File
136841199284.jpg
- (64.00KB
, 560x757
, cat-looking-up.jpg
)
I have an ethical problem with keeping pets as a means for human gratification. Let's try to keep this at an objective level as opposed to adhering to the emotional illusion that an animal is always happy with its owner. In some cases, that may be entirely untrue.
Since we cannot communicate to any domesticated animal in a way that both beings involved intuitively understand each other, we cannot determine its will whatever, but only so far as the reason it may carry out an action is because the circumstances are more favourable than its contrary. For example, walking out the door without our control implies that its desire to stay home isn't as strong as its desire to leave.
A cat, for example, which originally was given no choice but to succumb to our control was bred and deprived of its offspring before they learned the basic self defense mechanisms necessary for its survival, was given no say in the matter. This is a testament to a complete oppression of will and thereby defeating the cat's natural, unaware purpose.
A cat is now deprived from using the senses it was given, only to be kept in a potentially small room designed for humans imposed with regimens and other controls and human values against this will. The cat now disregards its will and becomes servile to its owner to continue surviving in conditions beyond its own control.
In the same way that I can be seen as unhappy and sinister when in fact I am content, unresponsive, and indifferent is just like saying that a pet gives you excess attention out of love, when in fact it may want something. To read a pet in correspondence to human values, more specifically, your own values, is a naive approach at understanding the pet's own values and is what can actually be called an illusion.
So what if the pet is unhappy but has no means of conveying it to you? Scratching walls, crying and pounding the floor is a human expression that may not be shared commonly among other animals. Is the default assumption that it is not stressed? Or stressed?
This brings up a consideration relevant to the idea of being absolutely certain in all cases, or not at all:
If a man is actually innocent of a crime he did not do, but is subjected to a prison cell against his will, that means that the jurisdiction did not see the act as it took place, but assumed under what appeared to be the case. It is not ethical to jail a man for something he did not do. It should then be justifiable to not jail a man at all if there exists even a hint of uncertainty, but only when the crime has been witnessed and proven without any argument of objection to it whatsoever. In the same sense of being certain or not at all: we cannot be certain that a cat is happy or unhappy in any place which it is held under the dictation of its owner, so the default is to assume it is unhappy if one instance of unhappiness occurs, which ma
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
10
posts
and 1
image
omitted. Click Reply to view.
]
[
class /
co /
eh /
fit /
halp /
jew /
lit /
phi /
pr /
rnb /
sci /
tg /
w /
zom
]
[
a /
grim /
hi /
me /
rx /
vg /
wp /
x
]
[
be /
cake /
cd /
d /
di /
elit /
fag /
fur /
gif /
h /
men /
pco /
s /
sm /
ss /
unf /
v
]