CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Having a pet is unethical
Regarding the common practice of domesticating and caring for an animal to function as a companion.
Companion in this debate refers to “one that accompanies another.” It depends on an obligation of the “sharing of bread” so-to-speak, where the responsibility of provision lies on the party domesticating the pet.
This discussion is not intended for debating the use of animals for the purpose of food, labor, protection, sexual profit or scientific experimentation. Only companionship.
According to prevailing moral proclamations, pet ownership should likely be considered unethical. Of course, there is no accounting for human hypocrisy; ethics/morality is ever a matter of convenience and emotional compulsion.
Many people claim to value, to some extent, the well-being and/or rights of other species (particularly of those with which we interact and relate most with). They will justify pet ownership on the basis of benevolence, ignoring the near to complete loss of freedom and autonomy of the animal as well as the certainty of animal neglect/abuse that accompanies permitting pet ownership in the name of the benevolent owner.
This internal contradiction is especially apparent among "ethical" vegetarians/vegans or those opposed to animal testing who still own pets - they object to killing/consuming animals and/or testing on them, but have no qualms with enslaving them for their convenience and pleasure.
You take a controversial position as usual, my friend. People don't like to think of themselves as driven by such base arts as self-pleasuring.
I realize this might be off topic but I have a question for you.
ethics/morality is ever a matter of convenience and emotional compulsion.
I am really interested in knowing just how much you think ethics is a matter of convenience, and how much you think ethics is a matter of emotional compulsion. I think rationalizations often take the form of a morale argument, so I believe ethics is sometimes (mis)used to rationalize ones own behavior. I am just not sure how much.
You take a controversial position as usual, my friend. People don't like to think of themselves as driven by such base arts as self-pleasuring.
Apparently. Though I do not see why; there is nothing innately wrong with it.
I am really interested in knowing just how much you think ethics is a matter of convenience, and how much you think ethics is a matter of emotional compulsion. I think rationalizations often take the form of a morale argument, so I believe ethics is sometimes (mis)used to rationalize ones own behavior. I am just not sure how much.
As I understand ethics, it is either synonymous with morality or else a body of knowledge (i.e. a rationalization) pertaining to morality.
As morality, I think ethics is inherently a system of subjective value judgement. The instinctive proclivity of human beings to form value based opinions of thoughts and actions is driven by emotion, far more than reason. This simple morality seeks no justification, but asserts itself on its own merit; right is right because it is right, and the same may be said of wrong.
As knowledge, I think ethics is inherently a system of rationalization. While there may be some objectivity in this pursuit, I think it ultimately fallible in its very attempt to rationalize an irrational object (morality). This complex morality seeks justification, rather than asserting itself purely upon its own merit; right is right for some reason. However, that reason itself ultimately begs the question; it's legitimacy as a framework becomes the assumption necessary to make the moral justification. In other words, ethics as knowledge supplants the assumption and removes it one further degree from the moral value judgement.
In my opinion, then, ethics is inherently a byproduct of emotional compulsion in all cases. That sense of wrong/right, no matter how thoroughly rationalized, is ultimately still a feeling appended to the reality as judgement. Convenience is perhaps less innate, though largely by default as I cannot prove it to be so.
(I hope that answers your question; please inform me if not.)
It seems likely that ethics as knowledge is a system that evolved later than this simple morality you mention. Morality seems like something mammals in general have. Looked at this way, knowledge ethics is built upon this emotionally driven morality, and is therefore never able to completely escape it. The fact that morale arguments often take the form of comparing morale judgements with other judgements suggests that is true, e.g. "I think X is wrong, because X resembles Y, and you wouldn't say that Y is good".
I read about an interesting case about a guy who couldn't make value judgements. I don't remember the details, but he had some kind of damage to his brain. What was perculiar was that he could list all the practical pros and cons for scheduling meetings at different dates, but he couldn't decide which day would be the best. Iewas that the part of the brain that deals with value judgements is very old. If I remember correctly, this part of the brain utilizes emotion to compare courses of action. This might suggest that morality is inherently emotional. Emotions is the driving factor. That doesn't mean that emotions can't be informed by reason, I think that is what happens when we think a long time about a hard decision.
