3 ms·

Is this sarcasm? I fail to understand how taking a dog from a loving household into scrounging on the streets is at all an ethical solution.

by OzyM 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
moralestapia 5y ago
Would you agree to be locked at some place even if "they treat you real good"?
- OzyM 5y ago
  I agree it's not an ideal situation, but I honestly think it's better than the alternative. In your example of me personally, this is kind of the tradeoff most small humans (including myself) made for the first ten years of life. Supervision, lack of freedom, etc. in exchange for food, shelter, and hopefully companionship. As it's not ideal, I could agree with you on reducing breeding so we don't have to make this choice in the future. But currently, for domesticated animals who can't be released into the wild without high chance of extreme pain to themselves (dogs) or major ecological damage (cats), it seems like our kindest option is to put as many of them in loving & protective situations as possible.
  - summm 5y ago
    I feel this is a false dichotomy. If we really stop breeding pets, and do this consequently and with an honest effort, this will become a non-issue in, like, 10 years.
- borski 5y ago
  You are making unstated assumptions: we have no idea if dogs, by this point, have been bred to seek human companionship, which we believe generally to be the case. If left alone, lacking companionship (since most pet owners don't tend to be abusive, though it can happen), I would argue the animal would potentially be much less happy on the street. That has nothing to do with me wanting to own a pet, and everything to do with there being plenty of pets available who I would rather get loved by someone than, well, die on the street.
- verall 5y ago
  Are you a dog? This kind of personifying glib is what gives vegan/vegetarian ethics a bad name. It completely ignores domestication and how dogs evolved as human-following scavenger animals. Most dog breeds are not adapted to living without humans. Dogs in the wild live much shorter lives and get parasites.
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    >Are you a dog? Yes, I am a sentient dog with an internet connection. >Dogs in the wild live much shorter lives and get parasites. This is true of humans as well. Honestly, I think a dog would outlast many of us in the wild. Your point is moot.
    - verall 5y ago
      It's not, my points are clear and well argued ;) You aren't a dog, so your preference for not living under the care of a human owner is not relevant. Dogs do not outlast us in the wild, because "the wild" is the real world we live in today. Stray dogs are invasive in most ecosystems, and are usually not well adapted to their environments. Dogs are intelligent enough to show preferences, and thanks to tens of thousands of years of selective breeding, they generally prefer people. Strays are a tragedy.
      - moralestapia 5y ago
        Ok, so I cannot comment on dogs since I am not a dog, But somehow you, who are not a dog as well (I presume), just happen to know that dogs prefer domestic life. Nice dissonance there, pal.
        verall 5y ago
        There is no dissonance, the reasoning you gave was that you (or the reader) would certainly not prefer to live with benevolent captors as an emotional support object, so a dog likely would not either. This is not invalid reasoning, but Man's relationship with The Dog is more complicated than that. Domesticated dogs were created by selective breeding by humans over thousands of years, and this is well established. I posit that dogs on average prefer domestic life because they were selectively bred to prefer it for thousands of years. I am honestly surprised this is controversial. We know for a fact that many dog breeds are not compatible with living in nature without human help, and would not survive. What is the ethical thing to do now, that we cannot change the past, and domesticated animals exist? I don't think breeding dogs is ethical. I also don't think lettings dogs out into nature is ethical, at all.

Is this sarcasm? I fail to understand how taking a dog from a loving household into scrounging on the streets is at all an ethical solution.

by OzyM 5y ago

Is this sarcasm? I fail to understand how taking a dog from a loving household into scrounging on the streets is at all an ethical solution.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

moralestapia 5y ago

Would you agree to be locked at some place even if "they treat you real good"?

OzyM 5y ago
I agree it's not an ideal situation, but I honestly think it's better than the alternative. In your example of me personally, this is kind of the tradeoff most small humans (including myself) made for the first ten years of life. Supervision, lack of freedom, etc. in exchange for food, shelter, and hopefully companionship. As it's not ideal, I could agree with you on reducing breeding so we don't have to make this choice in the future. But currently, for domesticated animals who can't be released into the wild without high chance of extreme pain to themselves (dogs) or major ecological damage (cats), it seems like our kindest option is to put as many of them in loving & protective situations as possible.
- summm 5y ago
  I feel this is a false dichotomy. If we really stop breeding pets, and do this consequently and with an honest effort, this will become a non-issue in, like, 10 years.
borski 5y ago
You are making unstated assumptions: we have no idea if dogs, by this point, have been bred to seek human companionship, which we believe generally to be the case. If left alone, lacking companionship (since most pet owners don't tend to be abusive, though it can happen), I would argue the animal would potentially be much less happy on the street. That has nothing to do with me wanting to own a pet, and everything to do with there being plenty of pets available who I would rather get loved by someone than, well, die on the street.
verall 5y ago
Are you a dog? This kind of personifying glib is what gives vegan/vegetarian ethics a bad name. It completely ignores domestication and how dogs evolved as human-following scavenger animals. Most dog breeds are not adapted to living without humans. Dogs in the wild live much shorter lives and get parasites.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  >Are you a dog? Yes, I am a sentient dog with an internet connection. >Dogs in the wild live much shorter lives and get parasites. This is true of humans as well. Honestly, I think a dog would outlast many of us in the wild. Your point is moot.
  - verall 5y ago
    It's not, my points are clear and well argued ;) You aren't a dog, so your preference for not living under the care of a human owner is not relevant. Dogs do not outlast us in the wild, because "the wild" is the real world we live in today. Stray dogs are invasive in most ecosystems, and are usually not well adapted to their environments. Dogs are intelligent enough to show preferences, and thanks to tens of thousands of years of selective breeding, they generally prefer people. Strays are a tragedy.
    - moralestapia 5y ago
      Ok, so I cannot comment on dogs since I am not a dog, But somehow you, who are not a dog as well (I presume), just happen to know that dogs prefer domestic life. Nice dissonance there, pal.
      - verall 5y ago
        There is no dissonance, the reasoning you gave was that you (or the reader) would certainly not prefer to live with benevolent captors as an emotional support object, so a dog likely would not either. This is not invalid reasoning, but Man's relationship with The Dog is more complicated than that. Domesticated dogs were created by selective breeding by humans over thousands of years, and this is well established. I posit that dogs on average prefer domestic life because they were selectively bred to prefer it for thousands of years. I am honestly surprised this is controversial. We know for a fact that many dog breeds are not compatible with living in nature without human help, and would not survive. What is the ethical thing to do now, that we cannot change the past, and domesticated animals exist? I don't think breeding dogs is ethical. I also don't think lettings dogs out into nature is ethical, at all.