Just wondering. What are the ethics?
>>18734585I do not believe soI think it’s possible to ethically own pets if you’re some kind of country aristocrat that is basically offering a safer, better version of life in the wild, with all of the excitement, sex, pack bonding, free range exercise and fresh raw food that entails but without all the accompanying danger.What most people offer pets is really just Norwegian prison for animals
>>18734603Like anyone that owns a pet is doing something wrong? What if they care for the animal and nurture it?
>>18734612He's probably speaking broadly and doesn't make judgements on the individual level, though I'm sure there are some crazies out there who do think you're a horrible person if you own a pet.
Going by vegan logic, yes, because pets are a form of animal labor, a surrogate for your maternal instinct.
>>18734612Very few people actually have the time or resources to give animals the nutrition, care and stimulation that they need and this is visible when you see the pets people own. They are usually quite poorly behaved because their life is extremely boring and confusing for what is an animal that by instinct wants to be outside killing other smaller animals, they are often obese because the height of stimulation for them is eating food, and they are usually castrated with no hope of ever having sex.So, yes, I would say owning a dog for example is usually immoral. You cannot actually give it the care and nurturing an animal needs unless you are the kind of country gentleman I just described that can let it roam an estate, take it hunting rabbits or foxes or whatever, and let it fuck your other hunting hounds. An urban full time worker that lives alone in a small apartment owning a dog? Completely immoral.
>>18734623What about cats, or rabbits, guinea pigs, fish, birds,etc?
>>18734632>fish, birdsEven worse, this is the prison example taken to the absolute extreme By nature you're supposed to have free roam of the whole sea or sky, eating as you naturally would and reproducing with the other fish/birds. Captivity denies you of all of that, instead you live in box of only a few square feet, never seeing a world beyond that, never knowing more than a tiny few (if any) of your own species, and subsisting on a diet of processed flakes. Truly purgatory on Earth. >Rabbits, guinea pigsSimilar to the above but not as extreme in its level of deprivation.>CatsPossibly the most ethical pet to own since they're lazy bastards anyway and if they're so inclined they'll probably still find ways to hunt, fight each other, and rape each other. There is probably no pet better suited for urban life. Were it not for the fact cars exist to run them over the ghetto would basically be cat paradise and they could murder rats, have fight club everyday and rape all females in sight to their hearts content.
>>18734640I would agree with your take on birds & fish. Guinea pigs & rabbits can be allowed to roam so it isn't entirely bad.Cats are the most ethical pets to own? I would agree as someone that lived with cats. They are indeed lazy.
>>18734623Almost all of their instincts have been heavily tampered with through selective breeding, quite alot of breeds are much more interested in doing other shit than hunting, like herding livestock. Though most breeds are definitely very ill-suited for staying indoors 24/7 and most people who get dogs are unfortunately retards who think dogs differ only in appearance.As for fucking, in the wild it is only natural for most species that quite alot of them never get to do it, especially males. When it comes to canines in particular only the pack leaders, who are usually also the parents of the rest of the pack, get to do it, and in the eyes of domestic dogs we're the pack leaders.
>>18734640>>18734643If you think cats are lazy you've never lived with one on the countryside, mine has taken down hares twice his size and is killing rodents daily. Though even if you've only lived with indoor cats you should still have noticed that they become full of energy late at night, as the nocturnal hunters that they are.And they actually do get miserable if they're never stimulated.
>>18734687They're lazy when they're too well fed. A cat that's never hungry is a cat that won't bother itself with hunting.
>>18734810https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi_vOBxTAMsThere isn't a healthy cat in the world who wouldn't do this if they came across a mouse.It's not just for food, they enjoy it. All the fucking cat toys cityfags buy are just meant to mimic how they play with their prey.
Owning a pet is neutral probably good because you're at least caring for an animal. Most pets may be able to survive in the wild but not great.Domestication is far more unethical. If you think about domestication its actually a rather nightmarish fate. Imagine aliens do to humans what we do to wolves. Do you think that would be "ethical" then?
>>18734895Anthropomorphizing animals is retarded though. They're not like us, not even remotely, so the morality that we apply on ourselves should not and cannot apply to them.You should still definitely not try to do it with the exceptionally smart ones like chimps or killer whales as they can comprehend alot more than a dog, but human slavery is on another level entirely.
>>18734909So if an alien race was what intellgience humans are to animals then it would be ethical for them to domesticate us at their pleasure?
>>18734917If they can do it in a way that we cannot possibly EVER comprehend that we are domesticated while keeping us fed and happy, sure, but that is an impossible scenario as we are way too smart for that.