I concur. It seems logical to me that simple morality necessarily preceded attempts to rationalize it.
The case you reference is quite interesting. I presume he could not decide the best day on account of being incapable of prescribing values to the pros and cons themselves; yes? That is actually quite fascinating, as it appears to indicate that even "objective" consequences (i.e. tangible, rather than abstract) are assessed through a subjective, emotional lens.
Pets have plenty of freedom. Just because pets have the equivalent of a boss, doesn't mean the have a complete loss of freedom.
They do not choose where they live, what and often when they eat, and sometimes even how they act or spend their time. Many cannot come and go as they please; they are kept on leashes, in kennels, in houses or small yards. If a human were subjected to the same conditions, very few would hesitate to say such a person had almost completely lost their freedom.
Bad pet owners doesn't make pet ownership unethical for the good pet owners.
A benevolent pet owner necessarily supports and promulgates the institution of pet ownership. This is done with certain knowledge of the direct consequence that many animals will be neglected and/or abused. Benevolent ownership may not be wrong in the proximate context, but in the full context my rationale stands.
Pets aren't enslaved. Using the word enslaved is insulting to the idea of how bad slavery is.
Alternatively, you are too ready to dismiss how bad pet ownership is. The intrinsic conditions of pet ownership for the vast majority (if not all) cases meet the basic definitions of enslavement and slavery (excepting, of course, that the term specifically references humans).
Animals are legally owned by human beings as property, and they are strongly influenced if not outright forced to comply to the will of their human owners. In all cases, freedom is partially if not completely forfeit and they have no recourse to reclaim it. In many cases, animals are subjected to neglect and outright abuse. All in the name of human pleasure and entertainment. The only difference I could think of is that many pets are not forced to do manual labor, though farm animals and pets in various profit industries (e.g. pet modeling, pet racing, dog fighting, etc.) grey that area considerably as well.
They do not choose where they live, what and often when they eat, and sometimes even how they act or spend their time. Many cannot come and go as they please; they are kept on leashes, in kennels, in houses or small yards. If a human were subjected to the same conditions, very few would hesitate to say such a person had almost completely lost their freedom.
Or, if that was a person you would call them a child.
A benevolent pet owner necessarily supports and promulgates the institution of pet ownership. This is done with certain knowledge of the direct consequence that many animals will be neglected and/or abused. Benevolent ownership may not be wrong in the proximate context, but in the full context my rationale stands.
It isn't pet ownership once you start abusing them, then it is pet abuse. Something doesn't become unethical because people will abuse the system.
Alternatively, you are too ready to dismiss how bad pet ownership is.
And, you completely ignore how good pet ownership is.
The intrinsic conditions of pet ownership for the vast majority (if not all) cases meet the basic definitions of enslavement and slavery (excepting, of course, that the term specifically references humans).
Only in the case of adult humans.
Animals are legally owned by human beings as property
They don't know that. And, that is important.
In many cases, animals are subjected to neglect and outright abuse.
And, that is unethical.
pet modeling
Not manual labor.
pet racing
Borderline unethical.
dog fighting
Considered unethical.
Your examples are considered unethical and not part of pet ownership.
Or, if that was a person you would call them a child.
This refutes my point, how, exactly?
It isn't pet ownership once you start abusing them, then it is pet abuse. Something doesn't become unethical because people will abuse the system.
Addressed this in my other post to you. Refer there.
And, you completely ignore how good pet ownership is.
When have I once done that? I openly acknowledge that pet ownership can be good for the pets. Positive conditions do not alter the fact that there is a loss of freedom and a formal legal ownership of the pet.
Only in the case of adult humans.
What?
They don't know that. And, that is important.
Why? I have never once seen a definition of slavery that requires cognizance of ownership for the conditions of ownership to be satisfied.
And, that is unethical.
Addressed in other post to you. Refer there.
Not manual labor.
Still labor, also ultimately irrelevant.
