animals cannot just be domesticated: it is not in their nature.