Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How they are treated - hmm, does that mean they have rights? But then a person can easily decide to end their pets life - directly or indirectly. Does that make them property? If property than it is irrelevant how one decides to treat them. The person that decides to do dog fighting is no worse than the person who has someone else do harm for them during the process that brings a hamburger to their table. Is it even possible to have rights without freedom - do pets have freedom?
Once again, it depends on the animal you are talking about. You are trying desperately to apply the broadest brush to everything. Doesn't work like that. There are relatively emotionally-sophisticated pet species and others that are a lot less so. Of course there are many creatures not suited to be kept by humans at all. Tigers and lions come to mind. Far-ranging migratory birds with an urge to disperse. Not all birds have this innate need. It is up to the pet keeper to understand the inherent behavior of a species and observe signs of frustration and stress in their chosen creature. To NOT do this is inhumane and irresponsible.
Be careful..."freedom" is a human construct. You are trying to attach a human construct to creatures that may not care one way or the other. There are relatively emotionally sophisticated species (like a dog) and there are species that don't really care either way. As long as they feel secure and not threatened by environment they may be content without "freedom". If a dog feels secure with a human family, its idea of "freedom" is totally different than the lion's.
Case in point: my python. He wants security from predation by another animal, correct warmth, darkness, water, and food. He doesn't really register "freedom" as long as his basic needs are met. He gets all these things from me, even though he is technically confined to a terrarium. Its a generously-sized terrarium, but that may only impress ME, not HIM.
I'm not going to add to the endless debate about being "property". That tends to be a legal term dictated by some local or state jurisdiction. If you are a ethical and moral person you treat some living thing you choose to make dependent upon yourself humanely. The humane way to keep an aquarium fish is a lot different than the humane way to keep a dog, a bird, a reptile, horse, chicken, etc.
Last edited by Parnassia; 10-21-2019 at 01:28 PM..
Have you ever seen what happens to stray dogs? It's not pretty. They end up starving and riddled with diseases. They usually end up suffering quite a lot before they die.
People who have pets have an ethical and moral obligation to treat them humanely and provide adequate food, shelter, medical care and companionship. If they do that, it's not cruel at all to keep a pet. Dogs have been domesticated to the point where they enjoy and will seek out human company. The same applies to cats but they are more independent.
Simple question: is it cruel to confine pets to our homes?
Is a dog really fulfilling his God given natural role on earth by being cooped up in a human’s home?
What if aliens were to come down and given our look and level of intelligence - they decided to keep us as pets. Perhaps something akin to living in the Truman show where our basic needs are met and being human is done purely for their entertainment.
I know people that work in the veterinary field and they say crap loads of dogs and cats have to be put down. There’s load of bad owners. Loads of abuse. Dogs trained to fight. People that don’t want to pay for the simplest of treatments, etc.
I would disagree that there is "loads" of abuse; in fact I'd say its pretty rare. Or Dog fighting, for that matter, though it does happen. And I have seen people that don't want to pay for "the simplest of treatments" but once again, that's exceedingly rare. Garden variety neglect is more common, but that's not really comparable. But aside from dog fighting, much of what you describe is a hard goalpost to define.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
If people didn’t desire pets so much the market for them would retract and their would be a net reduction in the amount of animal suffering.
And what about the people that really “love” pets and have 20 of them? Is that really any kind of life? Can the animals even begin to reciprocate love in the way humans understand it?
Are we simply using them/projecting feelings to fill a void in our life?
We may be using pets to fill a void in our life, certainly someone that has 20 dogs or cats usually is filling a void other than the desire to have a dog or cat. 99/100, that person is sick; no different than someone that drinks a pint of whiskey every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
How they are treated - hmm, does that mean they have rights? But then a person can easily decide to end their pets life - directly or indirectly. Does that make them property? If property than it is irrelevant how one decides to treat them. The person that decides to do dog fighting is no worse than the person who has someone else do harm for them during the process that brings a hamburger to their table. Is it even possible to have rights without freedom - do pets have freedom?
Yes, they are property. But it is relevant how they are treated. There are laws prohibiting, and defining, cruelty to animals.
Dog fighting is different than slaughtering a cow for food. Dog fighting is cruel to the dogs, and done only for human vanity, entertainment, gambling, profit...
A cow that is used to feed people, their hides to clothe people, etc, is a different matter entirely. A cow that is raised a docile creature and fed and vetted and eventually, yes, sold, slaughtered, butchered, eaten. A dog raised for fighting is abused, forced to fight, shot and left to rot if it doesn't make the cut.