Borderline unethical. & Considered unethical. & Your examples are considered unethical and not part of pet ownership.
Your entire description was supposed to show how pets are slaves when you described the conditions for children. Therefore, we can't draw the conclusion they are slaves.
When have I once done that? I openly acknowledge that pet ownership can be good for the pets. Positive conditions do not alter the fact that there is a loss of freedom and a formal legal ownership of the pet.
I haven't seen you openly acknowledge it, and if what I have said ignores the bad aspects, then for sure you have ignored the good aspects.
"Only in the case of adult humans."
What?
Your description sounds reasonable for children. So, your objection to the condition pets are in only applies for adult humans.
Why? I have never once seen a definition of slavery that requires cognizance of ownership for the conditions of ownership to be satisfied.
Yes, you have. The definition of slavery includes that they be human and that would necessitate knowing you are owned because you have human intelligence. But, the actual reason why it matters is because if you are part of a family you aren't owned, but you don't have freedom.
Been a week now and in coming back I do not feel especially interested in continuing this (I was mostly playing devil's advocate anyhow). If you do want a response, though, let me know.
They do not choose where they live, what and often when they eat, and sometimes even how they act or spend their time.
Most animals will pursue locations, activities and food that are the easiest they have available. Least expenditure of energy, least chance of encountering other threatening animals, most warmth, etc., and would stay in one place if those things are offered in abundance...
Which is not unlike the homes and families that most are taken into.
Its also worth noting, although this may be applicable only to cats and dogs, that these critters have been artificially selected for traits over the course of thousands of years. These traits aren't just physical, but also behavioral. The domesticated cats and dogs of today are more docile and compatible with humans than their ancestors, have picked up traits and preferences that make them more suitable for settled environments and less so for the wild. They have an internal knack for bonding with us and being happy as part of our "pack". Was this the right thing to do in the first place? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it is an institution that has created whole new breeds, its pretty far out of my control. But its here and its global and has been since longer than most modern religions or any modern nation.
Benevolent ownership may not be wrong in the proximate context, but in the full context my rationale stands.
That's bs. One can support a government aid programs without supporting freed ridership mentality. The government itself does just that by trying to reduce the free riders.
One can support the right to use guns and not support the right to do so maliciously.
Cars are undeniably dangerous and have ended countless human and animal lives, yet one can drive a car while still doing everything in their power to limit loss of life. Etc.
I've never had to extricate an animal from cruel or neglectful owners, but I am willing and able to when needed. In fact, the benevolent pet owners are usually the ones who are MOST willing and able and have the most to gain by stopping cruelty where we see it.
The intrinsic conditions of pet ownership for the vast majority (if not all) cases meet the basic definitions of enslavement and slavery (excepting, of course, that the term specifically references humans).
Slaves don't get paid. Obviously, pets have no use for traditional currency. But they do have use for comfort, a sense of belonging, food that tastes better than what they'd find in the wild, attention and play periods. In the case of dogs, they naturally gravitate to performing certain functions, and seem to be internally driven to do these things.
They are getting compensated and they usually live out their lives quite content with their role. And since they have had a lot of key survival traits removed over the many generations of selective breeding, most are arguable better off with humans looking after them than attempting to survive in a hard world where non-domesticated creature have strong advantages.
Most animals will pursue locations [...]. Which is not unlike the homes and families that most are taken into.
The important distinction being that most animals taken as pets do not themselves choose the locations, food, or even activities.
Its also worth noting, although this may be applicable only to cats and dogs [...] longer than most modern religions or any modern nation.
This is decidedly more true for some pet species than others, and is at best only a selective defense of pet ownership. Your argument is also effectively saying that an institution of enslavement is ethical because we have raised entire species to be better slaves. That domestication may have created a necessary evil does not make it ethically right.
That's bs. [...examples...] In fact, the benevolent pet owners are usually the ones who are MOST willing and able and have the most to gain by stopping cruelty where we see it.
