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

Vegan Dogs

Active Member
Mar 1, 2016
Reaction score
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. 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.

This video talks about the issues well...
Last edited:


May 12, 2019
Reaction score
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.
  • Like
Reactions: Vegan Dogs