Sarah asks: Are we morally obligated to save animals in shelters that have been abused and forgotten about?
The only answer I can think of is to save an animal from an untimely death for nothing done wrong. Of course, "done wrong" is a loose term if you follow Regan's principles, but it is the phrase I will go with here. Animals are left in shelters when an owner can no longer care for a pet or a pet is taken in as a stray or is unwanted. Unless the shelter is a no-kill shelter, the chances of an animal being euthanized is high. Shelters are too crowded and not enough people are adopting these animals.
But with the shelters, there is another overlying problem here. Some owners are lax in breeding prevention and let their pets outside, where it is possible for another animal to become pregnant. This can then create unwanted pets that will eventually be dumped in shelters if there is no one to take them in. Also, as I mentioned in my post on exotic pets, a pet owner will buy a young, cute animal, and grow bored with it, will not be able to care for it, or it will not be cute anymore, etc., and will dump the animal in a shelter.
I have seen circumstances like this where it is not a pet owner's fault. Sometimes an owner is forced to move and if they move into an apartment, there is a chance they will not be able to keep a pet. Also, I saw this on the show Pit Boss that I also mentioned in a previous post. There was a family who had a dog who was half pit bull living on a military base and the father was away on duty. If I am remembering correctly, the military already had a law saying no full pit bulls could be kept on the base, but then another was passed that no pit bull mixes could be on the base either. This was based on breed discrimination alone. The family clearly loved the dog and was broken-hearted. Fortunately for that dog, Mila, the mother in the family called Shorty Rossi who took the dog with him and found her a new home. Unfortunately, not so many pets in Mila's situation are so lucky.
Clearly there needs to be some reform, but should the reform be in the shelters, in the practice of keeping a pet, or the pet industry?
Friday, October 22, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Animal Arguments on the Human Level
In class yesterday, Kim made an excellent point in the case of animal ethics, something to the effect of we wouldn't use humans for experiments, why use animals? (Please correct me if I am wrong, Kim, if you read this.) Dr. Johnson has also used the point many times of saving your own daughter over the neighbor's many times to prove a point, although there have been some variations as of late (your daughter having a hang nail versus the neighbor's daughter drowning). But even in the readings I have noticed a pattern.
Even in our readings, many of the arguments for and against animal ethics have been brought to the human level, the latest being in Brody's piece. So while this post is not very long, it brings up an interesting question: Why is it that the most compelling arguments on either side of animal ethics are often brought to the human level?
Even in our readings, many of the arguments for and against animal ethics have been brought to the human level, the latest being in Brody's piece. So while this post is not very long, it brings up an interesting question: Why is it that the most compelling arguments on either side of animal ethics are often brought to the human level?
Friday, October 15, 2010
Exotic Pets: A Response to Kim
Kim asks, "Should it be legal to keep exotic pets?"
My answer: only in extreme cases. I do not think it is right to kill a tiger or a cheetah or gorilla simply to take its young and sell them as pets, as often happens. However, if these animals were abandoned or rescued from homes as pets, I think that would be a reasonable reason to have them. Here, I don't mean as a pet, but in a wildlife sanctuary where animals can live out their lives with trained professionals who can properly care and handle them, and where the animals can live out a happy life. So here, although they are being kept, they are not just pets. Animals who are taken from their parents at a young age cannot be released back into the wild, and so the only answer for the rescued ones is a sanctuary or a zoo.
Another common occurrence in the exotic pet industry is that the animal was bought because it was cute when it was young. When it grows up, the owner does not want the pet anymore because they are no longer cute, they are too large, they underestimated the strength of the animal, they simply cannot care for it any more, or a combination of any of these factors. This happens with pets we would normally have too, such as a dog or a cat. As Kim made clear in her post, if you cannot properly care for a pet, do not get one in the first place. That holds especially true for these exotic animals.
With all of this, I have not touched on the extreme case of keeping an exotic pet. The only situation I can conceivably think of is keeping one that was abandoned, orphaned, or rescued to give it a better life. But even then, as I stated before, it is better for these animals to be in the care of a professional who knows how to handle the animal. If the person who has the animal in its care is a professional and is sincerely trying to give the animal a better life, it can be acceptable, though I myself do not condone the practice. Also, the animal would need plenty of space to run around, roam, and exercise.
My question now is this: Should these different sanctuaries allow the animals to breed to battle the extinction of endangered species?
My answer: only in extreme cases. I do not think it is right to kill a tiger or a cheetah or gorilla simply to take its young and sell them as pets, as often happens. However, if these animals were abandoned or rescued from homes as pets, I think that would be a reasonable reason to have them. Here, I don't mean as a pet, but in a wildlife sanctuary where animals can live out their lives with trained professionals who can properly care and handle them, and where the animals can live out a happy life. So here, although they are being kept, they are not just pets. Animals who are taken from their parents at a young age cannot be released back into the wild, and so the only answer for the rescued ones is a sanctuary or a zoo.
