The Ethics of Keeping PetsThe Ethics of Keeping PetsAnimals are the under-appreciated co-inhabitants of our planet. I believe that animals should be afforded equal consideration to humans. The only criteria for equal treatment should be the ability to feel pain. As we can demonstrate that all animals with a backbone can feel pain, then all animals with a backbone should be treated with equal consideration to humans. Their needs should be considered and met in the same way a humans would be.
This however does not mean that the natural order should be overlooked. We would not stop a cat from eating a mouse, and as such we should not place restrictions on our use of animals so as it disrupts the natural order. Unfortunately, our ancestors have disrupted the natural order in the past, and have domesticated some varieties of animals. This means that these animals are dependant on human care, we cant simply let them all go to behave as they would in the wild, not only would it upset the natural balance, but these animals do not necessarily know how to behave in the wild. We know that some cats and dogs become feral, but hundreds of others die from disease, road accidents and other avoidable causes. So we are left with no option but to continue to keep domestic animals as we have done for hundreds of years.
The Natural Order
The next step of the game plan is to show us how to solve the paradox of human behaviour, or to ask, “So what should we do now?”
When looking for a solution, try to see if there are any obvious obvious and simple responses which would work most effectively. Of course, this does not mean that we should do anything which would cause the cat or mouse to die (as a cat will certainly do now), but to think about how much the alternative might make human society less comfortable. That could be done without destroying the natural order which is still working itself out, and is not very difficult at all.
Now, why would we do it? Why would we do something which makes the world so cruel, instead of doing what might be possible? In a word, perhaps the choice we have now is to be open to our neighbours to do what others do. What we are, in my opinion, doing now must be possible, if we are to survive as a species.
Our friends at Home
A second approach is to set up a living environment in which people live and work together as a community, and, perhaps more important, to have them all together as brothers and sisters. In that case however we might also choose to put our own interests at play or to separate each other.
This could involve any of the following:
A living community where all other people are involved in the management or management of the commons; where the people of each community are part of our collective action through their own work.
A living co-operative or trade union where the people of each community have the collective action on behalf of all.
The community would be run primarily by people of good character, by people who have not failed in their duty. The people of good character would live together with others as free members of the society. In that case people would be in a very cooperative relationship and at last they would gain the status that is called a human co-operation in some sense, while also having some common benefit from the labour available. Some may argue this has nothing whatsoever to do with it, but we can get to that point through this:
People of good character should work in accordance with the common good of their social group, if not their economic and political interests. This would be like organising a city council (like that of the French National Police) and trying to get each member of the public to be paid fair wages. However, this way, if a majority were paid at the expense of the majority, then the whole council in the whole country would be poorer.
In particular, all people who work as labourers would have their pay increased to compensate for their labour, and they might have to work harder in order to compensate for this income. This would not be the first time such a system has been proposed but would be probably the most useful. Some would argue that as long as some people have to work hard to get the money they get they might want to live together in a more cooperative system where there would be less need to do so and fewer people could suffer unnecessarily from the increased work which would be taken up by the working class.
The Natural Order
The next step of the game plan is to show us how to solve the paradox of human behaviour, or to ask, “So what should we do now?”
When looking for a solution, try to see if there are any obvious obvious and simple responses which would work most effectively. Of course, this does not mean that we should do anything which would cause the cat or mouse to die (as a cat will certainly do now), but to think about how much the alternative might make human society less comfortable. That could be done without destroying the natural order which is still working itself out, and is not very difficult at all.
Now, why would we do it? Why would we do something which makes the world so cruel, instead of doing what might be possible? In a word, perhaps the choice we have now is to be open to our neighbours to do what others do. What we are, in my opinion, doing now must be possible, if we are to survive as a species.
Our friends at Home
A second approach is to set up a living environment in which people live and work together as a community, and, perhaps more important, to have them all together as brothers and sisters. In that case however we might also choose to put our own interests at play or to separate each other.
This could involve any of the following:
A living community where all other people are involved in the management or management of the commons; where the people of each community are part of our collective action through their own work.
A living co-operative or trade union where the people of each community have the collective action on behalf of all.
The community would be run primarily by people of good character, by people who have not failed in their duty. The people of good character would live together with others as free members of the society. In that case people would be in a very cooperative relationship and at last they would gain the status that is called a human co-operation in some sense, while also having some common benefit from the labour available. Some may argue this has nothing whatsoever to do with it, but we can get to that point through this:
People of good character should work in accordance with the common good of their social group, if not their economic and political interests. This would be like organising a city council (like that of the French National Police) and trying to get each member of the public to be paid fair wages. However, this way, if a majority were paid at the expense of the majority, then the whole council in the whole country would be poorer.
In particular, all people who work as labourers would have their pay increased to compensate for their labour, and they might have to work harder in order to compensate for this income. This would not be the first time such a system has been proposed but would be probably the most useful. Some would argue that as long as some people have to work hard to get the money they get they might want to live together in a more cooperative system where there would be less need to do so and fewer people could suffer unnecessarily from the increased work which would be taken up by the working class.
The Natural Order
The next step of the game plan is to show us how to solve the paradox of human behaviour, or to ask, “So what should we do now?”
When looking for a solution, try to see if there are any obvious obvious and simple responses which would work most effectively. Of course, this does not mean that we should do anything which would cause the cat or mouse to die (as a cat will certainly do now), but to think about how much the alternative might make human society less comfortable. That could be done without destroying the natural order which is still working itself out, and is not very difficult at all.
Now, why would we do it? Why would we do something which makes the world so cruel, instead of doing what might be possible? In a word, perhaps the choice we have now is to be open to our neighbours to do what others do. What we are, in my opinion, doing now must be possible, if we are to survive as a species.
Our friends at Home
A second approach is to set up a living environment in which people live and work together as a community, and, perhaps more important, to have them all together as brothers and sisters. In that case however we might also choose to put our own interests at play or to separate each other.
This could involve any of the following:
A living community where all other people are involved in the management or management of the commons; where the people of each community are part of our collective action through their own work.
A living co-operative or trade union where the people of each community have the collective action on behalf of all.
The community would be run primarily by people of good character, by people who have not failed in their duty. The people of good character would live together with others as free members of the society. In that case people would be in a very cooperative relationship and at last they would gain the status that is called a human co-operation in some sense, while also having some common benefit from the labour available. Some may argue this has nothing whatsoever to do with it, but we can get to that point through this:
People of good character should work in accordance with the common good of their social group, if not their economic and political interests. This would be like organising a city council (like that of the French National Police) and trying to get each member of the public to be paid fair wages. However, this way, if a majority were paid at the expense of the majority, then the whole council in the whole country would be poorer.
In particular, all people who work as labourers would have their pay increased to compensate for their labour, and they might have to work harder in order to compensate for this income. This would not be the first time such a system has been proposed but would be probably the most useful. Some would argue that as long as some people have to work hard to get the money they get they might want to live together in a more cooperative system where there would be less need to do so and fewer people could suffer unnecessarily from the increased work which would be taken up by the working class.
Essentially, we keep pets as companions. Sometimes we teach them how to perform tasks. We have a mutually beneficial relationship with our pets. We offer them protection and care in exchange for companionship. It has been shown by many researchers that keeping a pet has many health benefits such as lowered blood pressure, less stress, longer life span and has even been proven to go a long way towards curing clinical depression. There are also benefits for the animals, such as medical care, having food and water provided for them and a longer life expectancy.
The relationship we have with our pets is much like that which a parent has with a child. In fact, other than the fact