PETA strikes again

[Danger]

dogs, cats, elephants? :yuck:

Not my first choices, by any means, but they are below me on the food chain.

 

[DanP]

Or are you just looking for pointers on cat care?

I think you shouldn't own a pet at all with this stance on animals.

 

[rootX]

Not my first choices, by any means, but they are below me on the food chain.

:rofl:

I hope we never see that day. I remember watching a movie about NK man who kills his dog to feed his family but pisses off his son. It was a really sad movie. His wife gets sick and he illegally migrates to China to find medicine for her while in NK police finds that out and send his children to labor camp ... Later he migrates to SK and finds through a paid informant that all his family is dead

 

[Pinu7]

If pets were not for human entertainment, then I doubt why a person could want them unless they lack meaningful human contact.

I do not believe that animals "do not want to perform". I mean, unless an animal believes a negative result would come to them if they perform, then it must be willing to do it. Animals used in television are not beaten by whips, I believe they do a trick for a "treat."

In this case, I am sure the chimp was more than willing to perform.

Therefore, I think that training an animal do tricks through positive motivation is not unethical.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

dogs, cats, elephants? :yuck:

Reminds me of my daugher's recipe for Elephant Salad. Dice one elephant. This should take about a month. Then take two pieces of bread, some mayonaise, lettuce, tomato, and the elephant. Serves 100.

 

[russ_watters]

I strongly disagree that a cat using a litter box is in the same situation as, say, a circus elephant. Not even close!

A cat will use a litter box without the slightest prompting; it's instinct to want to bury their pee and poop and kitty litter is made to suit their instincts. A circus elephant lives its life chained, standing on concrete, traveling in cattle cars. They are forced to perform whether they want to or not.

The two situations are not even within sight of each other.

Ehh, a cat litter box may be a tough example, but I'm not willing to completely give in on that one. Cats are notoriously difficult to train, but that doesn't mean people don't try - and if a cat pees outside the litter box or jumps on the counter to get some people food, training will occur. And you don't think feeding a cat is a form of training? And you do play with your cat, right? Ever consider posting a vid of one of your cats' antics on Youtube? Are all those cat owners with videos of their cats chasing laser dots on the wall abusing their cats by making them perform for our enjoyment?

Dogs are much worse off than cats anyway: A great many dogs these days spend most of their lives in chains and cages, taken out to perform for their owners, whether they want to or not.

 

[mugaliens]

If pets were not for human entertainment, then I doubt why a person could want them unless they lack meaningful human contact.

I do not believe that animals "do not want to perform". I mean, unless an animal believes a negative result would come to them if they perform, then it must be willing to do it. Animals used in television are not beaten by whips, I believe they do a trick for a "treat."

In this case, I am sure the chimp was more than willing to perform.

Therefore, I think that training an animal do tricks through positive motivation is not unethical.

Socialization is largely an evolutionary trait, often between species. Therefore I'm not surprised when a chimp cuddles a kitten, or when we cuddle with a kitten, for that matter.

I think sometimes people forget we're animals, too...

 

[disregardthat]

Do you think it's morally good or correct to hold an animal in captivity if you can better fulfill its needs? Such as an abundance of food, safe environment, etc. I prefer to think that an animal is "best off" in the wild where it belongs regardless of the premises that sets for it.

I cannot understand how some people can be categorically opposed to training animals. Is this not in some cases as natural as raising a child?

I wonder how many animals would be completely extinct without zoos or places where animals are held in captivity.

I often hear this argument, but I don't agree with it one bit. The fact that some animals might naturally have gone extinct does not justify captivity. I'm not saying that captivity needs to be justified, but if it does, that reason certainly doesn't do it. If we are to accept animals as moral beings, what moral incentive is there to favor one species over another, or even keeping some species alive by captivating individuals?

It's better to admit it as it is; if we captivate individuals from an endangered species in order to sustain the population, we don't do it for them, we do it for ourselves. I can see how it's "good" to have a rich fauna. But if we don't think captivating animals is morally right/acceptable in general, then this doesn't morally justify an exception.

If humans are the reason the animals go extinct in the first place, we are already on the "bad" side of the line of moral behavior, but does this fact justify captivity? It's another matter, but similar to: if you have already killed a bear cub, and its mother attacks you because of it, is it justifiable to kill her as well? - Given that it would be if she attacked you at random.

 

[disregardthat]

I do not believe that animals "do not want to perform". I mean, unless an animal believes a negative result would come to them if they perform, then it must be willing to do it. Animals used in television are not beaten by whips, I believe they do a trick for a "treat."
unethical.

