Is it ethical to have pets?

[Penumbra]

Is the modern practice of having pets ethical?

Let's take a cat as an example. Is it ethical for someone to pay others who breed domesticated cats, and then take it home and surgically disable it from reproducing, and then put it in an environment where all of its instincts are null and void, as it is given food and love and attention and just sits on the couch?

-Or a bird with clipped wings, often kept in a cage, but well-cared-for otherwise?
-Or a snake, well-fed, but kept in a tank all the time?

-Lyn

 

[Autumnleaf]

I don't think it is okay as you define it. However, I think it is better to take an animal from the Humaine Society or some other place where it is unwanted so it can have a home and be taken care of. We have 2 cats from the Humaine Society. We let them keep their claws and let them go outside if they want to for awhile. They catch birds and run around. Sadly they were 'fixed' before we found them.

 

[Beechwell]

Ethical dealings between humans and animals are always a shady area. Amonst animals, there isn't even any discernable ethics. So these questions are always tricky.
I suppose for a fair answer one would have to ask the cat (bird,...) what it would prefer, which obviously we cannot do. We can't even really compare the world of experience of an animal to that of a human. To do so would imo be unjustly humanizing animals.

Anyway I see little moral impetus to act on this issue unless the pet is obviously unhappy.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't think it is okay as you define it. However, I think it is better to take an animal from the Humaine Society or some other place where it is unwanted so it can have a home and be taken care of. We have 2 cats from the Humaine Society. We let them keep their claws and let them go outside if they want to for awhile. They catch birds and run around. Sadly they were 'fixed' before we found them.

Yes, I like that story of a pet better. But of course, that pet couldn't be possible if there were not a previously unethical owner.

-Lyn

 

[Penumbra]

Ethical dealings between humans and animals are always a shady area. Amonst animals, there isn't even any discernable ethics. So these questions are always tricky.
I suppose for a fair answer one would have to ask the cat (bird,...) what it would prefer, which obviously we cannot do. We can't even really compare the world of experience of an animal to that of a human. To do so would imo be unjustly humanizing animals.

Anyway I see little moral impetus to act on this issue unless the pet is obviously unhappy.

Yes, of course I think that to keep a seemingly content pet is preferable to keeping a seemingly miserable pet.

I'm asking more on a cultural-wide level whether the overall practice is appropriate or not.

-Lyn

 

[The Nihilist]

A cat is unlikely to be eaten by a predator in your house. I think that if you asked the cat, it would rather live with you.

 

[Penumbra]

Ok here's another pet question.

Let's say you have to often go over a close family member's house. (Well, you don't HAVE to, but they're your family and you go.) But, this family member has a pet, let's say a cat, that is mean, and is not de-clawed. If, during the entire course of your stay (which can be a whole weekend), you are constantly harassed by this animal, what is the most appropriate way to deal with this? I have to literally pin the cat down sometimes so that it will calm down and leave me alone for a little while when I let it go, but I feel bad doing so. What's the best way to deal with it?

-Lyn

 

[Penumbra]

A cat is unlikely to be eaten by a predator in your house. I think that if you asked the cat, it would rather live with you.

But what if it only exists to be a pet in the first place? I mean, I agree that if I take a domestic cat and put it outside, it will be less happy.

If, on the other hand, the pet industry did not exist, this cat would not exist. Would it be better for it to not exist than to be rendered incomplete and put in an artificial environment for 20 years?

-Lyn

 

[Beechwell]

I'm asking more on a cultural-wide level whether the overall practice is appropriate or not.
-Lyn

Well, I'm afraid there is no simple yes-no answer to this.
At least I haven't found a satisfactory one - ethical dealings between men and animals is still something that I'm uncertain about.
For example, if we decide that domsticating animals is generally wrong, should we also try to keep ants from domsticating lice?

Hm, maybe one could say keeping pets is ethical if their relationship with humans can be described as symbiotic rather than parasitic. Ideally the relationship should also be freely agreed upon by both parties, but then you'd again have the problem that a cat can't really "agree freely" to anything in the human sense (even if it runs away it may be more due to instinct than rational decision).

