Owning Pets Is Cruel Debate

[TheFifthElement]

Yes but the fact that it is accepted in our society today is not really an excuse. But I still see what you mean. Anyway, I know I behave a good way with my doggy, that is a consolation.

I think this depends on how you apply morality. Take, for example, ownership of handguns in UK. This is now illegal, following a tragedy which occurred in which a mentally unstable man entered a primary school and shot a bunch of children. Handguns were banned. This does not mean that owning handguns before the ban came in was wrong, or the people who owned handguns were doing something wrong or they were irresponsible, or they were all going to butcher school children, but the society in UK decided that, on the whole, handgun ownership should no longer happen. If people continued to own handguns afterwards then it would be wrong, because society has imposed a collective morality on the point. But what occurred before was fine.

[TheFifthElement]

I feel that there is a need, on my part to explain my thinking on this subject in a bit more depth, because a number of people have stated that I am applying human psychology to animals, but this is something I have tried very hard to avoid. In my thinking I have only sought to apply my human morality to human behaviour. I think this is best explained by illustration so, take for example the following moral statement :

"It is wrong to kill for fun."

If I apply this statement to human interrelation the statement becomes :

"It is wrong for a human to kill another human for fun."

Which is a statement I agree with. So, if I were to apply the psychology of this statement to, say, lizards it would become :

"It is wrong for a lizard to kill another lizard for fun."

but this I cannot answer. I cannot apply my human morality to lizards. However, I can (and will) apply my human morality to the behaviour of humans towards lizards, in which case the statement would be :

"It is wrong for a human to kill a lizard for fun."

Which I agree with. If I didn't agree with the statement I would need to examine why and, if changes to the statement are needed, qualifications for example, then I must apply the revised statement back to human interrelation to ensure that the qualified statement worked. Only if it works in relation to the behaviour will the precept be sound, in my opinion.

Applying this process to the question of ownership, I apply the same approach:

"It is wrong for a human to own another human."

and I agree with this statement as ownership implies subjugation. Take the statement and apply it to human behaviour towards lizards:

"It is wrong for a human to own a lizard."

I think this rings true, again, in my opinion.

But Virgil, Sweets America and Lote have raised interesting and valid points. Virgil stated that, in the example of dogs, dogs live with humans by instinct, or choice, Sweets America stated that she does not feel that she owns her dog, and Lote stated that it is a symbiotic relationship. Therefore, whilst I have satisfied myself on the question of ownership, does it ring true that a relationship of choice, or symbiosis is acceptable, and what the statement would be if, in relation to humans and dogs, it was not a question of ownership. So, I make this statement :

"It is not wrong for a human to enter into a relationship with a human."

but then I can think of examples where this would not be true, for example in the case of a celebrity and a stalker. So, it seems that an element of mutual consent seems to be a requirement, the statement becomes :

"It is not wrong for a consenting human to enter into a relationship with a consenting human."

and in relation to dogs,

"It is not wrong for a consenting human to enter into a relationship with a consenting dog."

which I agree with. I could apply this statement consistently to lizards, fish, birds and so on.

This then becomes a question of consent, how do we know that the dog is a consenting dog, or the lizard a consenting lizard? The only answer I can give to this is that there must be no barriers to the dog or the lizard entering or leaving the relationship, i.e. the 'no locked doors' rule, unless someone can suggest a better test. I don't think, on the basis that we cannot apply human psychology to animals, that you can say that the appearance of 'happiness' is the test. So, in the example of the dog, it is fair to say that 'my dog wags it's tail when it sees me', but it is application of human psychology to say that 'my dog is pleased to see me', or 'my dog is happy to see me' as 'happiness' and 'pleased to see me' are both human psychological states.

It is important to me that I apply my human morality consistently, and as objectively as is possible to my behaviour. But I can only apply them to my human behaviour and, unless society accepts the same morality and makes it law, I can only apply it to me.

I fully accept that everyone will not agree with my morality, but the application of it is logical, consistent and in so far as it is possible, objective. If there are people that think my moral statement : "It is wrong for a human to own a lizard" is incorrect then the statement must need qualification. If so, the question is what qualification, and is it possible to apply the qualification consistently i.e back to human interrelation?

[Lote-Tree]

You're the one who's hung up about pooping

It was you who said that animals should not be disciplined and we should take them on their on terms and that we should not control their breeding , that they should decide for that themselves.