To compare a dog fighter to a cattle farmer (or butcher) is to compare a crack dealer to a hot-dog stand vendor. Sure, they stand on street corners and sell things. That's the end of similarities though.
Simple question: is it cruel to confine pets to our homes?
Is a dog really fulfilling his God given natural role on earth by being cooped up in a human’s home?
What if aliens were to come down and given our look and level of intelligence - they decided to keep us as pets. Perhaps something akin to living in the Truman show where our basic needs are met and being human is done purely for their entertainment.
I know people that work in the veterinary field and they say crap loads of dogs and cats have to be put down. There’s load of bad owners. Loads of abuse. Dogs trained to fight. People that don’t want to pay for the simplest of treatments, etc.
If people didn’t desire pets so much the market for them would retract and their would be a net reduction in the amount of animal suffering.
And what about the people that really “love” pets and have 20 of them? Is that really any kind of life? Can the animals even begin to reciprocate love in the way humans understand it?
Are we simply using them/projecting feelings to fill a void in our life?
I mean, you could make the same case for minor children, couldn't you? A lack of freedom, restricted movement, too-frequent abuse and neglect, often treated as lifestyle accessories...
The toy dog breeds would all die. Dogs and people both benefit from a loving relationship. There’s a special place in hell for animal abusers. I never had dogs until my kids grew up and they have made my life so much richer. I have family, friends and a husband but would be lonely without my babies. I love taking care of them, going on walks and playing with them. When I am sick they won’t leave my side.
Yes, keeping pets is really weird. (I do it, but recognize it's very unnatural).
Can you imagine being kept as a pet? Or seeing animals keep other species as "pets"? Sometimes, you will find animals who have companions that are a different species, but one doesn't keep the other in a cage.
It actually is. I have thought about the ethics (or lack thereof) of pet ownership a lot. Is it any more ethical to own a dog if you keep them in a large house rather than a tiny crate? It's still caging it; just putting it in a larger cage. The concept is still the same though. My father is Indian and many Indians think pet ownership is stupid. He never owned a pet, nor has any of his friends. I have two old dogs and as much as I love them I am seriously considering not getting another pet after they die. They are a lot of work, I travel a great deal, and my wife and I have argued a lot about what breed to get in the future. She keeps trying to push me to get a small dog and I don't like small dogs. I've gotten to the point where no dog at all is sounding pretty good.
It honestly cracks me up when people, who are the only species on the planet who actually give a hoot about the quality of another animal's life, feel all guilty and self-loathing because people aren't perfect. You spend all this time worrying about the few who fail, rather than all the good that people do on this earth.
Animals who don't have people caring for them often have short, difficult lives and painful deaths with no mercy.
Living in the wild without us is NOT all it's cracked up to be.
Animals don't sit around and dwell on whether they're fulfilling their greatest possible destiny. If they don't have to worry about their safety, food, water, shelter and medical treatment for their injuries and ailments, and they actually feel safe enough to sleep at night and spend their time playing, napping, laying around and receiving affection, then they are luckier than most of the wild things on this earth.
Where, exactly, did Corgis run free? Ours don't even like to leave the porch when it's raining, let alone hunt and feed themselves. How about all of our goats, and chickens? Think they'd rather be out with the cougars and coyotes at night?
NO, I don't think our pets are suffering. I do think this question is a little silly.
Interesting topic. I just made a comment yesterday about this in the “Birds” subforum of the pet section. It was under the “My poor bird” thread, comment #6.
When my dogs cuddle up to me at night, freak out with happiness when I arrive home, and lovingly lick my nose at any random time of the day or night, would I think that they are suffering?
Hell no! We cohabitate very well thank you.
Only people who don't love, own or want dogs (or cats) would ever think this way. Evolution has brought me one of my greatest pleasures in this world...being a proud, lucky and happy dog owner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Once again, it depends on the animal you are talking about. You are trying desperately to apply the broadest brush to everything. Doesn't work like that. There are relatively emotionally-sophisticated pet species and others that are a lot less so. Of course there are many creatures not suited to be kept by humans at all. Tigers and lions come to mind. Far-ranging migratory birds with an urge to disperse. Not all birds have this innate need. It is up to the pet keeper to understand the inherent behavior of a species and observe signs of frustration and stress in their chosen creature. To NOT do this is inhumane and irresponsible. 