Another common occurrence in the exotic pet industry is that the animal was bought because it was cute when it was young. When it grows up, the owner does not want the pet anymore because they are no longer cute, they are too large, they underestimated the strength of the animal, they simply cannot care for it any more, or a combination of any of these factors. This happens with pets we would normally have too, such as a dog or a cat. As Kim made clear in her post, if you cannot properly care for a pet, do not get one in the first place. That holds especially true for these exotic animals.
With all of this, I have not touched on the extreme case of keeping an exotic pet. The only situation I can conceivably think of is keeping one that was abandoned, orphaned, or rescued to give it a better life. But even then, as I stated before, it is better for these animals to be in the care of a professional who knows how to handle the animal. If the person who has the animal in its care is a professional and is sincerely trying to give the animal a better life, it can be acceptable, though I myself do not condone the practice. Also, the animal would need plenty of space to run around, roam, and exercise.
My question now is this: Should these different sanctuaries allow the animals to breed to battle the extinction of endangered species?
Monday, October 11, 2010
Omnivores
As much as I think America goes overboard with the slaughtering of animals for meat, I thought I'd like to expand on something that came to me earlier in the night. And I hope that no one in the class takes offense to this, because none is meant at all.
A friend and I walked to Angie's for subs, and I ordered a turkey sub while she got a chicken parmesan. Later in my room as I was eating the sub, I thought to myself that humans are omnivores, and they are not the only ones. Bears are also omnivores, as well as many other animals out there. Do humans really have to give up on meat?
I know that I personally would probably not be able to make it as a vegetarian. I get hungry easily and it often takes quite a bit to fill me up. Salads and pasta don't cut it for me. Believe me, I've tried. Cereal does a pretty good job, but I have to eat two or three bowls, depleting my cereal and milk resources faster than normal. What really helps is having some kind of meat. Plus, I like the taste of it. I will admit, I know that there are things out there like Boca meat and tofu and other meat replacements that I have not fully tried, but I'm not sure how easy it would be for me to give it up.
This is the question I would like to pose. Is there evil in humans eating meat if they don't have to when nonhuman animals do the same?
A friend and I walked to Angie's for subs, and I ordered a turkey sub while she got a chicken parmesan. Later in my room as I was eating the sub, I thought to myself that humans are omnivores, and they are not the only ones. Bears are also omnivores, as well as many other animals out there. Do humans really have to give up on meat?
I know that I personally would probably not be able to make it as a vegetarian. I get hungry easily and it often takes quite a bit to fill me up. Salads and pasta don't cut it for me. Believe me, I've tried. Cereal does a pretty good job, but I have to eat two or three bowls, depleting my cereal and milk resources faster than normal. What really helps is having some kind of meat. Plus, I like the taste of it. I will admit, I know that there are things out there like Boca meat and tofu and other meat replacements that I have not fully tried, but I'm not sure how easy it would be for me to give it up.
This is the question I would like to pose. Is there evil in humans eating meat if they don't have to when nonhuman animals do the same?
Friday, October 8, 2010
Kelsey's Question
In her latest post, Kelsey asks the question: In your opinion, which method of approach do you think is more logical and/or the best to take in regards to animal ethics, especially the slaughtering of animals?
Kelsey's blog mainly talks about absolutism versus incrementalism, and the effects each approach has on animal ethics. This is a tough question, because both views have their high and low points. A high point of absolutism is that everything would start over and there is a great chance for change. But how can it be guaranteed that history won't repeat itself if this were the case? How can we stop the treatment of animals from coming back to where it is now?
Incrementalism, what has been happening now, has made positive steps forward. Because of exposure to the creulty behind killing animals for fur, many companies have been producing realistic faux fur, so real that it's tricking fashion experts. This exposure is changing the minds of fashion students and experts about using real fur and switching to the faux fur as well. The downside of incrementalism though is that it is slow. Yet because there is a foundation to work off of, steps are being taken in the right direction to improve animal laws and rights and their quality of life. To me, I feel like incrementalism is more logical because of that foundation to work off of.
My question now is, what are the chances of history repeating itself with incrementalism? How about absolutism? Are the chances greater for one side or the other?
Kelsey's blog mainly talks about absolutism versus incrementalism, and the effects each approach has on animal ethics. This is a tough question, because both views have their high and low points. A high point of absolutism is that everything would start over and there is a great chance for change. But how can it be guaranteed that history won't repeat itself if this were the case? How can we stop the treatment of animals from coming back to where it is now?
Incrementalism, what has been happening now, has made positive steps forward. Because of exposure to the creulty behind killing animals for fur, many companies have been producing realistic faux fur, so real that it's tricking fashion experts. This exposure is changing the minds of fashion students and experts about using real fur and switching to the faux fur as well. The downside of incrementalism though is that it is slow. Yet because there is a foundation to work off of, steps are being taken in the right direction to improve animal laws and rights and their quality of life. To me, I feel like incrementalism is more logical because of that foundation to work off of.