Now let's think about this.

Even in a friendship - freinds discipline each other. Obiviously if your friend pooped on your carpet you will be highly crossed and ask them to clean it up and not to do it again

In animals obviously they don't clean up. But you can teach them to poop in the correct place or train them to poop in the right place so that their poop does not affect them or you.

As for breeding. If breeding goes unchecked it will jepordise themselves and those that around them. In nature such over-breeding might lead to extinction either via starvation or disease.

So sake of survival of both...breeding needs to be moderated. Even as humans we do that. Obviously animals are not in our level of awareness to do that themselves.

So in both of your points do not hold

So it is compassion to separate young from their mother before they are ready?

In nature most of them would have died. Your compassion rescues them from death.

Indeed, so no need to lock them in, they will stay of their own volition.

When a relationship is fully developed - there is rarely a need for that.

[TheFifthElement]

It was you who said that animals should not be disciplined and we should take them on their on terms and that we should not control their breeding , that they should decide for that themselves.

Yes I did, because I am applying my moral principles solely to human behaviour, not to animals. If I apply my morality directly to animals then I am saying that they should live as I live. But this is not my statement, it is yours. In explanation of this point I can only restate my post above.

I feel that there is a need, on my part to explain my thinking on this subject in a bit more depth, because a number of people have stated that I am applying human psychology to animals, but this is something I have tried very hard to avoid. In my thinking I have only sought to apply my human morality to human behaviour. I think this is best explained by illustration so, take for example the following moral statement :

"It is wrong to kill for fun."

If I apply this statement to human interrelation the statement becomes :

"It is wrong for a human to kill another human for fun."

Which is a statement I agree with. So, if I were to apply the psychology of this statement to, say, lizards it would become :

"It is wrong for a lizard to kill another lizard for fun."

but this I cannot answer. I cannot apply my human morality to lizards. However, I can (and will) apply my human morality to the behaviour of humans towards lizards, in which case the statement would be :

"It is wrong for a human to kill a lizard for fun."

Which I agree with. If I didn't agree with the statement I would need to examine why and, if changes to the statement are needed, qualifications for example, then I must apply the revised statement back to human interrelation to ensure that the qualified statement worked. Only if it works in relation to the behaviour will the precept be sound, in my opinion.

Applying this process to the question of ownership, I apply the same approach:

"It is wrong for a human to own another human."

and I agree with this statement as ownership implies subjugation. Take the statement and apply it to human behaviour towards lizards:

"It is wrong for a human to own a lizard."

I think this rings true, again, in my opinion.

But Virgil, Sweets America and Lote have raised interesting and valid points. Virgil stated that, in the example of dogs, dogs live with humans by instinct, or choice, Sweets America stated that she does not feel that she owns her dog, and Lote stated that it is a symbiotic relationship. Therefore, whilst I have satisfied myself on the question of ownership, does it ring true that a relationship of choice, or symbiosis is acceptable, and what the statement would be if, in relation to humans and dogs, it was not a question of ownership. So, I make this statement :

"It is not wrong for a human to enter into a relationship with a human."

but then I can think of examples where this would not be true, for example in the case of a celebrity and a stalker. So, it seems that an element of mutual consent seems to be a requirement, the statement becomes :

"It is not wrong for a consenting human to enter into a relationship with a consenting human."

and in relation to dogs,

"It is not wrong for a consenting human to enter into a relationship with a consenting dog."

which I agree with. I could apply this statement consistently to lizards, fish, birds and so on.

This then becomes a question of consent, how do we know that the dog is a consenting dog, or the lizard a consenting lizard? The only answer I can give to this is that there must be no barriers to the dog or the lizard entering or leaving the relationship, i.e. the 'no locked doors' rule, unless someone can suggest a better test. I don't think, on the basis that we cannot apply human psychology to animals, that you can say that the appearance of 'happiness' is the test. So, in the example of the dog, it is fair to say that 'my dog wags it's tail when it sees me', but it is application of human psychology to say that 'my dog is pleased to see me', or 'my dog is happy to see me' as 'happiness' and 'pleased to see me' are both human psychological states.

It is important to me that I apply my human morality consistently, and as objectively as is possible to my behaviour. But I can only apply them to my human behaviour and, unless society accepts the same morality and makes it law, I can only apply it to me.

