Animals are not ours to use-Ethically & philosophically

[Vegan Dogs]

Animals are not ours to use ...the "property" issue ethically & philosophically

I was at first for a long time confused about the word USE to understand this issue.

Using animals is the fundamental ethical philosophical issue essential to veganism.

ABUSE is the word we are more familiar with of course meaning "mistreatment" however that leads to the "welfare" attitude that condones ownership of PETS thinking so long as we "treat" them in our views that vary regarding that of course this justifies pet ownership.

However "owning" is "using" animals.

We justify this on the grounds of ?

1. They live longer less starved sick lives than if living free.

2. They could not in all domestic breeds we humans created and unnatural in numbers of them survive in the wild. Most would die after destroying all real ecosystem real wild life or die of diseases splats on the road starvation etc.

Regarding "pet food" this issue is very obviously a huge problem ideologically out there...some believe it is our duty to "save" pet dogs and cats or even snakes and then feed them bred by humans and killed by humans other animals.

However....this is "USING" animals as our "property" and adding speciesism to boot to the matter.

We cannot think we are only "responsible" for what we "own" personally if vegan and believing ALL animals "owned" by humans matter.

Our responsibility to the "victims" has to include ALL those domestic breed animals we humans have brought into existance and the goal is to STOP bringing them into existance so there would be no produced by humans animals to feed the preferred pet breed ones in the goal of a vegan world.

This would lead to the logical natural conclusion that there is no point in "saving" a dog or cat if by doing so we are then the cause of 3000 at least chicken size animals bred by humans deaths. MINIMAL HARM being a fundamental vegan principle.

http://vegan-information.com/Sonja Visscher lecture dr knight vegan dogs thread spat.docx

Some exchanges on a post to do with vegan dog food covered this dilemma incongruity in vegan philosophy well in that some think it is perfectly justifiable to breed and kill animals to feed a pet one.

However this goes against 2 fundamental vegan principles....

1. If "animals are not ours" to "use" we have no ethical "right" to do so

2. We are not practising "minimal harm" vegan principle.

To "own" or "not to own" is the Hamlet question...and it is more "vegan" to "not own" obviously if accepting "animals are not ours" ethically to "use".

Pet ownership in reality is "not vegan" as we "own" animals.

The fact we choose the most "practical" ones to "own" that provide "us" with companionship and pleasure is "using" animals in reality and will continue to encourage pet ownership and ownership of animals by that example set. Speciesism means the unloved chickens turkeys sheep cows etc impractical to "get" in our homes are not saved but "used" to feed those we prefer to "use".

More vegans are now starting to realise this fundamental issue to veganism...ownership of pets and animals is fundamentally not vegan.

Currently only 27 percent of so called vegans feed their pets vegan....which shows how great this ideological issue is out there. However a new facebook group with information about the wrongs of pet ownership has been created.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/VegansAgainstPetOwnership/

This video talks about the issues well...

 

[Ger]

Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher. He wrote a book entitled "Animal Liberation". I, myself, have never read it though. The title of his book seems like the book may contain a lot of viewpoints on what Vegan Dogs is talking about here. Anyway, Peter Singer is the guy who I quoted when I typed out the signature that I have put at the bottom of all my posts. When I typed out my signature, there wasn't enough characters available to add his name to it.

 

[Forest Nymph]

One of my roommates is vegetarian but she started bringing raw meat into our house because her dog is old and she's afraid that the dog won't eat.

She didn't even warn anyone, even though there are two vegans and another vegetarian here. There's a pot of ground factory farmed cow rotting on the counter at this moment as a matter of fact.

It's completely absurd. My vegan roommate is one of those stereotypical mild mannered, shy, confrontation-avoiding vegans, so he won't do anything about it.

The other vegetarian is the other extreme, a royal pain in the butt, who I believe stopped eating meat for the environment only.

So I'm the only one to say something. But what to say? It puts me in a position to where I look like I'm being mean to her dog friend. It might look like I want the old dog to die of starvation. Of course I could talk about options like buying fancy canned vegan dog food and especially avoiding factory farmed cows (Im really flabbergasted by that honestly, I'd be less shocked by free range labelled chicken).

BUT IT JUST GOES TO SHOW ways pet ownership can conflict with animal rights and be quite speciesist. She'd never eat meat herself but she purchased it for her dog.

Speciesism would ideally be addressed like racism in early childhood, to avoid this. Children can be socialized out of this stuff if you catch it early enough. It's why racism is taboo now, at least much more so than forty to fifty years ago.

