Owning Pets Is Cruel Debate

[Virgil]

Lote, I'll post my original comment for clarity and leave it there. It is a difficult concept, I think, for most people to get their heads round, particularly if they are unable to divorce their own emotional involvement, and the implications of that, from the debate.



Sorry, just one addition. Change the statement in the thread to 'Keeping humans as pets is cruel'. How much debate would there be?

Fifth, you're making the assumption that animals think in the manner of humans. They don't. May I ask if you've ever had a pet?

Here's an interesting side question. Are mentally ill people who refuse to be institutionalized allowed to live on their own, even if they don't harm others? There was a philosophy in the late 1960's and 1970's (sort of presented in the novel One Flew Over The Cukkoo's Nest) that people such as this should be let out. Of course they lived on the streets and created a huge homeless problem. Should these people be aloowed to live on the streets?

[Sweets America]

[QUOTE=pussnboots;511674]

It is. I only ever stated it as so
If it's wrong for humans why isn't it wrong for other creatures. There's my dilemma - what's the difference?



I can understand where you are coming from. When I watch shows about the animal kingdom, I sit there and say to my husband "how cruel" the animal kingdom can be. Its just that as a society we tend to react more on human sufferring than animal sufferring. But once again, people may disagree with this. Maybe there really is no difference ?

I understand what Fifth says too, and this is why it disturbs me. I never wanted to be cruel with my dogs.

You say that as humans we tend to react more to human suffering. Well I tend to react more to animal suffering, which is wrong, I know. I cannot help it. If I had the choice between saving a dog or a human being, I would choose the dog. I know it is wrong and unfair. But this is the way I feel.

[TheFifthElement]

Fifth, you're making the assumption that animals think in the manner of humans. They don't. May I ask if you've ever had a pet?

No Virgil, I'm assuming that we can have no idea what animals think, and believing such means that we should trust animals to decide how it is best that they live their lives according to their own nature and instinct, without human interferance.

Here's an interesting side question. Are mentally ill people who refuse to be institutionalized allowed to live on their own, even if they don't harm others? There was a philosophy in the late 1960's and 1970's (sort of presented in the novel One Flew Over The Cukkoo's Nest) that people such as this should be let out. Of course they lived on the streets and created a huge homeless problem. Should these people be aloowed to live on the streets?

It's not really a relevant question Virgil, this is a matter of human social responsibility towards our own species and, lets face it, we're not very good at that. It's an entirely separate matter to the question of whether humans should interfere in the natural existence of another species.

[Lote-Tree]

No Virgil, I'm assuming that we can have no idea what animals think, and believing such means that we should trust animals to decide how it is best that they live their lives according to their own nature and instinct, without human interferance.

The instinct as observed in nature is a Symbiotic Relationship.

[papayahed]

You say that as humans we tend to react more to human suffering. Well I tend to react more to animal suffering, which is wrong, I know. I cannot help it. If I had the choice between saving a dog or a human being, I would choose the dog. I know it is wrong and unfair. But this is the way I feel.

Years ago there was a article I read about a Mountain Lion (or some such wild animal) that mauled and killed a jogger. The Mountain Lion was later killed. More donations were sent for the care of the mountain Lion cubs then what was sent for the joggers children. So Sweets you're not alone.

[Sweets America]

I know I can have no real idea of what my dogs think about. I tried to guess once, and here was the result:

[Virgil]

I'll post this in this thread Fifth, although i mentioned I would look it up in the platypus thread. This follows the lines of what i've read elsewhere. It looks like an exerpt from a book:

Dogs and Humans - How the relationship began
(excerpt from The Intelligence of Dogs)
Dr. Stanley Coren

"...We will probably never have conclusive evidence to tell us how dogs and humans first formed their personal and working relationship with each other, but it is most likely the case that man did not initially choose dog; rather dogs chose man. Dogs were likely attracted to human campsites because humans like dogs were hunters, and animal remains, such as bones, bits of skin, and other scraps of offal from the victims of recent hunts, were likely to be scattered around human campsites. The ancestors of today's dogs (being ever food conscious) learned that by hanging around man's habitations, they could grab a quick bite to eat now and then, without all the exertion involved in actual hunting.

Although primitive man may not have been very concerned with cleanliness, health issues or sanitation, it is still true that rotting food stuff does smell, and attracts insects that will make humans uncomfortable. Thus it is likely that dogs were initially tolerated around the perimeter of camps simply because they would dispose of the garbage. This waste disposal function continued for countless centuries and is still being fulfilled by the pariah dogs in many less developed regions of the world. Anthropologists studying primitive tribes in the South Pacific have noticed that on those islands where people keep dogs, the villages and settlements are much more permanent. Villages without dogs have to move every year or so simply to escape the environmental contamination caused by rotting refuse. This has even led to the suggestion that dogs may have been a vital element in the establishment of permanent cities in that bygone era before we learned the importance of public sanitation.