I fully accept that everyone will not agree with my morality, but the application of it is logical, consistent and in so far as it is possible, objective. If there are people that think my moral statement : "It is wrong for a human to own a lizard" is incorrect then the statement must need qualification. If so, the question is what qualification, and is it possible to apply the qualification consistently i.e back to human interrelation?

[Virgil]

I feel that there is a need, on my part to explain my thinking on this subject in a bit more depth, because a number of people have stated that I am applying human psychology to animals, but this is something I have tried very hard to avoid. In my thinking I have only sought to apply my human morality to human behaviour. I think this is best explained by illustration so, take for example the following moral statement :

"It is wrong to kill for fun."

If I apply this statement to human interrelation the statement becomes :

"It is wrong for a human to kill another human for fun."

Which is a statement I agree with. So, if I were to apply the psychology of this statement to, say, lizards it would become :

"It is wrong for a lizard to kill another lizard for fun."

but this I cannot answer. I cannot apply my human morality to lizards. However, I can (and will) apply my human morality to the behaviour of humans towards lizards, in which case the statement would be :

"It is wrong for a human to kill a lizard for fun."

Which I agree with. If I didn't agree with the statement I would need to examine why and, if changes to the statement are needed, qualifications for example, then I must apply the revised statement back to human interrelation to ensure that the qualified statement worked. Only if it works in relation to the behaviour will the precept be sound, in my opinion.

Applying this process to the question of ownership, I apply the same approach:

"It is wrong for a human to own another human."

and I agree with this statement as ownership implies subjugation. Take the statement and apply it to human behaviour towards lizards:

"It is wrong for a human to own a lizard."

I think this rings true, again, in my opinion.

But Virgil, Sweets America and Lote have raised interesting and valid points. Virgil stated that, in the example of dogs, dogs live with humans by instinct, or choice, Sweets America stated that she does not feel that she owns her dog, and Lote stated that it is a symbiotic relationship. Therefore, whilst I have satisfied myself on the question of ownership, does it ring true that a relationship of choice, or symbiosis is acceptable, and what the statement would be if, in relation to humans and dogs, it was not a question of ownership. So, I make this statement :

"It is not wrong for a human to enter into a relationship with a human."

but then I can think of examples where this would not be true, for example in the case of a celebrity and a stalker. So, it seems that an element of mutual consent seems to be a requirement, the statement becomes :

"It is not wrong for a consenting human to enter into a relationship with a consenting human."

and in relation to dogs,

"It is not wrong for a consenting human to enter into a relationship with a consenting dog."

which I agree with. I could apply this statement consistently to lizards, fish, birds and so on.

This then becomes a question of consent, how do we know that the dog is a consenting dog, or the lizard a consenting lizard? The only answer I can give to this is that there must be no barriers to the dog or the lizard entering or leaving the relationship, i.e. the 'no locked doors' rule, unless someone can suggest a better test. I don't think, on the basis that we cannot apply human psychology to animals, that you can say that the appearance of 'happiness' is the test. So, in the example of the dog, it is fair to say that 'my dog wags it's tail when it sees me', but it is application of human psychology to say that 'my dog is pleased to see me', or 'my dog is happy to see me' as 'happiness' and 'pleased to see me' are both human psychological states.

It is important to me that I apply my human morality consistently, and as objectively as is possible to my behaviour. But I can only apply them to my human behaviour and, unless society accepts the same morality and makes it law, I can only apply it to me.

I fully accept that everyone will not agree with my morality, but the application of it is logical, consistent and in so far as it is possible, objective. If there are people that think my moral statement : "It is wrong for a human to own a lizard" is incorrect then the statement must need qualification. If so, the question is what qualification, and is it possible to apply the qualification consistently i.e back to human interrelation?

Perhaps logical, but but even fallacies are logical. First of all who says humans live by logic: that's for computers, robots, and vulcans (from Star Trek)? Second, who says that this isn't coming out of your emotions and like most logic is back filled with rationalizations? Third, application of philosophy to every day life is hilarious. That's why I hold philosophy in such low esteem. As to the subject at hand, Ive already stated why dogs are intertwined with humans. I need not repeat myself.

A good try Fifth, but you haven't convince me.

[TheFifthElement]

A good try Fifth, but you haven't convince me.

