Neutering Your Pets

How far does our moral circle extend?

We are already at a point where we don't care about things anatomically distant from us.

For example, cats are cute, and they have recognisable faces. They also scream and cry and make noise and stuff. We like them.

Fish don't look like us, we can't tell anything about them. They don't scream in pain. We don't care at all about them.

We don't even care if they feel pain, it's just how similar they react to pain to humans. It's a weird thought, but do you seriously care about fish? At all? Or other animals like, snakes, non-cute birds, whatever. They aren't enough like humans for us to care.

How far do we extend our circles of morality?

  On 10/3/2011 at 11:50 PM, kwikshot said:

We don't even care if they feel pain, it's just how similar they react to pain to humans. It's a weird thought, but do you seriously care about fish? At all? Or other animals like, snakes, non-cute birds, whatever. They aren't enough like humans for us to care.

Plenty of people care about those animals.

  On 10/3/2011 at 11:53 PM, Rambo said:

  On 10/3/2011 at 11:50 PM, kwikshot said:

We don't even care if they feel pain, it's just how similar they react to pain to humans. It's a weird thought, but do you seriously care about fish? At all? Or other animals like, snakes, non-cute birds, whatever. They aren't enough like humans for us to care.

 

Plenty of people care about those animals.

Plenty of people, but most don't immediately unlike with dogs and cats.

  On 10/3/2011 at 10:46 PM, Root5 said:

  On 10/3/2011 at 7:44 PM, luke viia said:

owning an animal at all is a form of domination and is altering its ability to live in a "natural" environment (oops, didn't watmm just decide that word needs a specific context? here it is: natural in this context means a life in which the animal is not owned by an animal of a different species).

 

I'm going to ignore your general point about pet ownership, and just get hung up over your use of the word "natural".

 

So what you say that owning an animal means that the animal can't live naturally. And you define "living naturally" as a state in which you are not owned by another animal.

 

Therefore, according to your own definition, you just said that owning an animal means that the animal is not unowned.

 

:cisfor:

  On 10/3/2011 at 11:55 PM, kwikshot said:

  On 10/3/2011 at 11:53 PM, Rambo said:

  On 10/3/2011 at 11:50 PM, kwikshot said:

We don't even care if they feel pain, it's just how similar they react to pain to humans. It's a weird thought, but do you seriously care about fish? At all? Or other animals like, snakes, non-cute birds, whatever. They aren't enough like humans for us to care.

 

Plenty of people care about those animals.

 

Plenty of people, but most don't immediately unlike with dogs and cats.

If people TRULY cared about how they put other animals in pain, they should consider a form of self-euthanasia.

how would killing someone who truly cares about animals be of more benefit than that person devoting their life to helping them?

  On 10/4/2011 at 1:18 AM, Swurl said:

how would killing someone who truly cares about animals be of more benefit than that person devoting their life to helping them?

do you have a house? How many habitats does that house destroy by being there?

How do you eat the things you eat? What is used in the process? These facilities also destroy animal habitats.

whoever said it was a moral circle thing is absolutely correct. this type of argument will go nowhere.

  On 10/3/2011 at 11:50 PM, kwikshot said:

How far does our moral circle extend?

 

We are already at a point where we don't care about things anatomically distant from us.

 

For example, cats are cute, and they have recognisable faces. They also scream and cry and make noise and stuff. We like them.

 

Fish don't look like us, we can't tell anything about them. They don't scream in pain. We don't care at all about them.

 

We don't even care if they feel pain, it's just how similar they react to pain to humans. It's a weird thought, but do you seriously care about fish? At all? Or other animals like, snakes, non-cute birds, whatever. They aren't enough like humans for us to care.

 

How far do we extend our circles of morality?

i'd say that people generally don't care about things other than themselves. your logic is flawed.

he's had 7yrs to fuck around which is more than most cats so chop em off

  On 10/4/2011 at 1:46 AM, essines said:

  On 10/3/2011 at 11:50 PM, kwikshot said:

How far does our moral circle extend?

 

We are already at a point where we don't care about things anatomically distant from us.

 

For example, cats are cute, and they have recognisable faces. They also scream and cry and make noise and stuff. We like them.

 

Fish don't look like us, we can't tell anything about them. They don't scream in pain. We don't care at all about them.

 

We don't even care if they feel pain, it's just how similar they react to pain to humans. It's a weird thought, but do you seriously care about fish? At all? Or other animals like, snakes, non-cute birds, whatever. They aren't enough like humans for us to care.

 

How far do we extend our circles of morality?

i'd say that people generally don't care about things other than themselves. your logic is flawed.

How is my logic flawed? That is my whole point.