this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
537 points (87.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43891 readers
782 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Owning pets is not moral and I think it's strange how normalized it is to have pets
30000 years of evolution says what?
Mind you I'm not arguing against that exotic pets are abnormal, but the normalized pets are felines and canines which actually evolved into a symbiotic relationship with humans on their own accord.
And keep in mind. 30k years. That's more than 10% of our existence as a species. It's a concept more ingrained in us than even the idea of civilization itself. It's more logical to question civilisation itself than to question humanities relationship to felines and canines
To be fair though, if we go by evolutionary standards, all pets then should be free roaming.
Yes, that's yet another reason why we should ban cars from cities and put more green spaces.
So should we as humans :,)
have goldfish
If we are making evolutionary arguments, I find dogs that have been bred in such a way that they commonly die from cancer or heart disease in 10 years to be exotic. But they certainly are successful in passing on their genes, so it is an increase in fitness. But at what cost?
I also do not think that something evolving to be a certain way makes it a moral choice.
Oh yeah no doubt on that. I dislike the whole concept of "pure breeds" bad. My point still stands regardless
Sure, but I still think "well it evolved this way" doesn't make something moral. A simple counterargument is that approach shouldn't allow vaccines or clean water because we we didn't evolve in the context of those things. I know this isn't the argument you are trying to make, but I think the context in which we evolved to have a relationship with dogs is not beyond scrutiny in contemporary times. I think we have an extensive history with our pets, but the benefits of that relationship are no longer present, (except for the pets which do find success is passing on their genes, though that is mostly controlled). There may be a case that owning pets allows people to be more successful in reproducing but I do not think it is a requirement.
Most people I know pick the dog they want to own based on how it looks. So it is an aesthetic decision that determines the life of the animal. I think this is where a lot of my issue with pet ownership derives. In a very trite way, the relationship is "this dog looks very cute, I want to own it". Then this relationship is extended in a way to try to make it akin to a friendship. It is a different kind of relationship and ought to be treated as such. If someone tried to be friends with someone that they owned, I would find it disturbing.
I know I'm in an extreme minority here but I think that's what the post was looking for!
Yes! I still question myself because I adopt when I can just so they don't stay in the streets, but I don't call my family of dogs pets. I treat them with respect and don't judge them based on human prejudices, but the rest of the people expects me to treat them as inferior and disrespect them ;:/
And guess what?: those people are usually the ones that are abusive to the dogs/cats that live with them.
Is it different for you if someone said having pets or βanimal friendsβ instead of owning?
Well, do they own the animals or not? I think ownership of other animals is part of my core issue.
Owning the animals, then calling it another name is worse in my view. Especially animal friends, I think owning another living thing but calling it your friend is the foundation of a unhealthy relationship. You purchased the animal. I do not have friendships that begin with buying them.
You're applying morality to animals, who don't give a shit about such things. As long as you take care of them and treat them well, they're happy.
Honestly? Fair point. I find it hard to not extend this to animals but it most likely isn't something animals consider at all. I mean, dogs likely all have William's Syndrome, so they are happy with how we treat them in most scenarios. But owning animals I think leads to a lot of secondary animal cruelty caused by breeders and abandoned pets.
That's true - humans gonna human, so we're prone to treating animals under our care like shit. And also true that dogs have been domesticated by us so long that they'll often remain loyal even when we mistreat them. It's the mistreatment of animals that's the problem, not the ownership itself.
I agree. The one caveat being that there are thousands of animals in shelters who are going to live in cages for years until they're killed. If the alternative is someone can adopt them and give them a happy life in a loving home, that's the obviously better option.
Breeders can go fuck right off, though. Every cat or dog bred into existence condemns an animal in a shelter to die.
Part of how I think about this is that the demand people have for owning animals creates the demand for breeders to make them. Simply not wanting pets would doom less to this fate.
Of course, this perspective is too reductive to capture what's really going on in reality. But I suspect it could prevent a good bit of animal harm.