Virgil, I did not expect to convince you, my purpose was only to explain my thinking, and in the interests of transparency. I find it hard to debate without transparency. It's like talking to my mother

In the matter of logic and morality, yes, I agree that human morality is constructed from a combination of both emotion and logic - what I have attempted to do is apply a standard that is, in so far as it is possible, objective whilst accepting that true objectivity and true logic are things beyond my reach. But this, again, is a statement of how I construct my morality, how you construct yours must be by a method that is acceptable to you. How society constructs collective morality must be in a manner acceptable to the society, and so on.

I also sought to explain, contrary to your comments and the comments of others, that I was not applying human psychology to animals, only to human behaviour.

Perhaps logical, but but even fallacies are logical.

Third, application of philosophy to every day life is hilarious. That's why I hold philosophy in such low esteem.

These are rather sweeping statements Virgil. I'd be interested in the reasons why you think these so. Just, again, for transparency, I'm not saying you're wrong, I just wonder how you have reached conclusions which appear, from the tone of your language, to be quite extreme.

[SleepyWitch]

Third, application of philosophy to every day life is hilarious. That's why I hold philosophy in such low esteem. As to the subject at hand, Ive already stated why dogs are intertwined with humans. I need not repeat myself.

hey Virge. I didn't read all of your post, but why do you think philosophy shouldn't be applied to everyday life? I agree that it is not often applied to everyday life. But in my opinion, all that proves is that it's everyday life that's got something wrong with it, not the other way round.

[TheFifthElement]

hey Virge. I didn't read all of your post, but why do you think philosophy shouldn't be applied to everyday life? I agree that it is not often applied to everyday life. But in my opinion, all that proves is that it's everyday life that's got something wrong with it, not the other way round.

I'm beginning to wonder if we should request that Lit-Net add a new feature being the disclaimer button. When selected it would add, in large text over every entry 'IN MY OPINION', that way we could all save ourselves a lot of typing!

[Sweets America]

Fifth, I think that was a good demonstration you made. Even though I feel uncomfortable with that idea, I must say that it is true that I did not ask for my dogs' consent before taking them with me.

Today, as my dog has spent years with me, as I said, I am pretty sure he would choose to stay, because he has his home, his comfort, his loved ones around. But, if I had asked him in the beginning, I don't know what he would have replied. I'm sure some part of him would have disagreed to stay locked in a house and garden and to only go out when we went out with him.
I also think that he would however have thought that he would enjoy some parts of being in our house. But I don't know what would have been his final decision.

This is why leaving the doors open seems to be the best idea. The thing is that this idea cannot be applied since dogs would get run over by cars if we let doors open. So I don't know what other solution could be found.

Oh, Virgil, I would like to hear more about your views on philosophy too.
Hey, I'm not sure but I think I dreamt of your dog Brandi last night.

[Lote-Tree]

Yes I did, because I am applying my moral principles solely to human behaviour, not to animals.

We are the only species on this planet that are moral makers. Animals are not capable of such thing.

If you only apply your morals to yourself then all animals can be exterminated because our morals do not apply to them and they have no morals. In fact such morality human's have displayed in abundance in past by extermination many species.

If I apply my morality directly to animals then I am saying that they should live as I live.

But that will be stupid won't it? Because Animals are not on the same level as us. They can't possibly live like us. We can't make a hamster walk like us, talk like us, dance like us - can we?

I think you are hung upon this Ownership of Pets thing. But as I said Pet keeping is just an extention of our past evolutionary Symbiotic relationship with animals.

Symbiotic Relationships and Pet keeping has done great service to the Animal world...it has made us more compassionate and understanding towards them...they have made us connect with them on a level that would not have been possible...

[Nightshade]

We are the only species on this planet that are moral makers. Animals are not capable of such thing.

See this is an argument I have never understood... how do we Know that animals are incapable of moral descions?

[Lote-Tree]

See this is an argument I have never understood... how do we Know that animals are incapable of moral descions?

Because scientific research so far have not been able to demonstrate this.

[Nightshade]

But that doesnt mean.. that we are right, after all the purpose of experiment is not to prove the hypothesis but the null hypothesis so surley if we can prove it and we have disproven it it is still a factorable possibility.

[Lote-Tree]

But that doesnt mean.. that we are right,

Right or Wrong is our own moral concepts. Animals have not demonstrated such things.

[Nightshade]

to our understanding, but perhaps they have a differant moral code.