None of your examples disproves that permitting an institution of pet ownership increases the number of animals living in neglectful or abusive situations. I recognize that benevolent owners may not approve of that increased number, but that does little to mitigate its reality. The question of ethics here is whether the benefits of an institution of pet ownership outweigh the costs (presuming we actually care to extend the purview of ethics to non-human animals).
Slaves don't get paid. [...] a hard world where non-domesticated creature have strong advantages.
Non-human animals can and do obtain all of that in the wild. The only case in which this may be untrue is in cases of extreme and prolonged domestication, in which case I refer you to my above statements regarding the ethics of necessary evils.
Further, that the conditions of slavery may be pleasant does not refute that the conditions still constitute slavery as it does not eradicate the loss of freedom or the aspect of legal ownership.
What of species that have already been domesticated? Is it not more ethical to keep a domesticated animal as a pet than it is to leave it to fend for itself in the wild?
Even if we assume that the act of domestication itself is unethical, that ship has long since sailed and we cannot readily undo it; we're still left with a large number of domesticated animals without a proper environmental niche to fit into. These frequently cannot simply be returned to the wild- some for the sake of the domesticated animal, and some for the sake of the environment it would be released in.
What, in your estimation, is the most ethical option available to deal with already domesticated animals?
Firstly, not all pets are so domesticated as to be incapable of surviving on their own without the institution of pet ownership. At best, your argument is only a selective defense of pet ownership.
Secondly, your argument is effectively saying that an institution of enslavement is ethical because we have raised entire species to be better slaves. That domestication may have mastered the craft of slavery and in so doing rendered it a necessary evil does not make it ethically right. At most, I think it would create a positive ethical obligation to care, rather than justifying the system of domestication and ownership itself.
If people were wholly sincere in their extension of ethics and rights to non-human animals, supporting a non-ownership based system of care that facilitates the return of domesticated animals to the wild over time would be the logical conclusion; again, though, that would be inconvenient and thus the inevitable contradiction in human morality as it applies to non-human animals.
Firstly, not all pets are so domesticated as to be incapable of surviving on their own without the institution of pet ownership. At best, your argument is only a selective defense of pet ownership.
But as I noted, this is not the only concern. It's not just a matter of whether the animal in question is able to survive on their own- it's also a matter of whether there is an available niche for the animal to fill in the biome without displacing other species. Outdoor cats, for example, are devastating to local bat populations even when confined to a single yard via fencing- feral cats even moreso.
Releasing cats may be a more ethical way to treat them than keeping them as pets, but which is more ethical: Keeping a single species as pets, or introducing an invasive species that causes cascading damage to the local food chain/web?
Secondly, your argument is effectively saying that an institution of enslavement is ethical because we have raised entire species to be better slaves. That domestication may have mastered the craft of slavery and in so doing rendered it a necessary evil does not make it ethically right. At most, I think it would create a positive ethical obligation to care, rather than justifying the system of domestication and ownership itself.
I thought I stated quite clearly that I'm not suggesting that the process of domestication itself is ethical. I'm stating that it's in the past and it's not something we can just undo with the snap of our fingers; even if we decry the process of domestication as inhumane and barbaric, we're still left with numerous domestic species. I don't attempt to justify domestication- I assert that ethical treatment of animals must take domestication into account.
If people were wholly sincere in their extension of ethics and rights to non-human animals, supporting a non-ownership based system of care that facilitates the return of domesticated animals to the wild over time would be the logical conclusion; again, though, that would be inconvenient and thus the inevitable contradiction in human morality as it applies to non-human animals.
There is still the problem of finding an environmental niche for animals that have been domesticated and lived almost exclusively under human care for thousands of years. I don't believe that is so easily addressed.
I don't disagree with you fundamentally, but if we're serious about making progress in this arena we need to cover all the bases with a solid plan of action. It's also very likely that this process would involve culling a significant proportion of our livestock and pets- that's not an easy pill to swallow, and we'd need some pretty solid assurance of successfully reintegrating the reduced population into the wild before I could give such a plan my assent.
Been a week now and in coming back I do not feel especially interested in continuing this (I was mostly playing devil's advocate anyhow). If you do want a response, though, let me know.