 

[Nekodaiden]

Readers of the OP should be aware that the OP entertains the following positions:

1) For the culling of cats, has also stated would kill certain animals (particularly carnivores based on numbers of lives involved) but also maintains that killing animals is not vegan. Presumably is against natural carnivores right to exist based on this philosophy, as they take many many lives just to sustain their own (lions, tigers, wolves, sharks, seals etc etc etc).

2) Against pet "ownership", but keeps 2 cats locked up in her residence (so they don't kill anything) and forced onto vegan cat food

3) Preaches extensively against pet "ownership" but has both dogs and cats, regularly promotes vegan pet food and is so much against
"pet ownership" as to have an allusion to that as a user name ie: "vegan dogs".

Consider source.

 

[Andy_T]

So I'm the only one to say something. But what to say? It puts me in a position to where I look like I'm being mean to her dog friend. It might look like I want the old dog to die of starvation. Of course I could talk about options like buying fancy canned vegan dog food and especially avoiding factory farmed cows (Im really flabbergasted by that honestly, I'd be less shocked by free range labelled chicken).

BUT IT JUST GOES TO SHOW ways pet ownership can conflict with animal rights and be quite speciesist. She'd never eat meat herself but she purchased it for her dog.

Hmmmm ... while I understand that it is not a good idea to put cats on a vegan diet, there are numerous sources claiming that feeding a dog a vegan diet might actually be beneficial for the dog, and that the longest-lived dog (according to Guinness Recored book) was actually fed a vegan diet. Maybe something to bring up at an opportune moment, don’t think your flatmate is too happy about buying dead animals for her dog.

 

[Gaspard]

From an evolutionary perspective, it might be unethical to bread animals who would not survive in the wild. We should leave the animals alone, and free our pets (and maybe some baboons will domesticate them, and it will be a lot of fun):

 

[Lou]

From an evolutionary perspective, it might be unethical to bread animals who would not survive in the wild. We should leave the animals alone, and free our pets (and maybe some baboons will domesticate them, and it will be a lot of fun):

I posted that exact video a while back.
since then I've learned, and I'm not sure if I've shared this, that some scientists are very skeptical about the observations and conclusions made by this nature video.
I think the most contested statement is that the baboons are keeping the puppies as pets. the survivability of the puppies is also questioned. and some of the camera team's observations may be misleading.

There are a number of scholarly articles on this subject. Here is what I think it the best one

Baboons Might Kidnap Puppies (But Not as Pets)

A wildlife documentary film claims that Saudi Arabian baboons kidnap puppies and raise them as pets.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[Emma JC]

I posted that exact video a while back.
since then I've learned, and I'm not sure if I've shared this, that some scientists are very skeptical about the observations and conclusions made by this nature video.
I think the most contested statement is that the baboons are keeping the puppies as pets. the survivability of the puppies is also questioned. and some of the camera team's observations may be misleading.

There are a number of scholarly articles on this subject. Here is what I think it the best one

Baboons Might Kidnap Puppies (But Not as Pets)

A wildlife documentary film claims that Saudi Arabian baboons kidnap puppies and raise them as pets.

www.psychologytoday.com

A good article and it brings to mind "symbiosis" - Symbiosis is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two different biological organisms, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic. The organisms, each termed a symbiont, may be of the same or of different species.

This happens in nature all the time and it doesn't necessarily mean one species or the other is a pet.

Emma JC

 

[Vegan Dogs]

Readers of the OP should be aware that the OP entertains the following positions:

1) For the culling of cats, has also stated would kill certain animals (particularly carnivores based on numbers of lives involved) but also maintains that killing animals is not vegan. Presumably is against natural carnivores right to exist based on this philosophy, as they take many many lives just to sustain their own (lions, tigers, wolves, sharks, seals etc etc etc).

2) Against pet "ownership", but keeps 2 cats locked up in her residence (so they don't kill anything) and forced onto vegan cat food

3) Preaches extensively against pet "ownership" but has both dogs and cats, regularly promotes vegan pet food and is so much against
"pet ownership" as to have an allusion to that as a user name ie: "vegan dogs".

Consider source.

TypicAl spite with attributed assumptions

I care for vegan fed domestic breed animals turkeys included

There is no right to breed and kill unnaturally kept by humans animals

The Spite did not mention forcing bred as fodder to kill animals kept indoors....

 

[Andy_T]

Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher. He wrote a book entitled "Animal Liberation". I, myself, have never read it though.

Just a sidenote here.

I have read "Animal Liberation" when I went vegan about 10 years ago, and Peter Singer is a utilitarian, which is IMO very different from someone who wants to liberate animals. Hence, his book does not really cover the subject.