>>18734585Owning pets is Biblical as opposed to letting pets all run loose.In Biblical terms, pets and animals represent "Beasts". When you tame a Beast, you get rid of their beastly desire and replace it with a more Godly one. (eg. instead of a dog killing an innocent bunny, a dog has a daily bowl of kibbles). Therefore, the more proper pet ownership there is in the world, its a net lost of beastly acivity. This is why i think its no concidence that civilizations that treat their pets the best are usually much more civilized than those who mistreat them.
>>18734585>>18734895Ton of animals would have gone extinct if we didn't help them
>>18734585Depends on the animal. Cats and dogs domesticated themselves. They actively want to be our pets for resources and security and actively bond with us. Keeping them as pets is ethical if they are treated well i.e. not starved, beaten, kept in cages, etc.
>>18734989Name 1 that also didn't decline because of humans
>>18735048All animals declined by man's existence since man is top of the food chain
>>18734585>What are the ethics?a branch of philosophy that studies moral principles, values, and the concepts of right and wrong, good and bad
>>18734919>If they can do it in a way that we cannot possibly EVER comprehend that we are domesticated while keeping us fed and happy, sure,>happyAre you sure your pet is happy?
>>18734998>kept in cagesFor an animal like a cat or dog, being trapped in the house 22hours a day is pretty similar to being in prison
>>18734585>Is it ethical to own pets?Considering the modern definition of pet, NO.They are animals, not humans.
>>18735486A dog would not wag its tail if it was not happy.
>>18734585Its beyond ethical, its downright good. Pets have the best lives out of any animals
Just giving them the freedom of movement (allow them to leave whenever they want, and don't move them anywhere forcefully), and freedom of their own body (no sterilisation for example). So something like a barn cat is an ethical pet, while an apartment cat is unethical.
>>18734585It is if you treat them well.Abusing pets is unethical
>>18734640Fish have split second memoriesBy the time they get to the end of the tank, it’s brand newThey don’t have predators in the tank that they have to avoidIt’s better
Nobody ITT are considering what the pets themselves wantMost dogs and cats seem to enjoy human companionship and seem to enjoy being our pet, so if you were to ask them this question, and if they were capable of answering it, I'd argue they wouldn't necessarily find it morally reprehensible. If you were to ask most animals whether or not they'd want to be eaten, then following the same logic, most would probably say no.
>>18734585Children are innocent, yeahTeenagers fucked up in the headAdults are only more fucked upAnd elderlies are like childrenWill there be another race toCome along and take over for us?Maybe Martians could doBetter than we've doneWe'll make great petsWe'll make great petsWe'll make great petsMy friend says we're like the dinosaursOnly we are doing ourselves inMuch faster than they ever didWe'll make great petshttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fKHDLA95kpM&list=RDfKHDLA95kpM&start_radio=1&pp=ygUSUGV0cyBwZXJyeSBGYXJyZWxsoAcB
>>18735574So why is it necessary for many to lock them inside to stop them from running away?
>>18735574If you let them out, they come back ratter than escape (usually)That seems to demonstrate they accept the situation and voluntarily maintain it.
>>18734640>Were it not for the fact cars exist to run them over the ghetto would basically be cat paradise and they could murder rats, have fight club everyday and rape all females in sight to their hearts content.I love cats so much.
>>18735582For most pet owners, it literally isn't.
>>18735793Ah yeah that’s why they all have to be microchipped
>>18735794Most pets aren't chipped bro
>>18735795Yeah and most pets are poorly trained, poorly fed, and would probably run away given the opportunity.
>>18734585Is it ethical to own slaves?
>>18734585Pets are just cross species slaves. Well, cared-for slaves most of the time in ideal situations, but slaves all the same. If you were to treat a human like a pet, that would be horribly immoral. The law recognizes them as property. I know this is legal positivism, but I'm just trying to show that there's nothing stopping someone from walking into a vet's office, asking them to put down a perfectly healthy dog or cat, having it done, and then walking out. Nothing will happen to them because the law recognizes they can do whatever they want with them since they are property, barring, of course, having sex with them, because that's pretty disgusting, and most people don't stand for that. I would say that they're one of the few examples where practicality trumps ethics, so we can either say that pet ownership can be a ethical form of slavery or it's a very slanted example of mutualism.
>>18735797>most pets are poorly trained, poorly fed, and would probably>most are>probably Lol lmao
>>18735797Basically everyone in rural areas will let their pets roam freely outside, and yet they never run away for long.
>>18735797This is pojection
>>18734603Most people in the world would prefer to live in a Norwegian prison than in a place they currently live.
>>18734585Yes it is ethical. Animals are given rights by humans not to protect animals but to prevent pyhcos from torturing animals.
>>18734585Those are all so cute
