4 ms·

Neutering is necessary mostly for societal benefit: It prevents stray cats (via catch and release) and/or runaways from creating more cats. Declawing is necess

Neutering is necessary mostly for societal benefit: It prevents stray cats (via catch and release) and/or runaways from creating more cats. Declawing is necessary mostly for personal benefit: You can't train your cat and therefore it must lose their claws. One is something that's useful for society as a whole, the other is useful because you are an asshole. That's mostly how I've seen the distinction. What kind of arguments have you encountered in the wild?

kerkeslager 7y ago
I guess the counterargument I've seen for this is that declawed cats are more likely to be adopted, and allowing declawing makes intact cats more likely to be adopted--both societal benefits. It seems like the fact that it also benefits an individual is sort of a distraction here. Thanks for trying, but I think I'm still in the same place: I don't have a persuasive argument for or against declawing. That said, my gut feeling is still against it, so I'm not going to exactly go lobby to bring back declawing. I wonder if that's basically why declawing is illegal in so many places--people following their instincts are against it, and nobody feels strongly enough for it to defend it. In any case, I'm not bent that it's illegal now (I live in NY), just puzzled. EDIT: Okay, I guess I have a question which would settle this for me: is adoption of cats actually a societal benefit as compared to having more strays? An Aoshima-style[1] island of cats doesn't seem like a dystopia to me, and it seems like stray cats are capable of caring for themselves without human intervention. There are probably some downsides (in NY state, ticks) but there are other solutions to those problems. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/03/a-visit-to-aoshima-a-cat-island-in-japan/386647/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/03/a-visit-to-aoshima...

kerkeslager 7y ago

I guess the counterargument I've seen for this is that declawed cats are more likely to be adopted, and allowing declawing makes intact cats more likely to be adopted--both societal benefits. It seems like the fact that it also benefits an individual is sort of a distraction here. Thanks for trying, but I think I'm still in the same place: I don't have a persuasive argument for or against declawing. That said, my gut feeling is still against it, so I'm not going to exactly go lobby to bring back declawing. I wonder if that's basically why declawing is illegal in so many places--people following their instincts are against it, and nobody feels strongly enough for it to defend it. In any case, I'm not bent that it's illegal now (I live in NY), just puzzled. EDIT: Okay, I guess I have a question which would settle this for me: is adoption of cats actually a societal benefit as compared to having more strays? An Aoshima-style[1] island of cats doesn't seem like a dystopia to me, and it seems like stray cats are capable of caring for themselves without human intervention. There are probably some downsides (in NY state, ticks) but there are other solutions to those problems. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/03/a-visit-to-aoshima-a-cat-island-in-japan/386647/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/03/a-visit-to-aoshima...