 

[Mischief]

A counter argument to the argument made by some in this thread:

How "vegan" is it to force animals under our control to eat in ways that they would not choose to if left to their own devices? And in ways not beneficial to their health?

For example, if someone cannot bring themselves to feed an obligate carnivore meat, then he should not make himself responsible for an obligate carnivore.

And while Andy is correct that dogs are not obligate carnivores, they are carnivores, with a need for a much higher percentage of protein in their diet than omnivores like humans.

In fact, if you check the labels of commercially produced dog food, you will find that a dog's need for protein isn't met by most commercially produced dog food - to meet their protein needs adequately, you would have to feed such quantities that the dog would be incredibly obese. I don't see how it is possible to meet a dog's protein needs on a vegan diet.

ETA: I think that this planet, where some must die in order for others to live, is proof positive that their is no benevolent creator/god.

 

[Andy_T]

In fact, if you check the labels of commercially produced dog food, you will find that a dog's need for protein isn't met by most commercially produced dog food - to meet their protein needs adequately, you would have to feed such quantities that the dog would be incredibly obese.

That's how food for people works

 

[Vegan Dogs]

A counter argument to the argument made by some in this thread:

How "vegan" is it to force animals under our control to eat in ways that they would not choose to if left to their own devices? And in ways not beneficial to their health?

For example, if someone cannot bring themselves to feed an obligate carnivore meat, then he should not make himself responsible for an obligate carnivore.

And while Andy is correct that dogs are not obligate carnivores, they are carnivores, with a need for a much higher percentage of protein in their diet than omnivores like humans.

In fact, if you check the labels of commercially produced dog food, you will find that a dog's need for protein isn't met by most commercially produced dog food - to meet their protein needs adequately, you would have to feed such quantities that the dog would be incredibly obese. I don't see how it is possible to meet a dog's protein needs on a vegan diet.

ETA: I think that this planet, where some must die in order for others to live, is proof positive that their is no benevolent creator/god.

No mention of forcing animals to die who got no choice about what they got fed or killed makes any view ignorant of dogs approved petfoods meaningless

 

[Vegan Dogs]

Readers of the OP should be aware that the OP entertains the following positions:

1) For the culling of cats, has also stated would kill certain animals (particularly carnivores based on numbers of lives involved) but also maintains that killing animals is not vegan. Presumably is against natural carnivores right to exist based on this philosophy, as they take many many lives just to sustain their own (lions, tigers, wolves, sharks, seals etc etc etc).

2) Against pet "ownership", but keeps 2 cats locked up in her residence (so they don't kill anything) and forced onto vegan cat food

3) Preaches extensively against pet "ownership" but has both dogs and cats, regularly promotes vegan pet food and is so much against
"pet ownership" as to have an allusion to that as a user name ie: "vegan dogs".

Consider source.

i just read this perusing posts...and am astonished at the vitriole...unsubstantiated accusations about me...no links provided to posts where these allegations are alleged to be...

and

astonished people decided to accept unsubstantiated allegations ..

which shows people like to believe the worst about people.

I do not know where to start...to refute these allegations that had no links to evidence of them...

This person ...banned i notice....could as easily have written...that I killed and ate my own mother !

would that make his allegation true ?

Do people believe whatever anyone says about anyone if it is negative ? I certainly do not...I need proof of any allegations against a person's character to be able to make my own mind up about what is true or not.

There are untrue statements in what was alleged....and i am not going to waste my time on a now i see banned member anyway to explain them here.

If people wish to make personal attacks on others then "provide proof" with links that are easy to do in such a forum. Otherwise have the decency to not make personal accusations.

 

[Lou]

i just read this perusing posts...and am astonished at the vitriole...unsubstantiated accusations about me...no links provided to posts where these allegations are alleged to be...

and

astonished people decided to accept unsubstantiated allegations ..

which shows people like to believe the worst about people.

I do not know where to start...to refute these allegations that had no links to evidence of them...

This person ...banned i notice....could as easily have written...that I killed and ate my own mother !

would that make his allegation true ?

Do people believe whatever anyone says about anyone if it is negative ? I certainly do not...I need proof of any allegations against a person's character to be able to make my own mind up about what is true or not.

There are untrue statements in what was alleged....and i am not going to waste my time on a now i see banned member anyway to explain them here.

If people wish to make personal attacks on others then "provide proof" with links that are easy to do in such a forum. Otherwise have the decency to not make personal accusations.

Vegan Dogs, relax.

You should have noticed that Nickelodeon is "banned". I'm not sure why he was banned this time. He has been given a few "time-outs". And it might be that he may be back someday. But he was probably banned for doing the stuff that you are responding to.