Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the future I may decide to go off grid or live more rural. I might get lonely and may want a pet. If I'm living by myself with little to no human interaction, I'm going to want a pet. I'd be a responsible and caring owner. Probably want a few dogs.
It seems most people think there's nothing wrong with having pets. Since we can't ask for a animal's opinion I like to put myself in their shoes. Would I rather have all my needs met but live in a enclosed space or be free and face dangers like getting eaten by other humans. Interesting thought experiment.
If I do learn towards the immorality of owning a pet, what do I do about loneliness. I really don't want to be lonely but also don't want to own dogs and feel like I have them living in like a prison.
For thousands of years, we have lived side by side with dogs. We have bred them to be less vicious, for the most part, and their natural instincts have been changed, partly by humans, to be dependent on humans. For this reason, it is cruelty nowadays to expect dogs to live a feral life. They end up being unhealthy and also end up causing unhealthy conditions by foraging in garbage, etc. Dogs will choose to live with a human who is going to provide for them, every time over living "free."
I'm assuming you wouldn't be the kind of owner who has a dog chained up outside. This is indeed cruelty.
Dogs have evolved with humans. Most breeds have certain traits because they were bred to do a specific job. They are usually happy to do that job. For some, that job is simply to be a human companion and give them cuddles and snuggles. A lot of dogs get VERY depressed and anxious when they don’t have a human around because they haven’t evolved to have the solitary lifestyle they might otherwise have.
For thousands of years, we have lived side by side with dogs. We have bred them to be less vicious, for the most part, and their natural instincts have been changed, partly by humans, to be dependent on humans. For this reason, it is cruelty nowadays to expect dogs to live a feral life. They end up being unhealthy and also end up causing unhealthy conditions by foraging in garbage, etc. Dogs will choose to live with a human who is going to provide for them, every time over living "free."
I'm assuming you wouldn't be the kind of owner who has a dog chained up outside. This is indeed cruelty.
You bring up some interesting points. I hadn't consider that they've been living with us for thousands of years and how that might change their very nature. When it comes to undomesticated animals do you think they should live in the wild or in a enclosed space.
You bring up some interesting points. I hadn't consider that they've been living with us for thousands of years and how that might change their very nature. When it comes to undomesticated animals do you think they should live in the wild or in a enclosed space.
Wild animals should of course be left alone to live their lives in nature. For the most part. There are times when a wild animal is sick or injured, has a birth defect or is orphaned at an early age, and then humans may choose to intervene to save its life. Often this means the animal survives, but cannot be released to the wild again. Many animals you see in zoos and aquariums have this background.
Then there is also the situation in which a certain species is on the brink of extinction and so people step in to bring individuals into captivity for breeding purposes, with the intent of reintroducing them to the wild when their numbers have increased. There is a network of zoos dedicated to this work and they have had quite a bit of success.
Of course there are ethical dilemmas involved whenever people intervene in nature. It's not possible to recreate a normal habitat in captivity for every type of animal. Some captive wild animals appear to be very unhappy and you might say, they would rather be dead. Others carry on with their normal behaviors and don't seem bothered. Some individuals, especially if they were orphaned as babies, bond to a single human and happily live with that person. So it really depends on the animal.
There are many existing animals languishing in shelters (especially now that people with no foresight who assauged their boredom during pandemic lockdown by getting a pet are, I hear, giving them up again now that they're busy with other things again). Surely giving a homeless animal a home and a family is less unethical than keeping a pet in the first place.
For loneliness: get involved in hobbies, activities, and organizations and make human friends. IMO, a pet isn't a good foil for loneliness anyway; sure, you're not by yourself, but it's not like a pet can have a conversation, be there for you when you need help with things, and in fact at times a pet's neediness can perhaps make you feel more alone, not less.
You bring up some interesting points. I hadn't consider that they've been living with us for thousands of years and how that might change their very nature. When it comes to undomesticated animals do you think they should live in the wild or in a enclosed space.
No dog in existence is undomesticated. "Domesticated" is something that happens to species, not individuals. An individual can "go wild" - which would be called feral. They can live, even in groups and large numbers. independently choosing whom to breed with - and they are called village dogs or aboriginal dogs. But a dog is never truly wild. Wild is what wolves and coyotes are. Even when they have been tamed , meaning they have been accustomed to living with people, this is something that happens only to an individual. It is not passed down to the next generation. Dogs, on the other hand, even when feral or seemingly wild, will pass on to their children the basic propensity to live with humans. Since a dog can't be "undomesticated" your last question is a different topic, and I won't cover it at this moment.
So, why do some people consider owning pets unethical? Because the animal is in captivity, even if the jail is pleasant. Some people feel this is immoral (or unethical) simply because of the fact of one species holding another captive. AFIAC, this is like the Jainist view that it is immoral to kill any living creature, even an ant. In other words, more than a bit extreme.
There is, however, another, more recent school of thought, as to why keeping pets, and dogs in particular, is immoral or unethical. For dogs, especially those who have working backgrounds, have been selectively bred by humans for generation upon generation - literally thousands of years - to behave in certain ways. These working traits are hard-coded in a dog's behavior. It's why people say some breeds of dogs "need a job". Any herding breed (almost, but the exceptions are few) is in this category. Livestock guardian breeds are in lthis category. We, mankind, have coded the behavior of these dogs so that they can not CHOOSE to act differently. They are as driven to perform their jobs as they are to eat. It is a basic part of who they are as individuals. Many, including myself, believe it is immoral and unethical to keep such dogs as simple pets. And that is because, when they are JUST a pet, their whole life is one long frustration, and WE, as mankind, are responsible for that. We created what these dogs are. To give them a life without giving them some outlet for their most basic drives is inhumane.
But most dogs in the world do NOT fall in that category. While I believe that dogs self-domesticated some eons ago, it doesn't really matter whether they self-domesticated or not. Dogs have evolved to live in the margins of mankind's societies. If mankind disappeared, dogs as we know them would shortly follow. Dogs have actually evolved to live WITH people. Because of this, most dogs make fine companion animals. The practice of raising and breeding dogs who were especially adapted to being companion animals is also thousands of years old. The specialization of dogs began in pre-historical times. Some were kept as hunters, some were shepherds' dogs, and some were companion animals. That is history.
So, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, what is immoral, or inhumane, is keeping working dog breeds as ordinary pets. I could spread that umbrella farther, to include any animal kept as a pet. Whatever we keep as a companion animal should have consideration given to that animal's basic drives and desires.
I have a family member who lives on a farm and her dog lives in the house with her but outside is free, unleashed, unchained and unfenced. The dog has a great life, and yes it could get bitten by a snake or hunted by a coyote….but its a very large dog. If you live off the grid, I’m assuming you won’t be nearby lots of other suburban houses or major highways. Your dogs may be able to enjoy outside without confinement but live in the house with you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