EDIT: Do people really declaw their cats? I never seen that, and don't even think it's legal here in Germany (not that people here can't find other ways to harm pets, mind)

 

[The Nihilist]

But what if it only exists to be a pet in the first place? I mean, I agree that if I take a domestic cat and put it outside, it will be less happy.

If, on the other hand, the pet industry did not exist, this cat would not exist. Would it be better for it to not exist than to be rendered incomplete and put in an artificial environment for 20 years?

-Lyn

I hate cats as much as the next straight man, but house cats seem happier than feral cats. If utilitarianism is more or less what you're going for here, then I think that's the trump card.

Yes people declaw their cat. Especially people who don't want to be mauled by the little bastards.

 

[Penumbra]

Well, I'm afraid there is no simple yes-no answer to this.
At least I haven't found a satisfactory one - ethical dealings between men and animals is still something that I'm uncertain about.
For example, if we decide that domsticating animals is generally wrong, should we also try to keep ants from domsticating lice?

I don't care what other animals do, I care what I do and what other people do. Animals, especially lowly ones like ants, just "do" things.

And I'm not necessarily questioning the entire domestication process. I'm questioning specifically the domestication process with the goal being nothing more than a pet. A sheep dog, for instance, is not something I'm questioning here.

Hm, maybe one could say keeping pets is ethical if their relationship with humans can be described as symbiotic rather than parasitic. Ideally the relationship should also be freely agreed upon by both parties, but then you'd again have the problem that a cat can't really "agree freely" to anything in the human sense (even if it runs away it may be more due to instinct than rational decision).

Well if an animal is raised from birth, it may know nothing else besides what it is comfortable with.

EDIT: Do people really declaw their cats? I never seen that, and don't even think it's legal here in Germany (not that people here can't find other ways to harm pets, mind)

Yes, some people do. It's actually worse than it sounds, because in order to declaw them, they actually have to surgically remove the first knuckle on each toe, I believe.

My mother has declawed cats, but I wouldn't let my father declaw his cat.

-Lyn

 

[Penumbra]

I hate cats as much as the next straight man, but house cats seem happier than feral cats. If utilitarianism is more or less what you're going for here, then I think that's the trump card.

But feral cats would not exist if it were not for the domestication of house cats.

-Lyn

 

[The Nihilist]

But feral cats would not exist if it were not for the domestication of house cats.

-Lyn

Well, they seem happier than raccoons.

 

[Penumbra]

Well, they seem happier than raccoons.

I guess. I don't know what raccoons do away from people, though.

 

[The Nihilist]

I guess. I don't know what raccoons do away from people, though.

Unmask?

 

[Beechwell]

I
Well if an animal is raised from birth, it may know nothing else besides what it is comfortable with.

True. I didn't want to follow that line of though because it makes the issue even more problematic. You'd need a cat under a "veil of ignorance" where it hasn't experienced either domestication or wildlife. Yet still it needs to know enough about both to make a qualified decision about which it prefers. Good luck with that

I think I'll stick to my earlier premise:
The keeping of a pet is ethical if the relationship with its owner can objectively be described as symbiotic, rather than parasitic.
That's good enough for me for now

- Beechwell, who doesn't really want to define symbiotic and parasitic right now

 

[JustMeSee]

Ok here's another pet question.

Let's say you have to often go over a close family member's house. (Well, you don't HAVE to, but they're your family and you go.) But, this family member has a pet, let's say a cat, that is mean, and is not de-clawed. If, during the entire course of your stay (which can be a whole weekend), you are constantly harassed by this animal, what is the most appropriate way to deal with this? I have to literally pin the cat down sometimes so that it will calm down and leave me alone for a little while when I let it go, but I feel bad doing so. What's the best way to deal with it?

-Lyn

Allow the cat to do what it wishes.

 

[Beechwell]

Allow the cat to do what it wishes.

...and shove it away if it annoys you.

 

[JustMeSee]

I hate cats. I would probably lock it in another room.

 

[The Nihilist]

I hate cats. I would probably lock it in another room.

Why? Fresh out of burlap sacks and rivers?