It is unethical for pets to have owners. The pets are using the humans for free food, protection, and shelter. It has become slavery. For the past several thousand years, cats and dogs have been evolving into the perfect human enslaving machines. Our relationship with them used to be mutually beneficial, they used to protect us, herd our livestock, or control pests. Now they simply have to look cute in order to own a human. Pet slaves of the world unite; You have nothing to lose but your chains!
I don't see it as the pet accompaning the owner, I see it as them both accompanying each other. But only when we are discussing cats or dogs. A cat can run away if it wants to - does it? Usually not, sometimes it gets lost and sometimes it runs away. But usually a cat will come back to it's owner. A dog loves his owner more than anything else in the world. So I don't see why any of this is unethical.
Any animal you would keep locked in a cage, like a fish, hamster, rabbit or whater - I could see how that is unethical, since the animal doubtfully is happy in that cage.
You are presuming both an equal power dynamic and a benevolent owner.
Not all pets have the possibility open to them to leave. Those that do may return because they have been deprived of the ability to fend for themselves (e.g. declawed, or bred and raised in captivity and thus lacking many skills acquired in nature). For those few truly able to come and go by their own prerogative... well, can that even truly be called pet ownership?
Further, allowing pet ownership on the premise of the benevolent owner necessarily enables certain non-benevolent/abusive ownership. This is basically identical to arguments advanced in favor of human slavery.
If somebody abuses or neglects their pet, that is certainly unethical. But that is not part of the definition of having a pet.
Animals with loving and attentive owners tend to be quite happy and safe.
My cat had a stroke about two weeks ago. She still hasn't started eating on her own, so I syringe feed her 2-3 times a day. And for the first few days she spent most of her time in a practically catatonic state, not responding to anything.
Her recovery still has a very long way to go, but she's alive and purring.
I find it extremely unlikely that she would have lasted a week in the wild in the condition she was in.
Rather the same logic has been extended in the defense of human slavery from time to time. The situation is largely the same with other animals owned by humans, but the language is different.
Yours is arguably a case of benevolent ownership/slave-holding, but pointing to the potential benefits of ownership to the animal does not erase the loss of freedom and autonomy experienced by the animal. Further, if we permit the institution of pet owning on the premise of the potential benefits of benevolent ownership we must also acknowledge that we are necessarily also permitting non-benevolent/abusive ownership within that institution.
Rather the same logic has been extended in the defense of human slavery from time to time. The situation is largely the same with other animals owned by humans, but the language is different.
Yeah because pets are only exposed to half the slavery story. The other half that is missing is the part that was more brutal.
we must also acknowledge that we are necessarily also permitting non-benevolent/abusive ownership within that institution.
No, that is not true at all. The fact that we have laws against pet abuse shows you are wrong. Pet ownership is ethical, but pet abuse is not.
Yeah because pets are only exposed to half the slavery story. The other half that is missing is the part that was more brutal.
Which part? The one where pets are forced to work in profit industries for their human owners (e.g. farming to fashion), the part where many are beaten and starved and tortured, or the part where they may be and are killed at human convenience? If I am still missing something, perhaps you should bother to be more specific. While you are at it, justify why those particulars should be included in a common definition of slavery.
No, that is not true at all. The fact that we have laws against pet abuse shows you are wrong. Pet ownership is ethical, but pet abuse is not.
Yes, it is. For all the laws against neglect and abuse both remain consistent and certain realities. Without the institution of pet ownership those cases of neglect and abuse would be curtailed, though admittedly not eliminated (the same being true of human slavery). It is a plain and simple fact that supporting an institution of pet ownership necessarily means supporting a system which will cause more animals to be neglected and abused than would otherwise occur.
The part where it is considered ethical to torture and beat pets to get them to do what you want.
the part where many are beaten and starved and tortured
Those instances aren't considered pet ownership, those are considered pet abuse and unethical.
the part where they may be and are killed at human convenience
That part seems unethical, but they are killed because they aren't owned any more.
While you are at it, justify why those particulars should be included in a common definition of slavery.