My question now is, what are the chances of history repeating itself with incrementalism? How about absolutism? Are the chances greater for one side or the other?
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Little People?
I wanted to talk about this last week after we watched the movie, but before I could write the quote down, I forgot it. Thanks to someone in class the other day (sorry that I can't remember who), I remembered it. There was a quote in the movie about treating pets like little humans, and I thought of something interesting. It is true that there are many people out there who dress up their pets in one way or another because it looks "cute", and I've even seen videos of something as ridiculous as a dog wedding. Yet I think there are legitimate reasons for dressing pets up as well.
I've seen many animal shows, a lot of them about dogs and how to take care of them. In some cases, there are real reasons to put clothes on dogs and to take care of them in the same way as humans. With dogs like Chihuahuas and the Chinese Crested, a sweater can be essential in the winter so that they do not freeze. I even remember that my mom wanted to get a sweater or a blanket for our dog to have in the winter when he got older. Also with the Chinese Crested, since their bodies have mostly no hair, it is a requirement to put on sunscreen in the summer and to even use acne products on them. They can get acne just like we can. (You can look this up on the Animal Planet website. Just look at the Chinese Crested clip for Dogs 101.)
For Huskies and Malamutes that are on sled dog teams, booties are another essential. They give the dogs more traction and also help to protect the pads. (Of course, I don't advocate using dogs for sledding unless it's something the dog enjoys.) At the same time though, I've also seen countless clips where dogs are wearing booties and walking around funny because they aren't used to them. I feel bad for these dogs because they look so miserable while the person holding the camera just stands there filming or is laughing.
Now I have to ask, can you think of other reasons that a person would dress up their pet?
I've seen many animal shows, a lot of them about dogs and how to take care of them. In some cases, there are real reasons to put clothes on dogs and to take care of them in the same way as humans. With dogs like Chihuahuas and the Chinese Crested, a sweater can be essential in the winter so that they do not freeze. I even remember that my mom wanted to get a sweater or a blanket for our dog to have in the winter when he got older. Also with the Chinese Crested, since their bodies have mostly no hair, it is a requirement to put on sunscreen in the summer and to even use acne products on them. They can get acne just like we can. (You can look this up on the Animal Planet website. Just look at the Chinese Crested clip for Dogs 101.)
For Huskies and Malamutes that are on sled dog teams, booties are another essential. They give the dogs more traction and also help to protect the pads. (Of course, I don't advocate using dogs for sledding unless it's something the dog enjoys.) At the same time though, I've also seen countless clips where dogs are wearing booties and walking around funny because they aren't used to them. I feel bad for these dogs because they look so miserable while the person holding the camera just stands there filming or is laughing.
Now I have to ask, can you think of other reasons that a person would dress up their pet?
Sunday, October 3, 2010
No Touch Monkey!
Okay, so many of you are probabaly wondering about the title of this post. It's the name of the book I just read, by Ayun Halliday. The full name of the book is No Touch Monkey!: And Other Travel Lessons Learned Too Late. The entire book is her memoirs of different travels, and in the essay titled On Dress, Ayun recalls a trip her and her husband made across the desert on camelback in India. If a camel misbehaved in any way, the handler would hit and beat the camel in the face. There was one quote in particular that really stuck out at me, though. Halliday wrote:
"I couldn't bring myself to look her in the face, partly because I'd heard that camels' foul-smelling sputum could blind you if they spat in your eye, but also due to the cruelty of that wooden plug staked through her nostrils. The urban primitive movement was just gathering steam, and as a subway-riding city dweller, I'd seen my fair share of septum piercings and oversized jewelry whose purpose was to stretch. Still, I couldn't help noting that those were modifications humans had inflicted upon themselves by choice. I reckoned that if I were an animal and some two-legs drove a chunk of wood through my nose, I'd feel pretty f***ing stoned to get payback. I wouldn't hesitate to buck any brightly turbaned turkey making a show of steering me by yanking on a nylon cord," (Halliday 209).
My question this time is an easy one. What is your opinion on this quote?
"I couldn't bring myself to look her in the face, partly because I'd heard that camels' foul-smelling sputum could blind you if they spat in your eye, but also due to the cruelty of that wooden plug staked through her nostrils. The urban primitive movement was just gathering steam, and as a subway-riding city dweller, I'd seen my fair share of septum piercings and oversized jewelry whose purpose was to stretch. Still, I couldn't help noting that those were modifications humans had inflicted upon themselves by choice. I reckoned that if I were an animal and some two-legs drove a chunk of wood through my nose, I'd feel pretty f***ing stoned to get payback. I wouldn't hesitate to buck any brightly turbaned turkey making a show of steering me by yanking on a nylon cord," (Halliday 209).
My question this time is an easy one. What is your opinion on this quote?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)