[SNIP]

You can read a little more here: http://www.pets.ca/articles/article-dog_human.htm.

So you can see a couple of things from this. Dogs, although they evolved from the wolf, have completely different psychologies. Wolves keenly avoid humans. And a mutual symbiotic relationship formed between humans and dogs, where each helped eath other. This doesn't even mention how dogs help in herding and hunting with humans.

And yes, being around dogs as long as I've been, and having read up on their psychology, I think I can understand how a dog thinks. Certainly not completely but i would say i understand 80% of their thought processes. Certainly dogs are individuals and make individual decisions. But just like individual people, their decisions are limited to a finite number of possibilities.

[PrinceMyshkin]

With respect to the question of whether our pets, or our husbands or wives, or even our children, want to be kept or to be set free, few of them can be answered definitively - even if we knew how or dare to ask them. Better to question ourselves whether we keep the foregoing with love and respect, whether we would be prepared to let them go if their behaviour suggested that that was what they wanted.

[Virgil]

No Virgil, I'm assuming that we can have no idea what animals think, and believing such means that we should trust animals to decide how it is best that they live their lives according to their own nature and instinct, without human interferance.

But my argument, and that of many here, is that their instinct is to live with people.

It's not really a relevant question Virgil, this is a matter of human social responsibility towards our own species and, lets face it, we're not very good at that. It's an entirely separate matter to the question of whether humans should interfere in the natural existence of another species.

Oh I agree, it's not relevant, but i thought it an interesting side question.

[TheFifthElement]

The instinct as observed in nature is a Symbiotic Relationship.

So Lote, what is your symbiotic relationship with hamsters?

But my argument, and that of many here, is that their instinct is to live with people.

I do understand your position with regard to dogs, but I'm still not convinced on the point of instinct. I suppose this is because I think, if there were no humans, dogs wouldn't live in houses with locked doors, or gardens with fences and locked gates, they would poop where they want when they want, mate whenever and wherever the opportunity arose, they wouldn't be neutered, they'd live in packs, hunt in packs, fight with each other, and whatever else it is that dogs do when they're not exposed to humans. Dogs are raised in human homes from a very young age, and they adapt to it, they adapt to it well. Perhaps if a human child, say a two year old was given over to a pack of wild dogs to raise (assuming they didn't eat it!) it would similarly adapt but we would not argue that it is the human instinct to live like wild dogs live, just because they could.

But then, again, we are just talking about dogs, what about fish, hamsters, snakes, lizards, gerbils, rabbits, stick insects, birds, etc which are also kept as pets?

I would love to see dogs in the wild. I feel privileged when I see a deer, or a fox doing what deer and fox do when they're out and about. But it seems that the human approach is live with us or die. I wonder if dogs hadn't been useful to humans, what would their situation be now?

[manolia]

I believe there is nothing wrong in owning a pet. I am a bit surprised that some people think it is. I believe dogs such as other domesticated animals can't live on their own..so yes it is better for them to be adopted by people. And usually people who adopt animals love them dearly (that is the case with me and my family who consider our dogs, cats and birds as members of the family). It is much better than having them in animal shelters or running wild.
Of course i don't agree with people who want to buy exotic animals like snakes, lizzards and even wolves ...these animals suffer under captivity and are much better in their physical environment.

[papayahed]

[Granny5]

Fifth, have you ever had a pet dog? You may have answered and I may have missed it but I would be interested in knowing. I've had dogs and cats all my life and I feel like I know what they think. They seem depressed and upset when I leave and happy when I get home. They look to me for affection and I look to them for affection. We are in a mutual relationship, not owner/slave unless one considers the time demands on me to take care of them as a slave relationship.
My dogs love me and I have complete confidence in this. They wouldn't choose to leave or they would have already left. They are outside several times a day and we are in an area where they could hit the woods or run across a field and get away easily. But they come back on their own and always seem happy to be home. I would never want my animals to be out running loose and being hungry and catch disease that I can have the vet prevent.

[Sweets America]

Fifth, have you ever had a pet dog? You may have answered and I may have missed it but I would be interested in knowing. I've had dogs and cats all my life and I feel like I know what they think. They seem depressed and upset when I leave and happy when I get home. They look to me for affection and I look to them for affection. We are in a mutual relationship, not owner/slave unless one considers the time demands on me to take care of them as a slave relationship.
My dogs love me and I have complete confidence in this. They wouldn't choose to leave or they would have already left. They are outside several times a day and we are in an area where they could hit the woods or run across a field and get away easily. But they come back on their own and always seem happy to be home. I would never want my animals to be out running loose and being hungry and catch disease that I can have the vet prevent.

Well said. I agree.

[manolia]

bah they are more into lighter reading