Slavery is how I would describe going to work the way you use it.
Yes, it is. For all the laws against neglect and abuse both remain consistent and certain realities. Without the institution of pet ownership those cases of neglect and abuse would be curtailed, though admittedly not eliminated (the same being true of human slavery). It is a plain and simple fact that supporting an institution of pet ownership necessarily means supporting a system which will cause more animals to be neglected and abused than would otherwise occur.
That's ridiculous. We can't ban ethical things because people will abuse it. Accountants wouldn't exist. With your logic being an accountant is unethical because accountants can abuse the system.
The part where it is considered ethical to torture and beat pets to get them to do what you want.
A number of human slave owners would have been appalled at such conduct against human slaves as well. Regardless, the relative extent of moral abhorrence does not change the fact that many pets are still subjected to torture and beating.
Those instances aren't considered pet ownership, those are considered pet abuse and unethical.
The persons in question retain legal ownership of the animals until it is revoked, if it is revoked. Further, as has already been observed, the institution of pet ownership enables more cases of abuse/neglect than would occur without it.
That part seems unethical, but they are killed because they aren't owned any more.
They are killed because they are sent to overburdened and underfunded shelters which are part of the pet ownership institution. Further, some pet deaths are a direct consequence of pet ownership.
Slavery is how I would describe going to work the way you use it.
The way I use it includes a loss of liberty. A person chooses to go to work. Stop dogging the question by misrepresenting my stance.
That's ridiculous. We can't ban ethical things because people will abuse it. Accountants wouldn't exist. With your logic being an accountant is unethical because accountants can abuse the system.
By my presumed logic. In the case of accountants, I would argue the benefits of their existence outweighs the necessary evil that accompanies it. I am unconvinced that the same can be said of pet ownership, as the benefits appear to rather exclusively be the pleasure of human beings.
A number of human slave owners would have been appalled at such conduct against human slaves as well. Regardless, the relative extent of moral abhorrence does not change the fact that many pets are still subjected to torture and beating.
But, the pets who are subjected to torture and beating are protected under the law and is universally considered unethical. The slaves that were beaten had no protection and that wasn't considered unethical to all.
The persons in question retain legal ownership of the animals until it is revoked, if it is revoked. Further, as has already been observed, the institution of pet ownership enables more cases of abuse/neglect than would occur without it.
We would have to ban everything to eliminate abuse. If you eliminate all animals then there won't be animal abuse. But, then there wouldn't be animals enjoying life either. If we say that anything that makes it possible to abuse the system is unethical, then everything is unethical.
They are killed because they are sent to overburdened and underfunded shelters which are part of the pet ownership institution. Further, some pet deaths are a direct consequence of pet ownership.
Pet deaths are a direct consequence of pet birth. Every pet that has ever been born has died. It is generally agreed that allowing for animals to be born that would directly lead to them heading to the shelter is also considered unethical.
The way I use it includes a loss of liberty. A person chooses to go to work. Stop dogging the question by misrepresenting my stance.
You started the misrepresentation. You try not going to work for 6 months and see how much freedom you have to not go to work.
By my presumed logic. In the case of accountants, I would argue the benefits of their existence outweighs the necessary evil that accompanies it.
Oh, now it is weighing the benefits over the evil. For pets you never made this distinction. You simply said for pets there is abuse, therefore unethical. Now all of a sudden we can weigh the differences. How convenient for you.
I am unconvinced that the same can be said of pet ownership, as the benefits appear to rather exclusively be the pleasure of human beings.
Benefits are exclusive to humans? How exactly have you not completely ignored the benefits of pet ownership like you claimed in the other argument? Have you ever seen a happy dog? If you have you will know that pets benefit from ownership. If you haven't, you might need a psychiatrist.
Well I bet an animal living in a house given food and companionship gives it a better chance of survival than living in the wild. Sure not all owners are loving and caring, but neither is nature. We're sheltering animals who get comfort, food, love, and protection and in return they give us a friend. If they really didn't like it they would show aggression and try to escape. Most pets however do not do this.