I don't think they do it for the "treat", the treat is only a way of inclining the animal to a certain kind of behavior. Remember that the treat is often omitted after a while. When the animal is trained to a certain kind of behavior, to do a certain trick by a hand gesture, or do its business properly, it has already become the natural way of acting, as natural as chasing cats on instinct. The treat was the main incentive in the beginning, but not always.

You don't brush your teeth yourself to make your parents proud anymore.

 

[Jamma]

What mistreatment, what forcing? I happen to know that the monkey was given a very expensive cigar as compensation for his work.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
This made me laugh so much!

 

[Danger]

If we are to accept animals as moral beings

Animals are amoral; they have no inherent sense of right or wrong. Left to themselves, they merely do what their genetic programming tells them to. Even domesticated or trained (not the same thing) critters don't think in terms of morality. They just know what pleases or displeases the trainer. In the case of dogs and cats, selective breeding over hundreds or even thousands of years has adjusted the genetic programming to be more compatible with human cohabitation.

 

[disregardthat]

Animals are amoral; they have no inherent sense of right or wrong. Left to themselves, they merely do what their genetic programming tells them to. Even domesticated or trained (not the same thing) critters don't think in terms of morality. They just know what pleases or displeases the trainer. In the case of dogs and cats, selective breeding over hundreds or even thousands of years has adjusted the genetic programming to be more compatible with human cohabitation.

I actually meant if animals have intrinsic moral value, in the same way as human beings. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism . I agree with you that the animals themselves cannot act morally. They lack the rationality to do so. Note also that I said if.

 

[Danger]

Thanks for the clarification, Jarle. I must admit that I've never even heard the term "speciesism" before. It appears, to me, to just be a sub-set of anthropomorphism.
By the bye... in my experience, the phrase "assuming that" usually implies that the speaker has his mind made up and is stating something as a fact. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[disregardthat]

Thanks for the clarification, Jarle. I must admit that I've never even heard the term "speciesism" before. It appears, to me, to just be a sub-set of anthropomorphism.
By the bye... in my experience, the phrase "assuming that" usually implies that the speaker has his mind made up and is stating something as a fact. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Yeah, my buff was really with those who wanted to morally justify animal captivity by that it hinders extinction. That is, if they already are of the opinions that animals have intrinsic moral value. To be honest; speciesism doesn't really appeal to me as an ethical theory. But I certainly wouldn't argue against those with such an opinion.

 

[dreiter]

There is a great conversation going here, very dissimilar to many 'animal rights' threads on other forums. No flame wars yet! :D

For anyone that wants a good solid read on the issue, I highly recommend the author Gary Francione. He is a law professor at Rutgers who specializes in animal rights. He has written a few very well done books such as 'Introduction to Animal Rights' and 'Rain Without Thunder.' I have posted a link to his FAQ page below. I find that to be a good introduction to his theories. He promotes an abolitionist approach to animal rights, which many would consider to be the 'hard line approach.' Personally it's the side I have chosen, and I try to live my life following many of those ideals. Check it out! :)

 

[mugaliens]

Animals are amoral; they have no inherent sense of right or wrong. Left to themselves, they merely do what their genetic programming tells them to.

Oh? They do, do they?

Even domesticated or trained (not the same thing) critters don't think in terms of morality. They just know what pleases or displeases the trainer.

They also know what pleases or displeases themselves, and nearly all animals in domestication or training have days where they tell their trainers to take a hike.

In the case of dogs and cats, selective breeding over hundreds or even thousands of years has adjusted the genetic programming to be more compatible with human cohabitation.

I've encountered (face to face, requiring some interaction) wolves, bears, cougars, deer, coyotes, elk, and countless others in the wild. I've owned all sorts of animals in captivity, including wild ones (the smaller ones), but of course dogs and cats. I've never been bit by a wolf, either in the wild or in captivity or domestication, but I've been nipped by fully domesticated dogs with normally good temperaments and with good owners. And cats. And birds. And just about everything else.

Tens or hundreds of thousands of years of selective breeding has not made for animals to be more compatible with human cohabitation for one simple thing: we humans have not been selectively breeding them for more compatibility!

Instead, we've been breeding then to perform various functions. Sometimes that beefing up a thick fur coat, or looking a certain way, or encouraging certain behaviors such as the ability to viciously guard a door or post, to the death if necessary, something no animal in the wild is going to do when death is all they'll get out of it.

No, my friend - domesticated animals are full of traits which, we often see in the wild, I would rarely expect to encounter in the wild, but which appear all to readily in our "domesticated" little furry friends.

Only recently have animals been bread to be more compatible with human cohabitation. I would consider ones which have been for good temperament, interactivity, and relative docility to be most compatible with human companionship.

That and small, as big dogs eat a LOT of expensive food!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Animals are amoral; they have no inherent sense of right or wrong.

Cats are evil.

QED