The Wanderer Posted April 25, 2013 Posted April 25, 2013 What is the nature of the moral overlap between peaceful parenting of children and peaceful parenting of domestic pets? What is the difference in terms of morally permissible behavior? Keep in mind, the morality of parenting domestic pets must not necessarily subscribe to the premise of non-aggression, but it should reflect the principles that construct non-aggression’s ethical underpinning.
Ruben Zandstra Posted April 27, 2013 Posted April 27, 2013 Hi Kevin Welcome to the boards! What is the nature of the moral overlap between peaceful parenting of children and peaceful parenting of domestic pets? With all the ethical challenges around in everyday life, to me this is not too much of an issue. I think a comparison between the treatment of pets vs children can be interesting from a psychological point of view when talking about specific people in your life, or when examining yourself. Why is the question / comparision of interest to you? What comes to my mind: Philosophically speaking the comparison will go nowhere because one part of the comparison is non-existent: A human being cannot be the parent of a domestic pet. He may imagine he is, and perhaps a very gifted and symbiotic pet such as a dog can adapt it's behaviour to facilitate the illusion to some extent. Still, this will not make the dog child of a human being in reality: it's being projected on him. A human who is projecting like this on animals is probably not the best place to leave your children.
LovePrevails Posted April 27, 2013 Posted April 27, 2013 With all the ethical challenges around in everyday life, to me this is not too much of an issue. I think a comparison between the treatment of pets vs children can be interesting from a psychological point of view when talking about specific people in your life, or when examining yourself. Why is the question / comparision of interest to you? What comes to my mind: Philosophically speaking the comparison will go nowhere because one part of the comparison is non-existent: A human being cannot be the parent of a domestic pet. He may imagine he is, and perhaps a very gifted and symbiotic pet such as a dog can adapt it's behaviour to facilitate the illusion to some extent. Still, this will not make the dog child of a human being in reality: it's being projected on him. A human who is projecting like this on animals is probably not the best place to leave your children. I have to disagree, because this is something people deal with in everyday life! most "moral challenges" are like -> should I be for this or against this ideology? anything regarding every day conduct is absolutely most worthy of consideration What is the nature of the moral overlap between peaceful parenting of children and peaceful parenting of domestic pets? ]I can't answer the question fully, not being an expert, but I would say for a start that one should not physically harm their pets. If the pets are going insane it is almost always because the humans who are caring for them are insane, you can see that on shows like The Dog Whisperer, where he teache the owners to be a little more assertive and less mal-adaptive, their pets get signals and start being more managable. Dogs want a leader more than a friend because it is great pressure on a dog if he has to feel like he should be the leader of the pack! How does he lead a human?? he has no idea how to do it and so goes a bit mad. A parallel is you bought the pet/chose to have the child - so you have a responsibility to feed and look after it. It's cruel not to. Avoid causing unnecessary physical or psychological suffering for the animal (spending long times away from pack animals, leaving them on their own, when it is in their instincts to be part of a group for example - their very biology commands them to suffer in those circumstances) That's all the help I can offer but thanks for a great question.
The Wanderer Posted April 27, 2013 Author Posted April 27, 2013 Ruben: Thank you for pointing out the inapplicability of the term "parenting" to domestic pets (and thank you for being the first one to welcome me to the FDR boards!). However, I think a pet owner's responsibility as caretaker warrants ethical deliberation comparable to that required by parenting. My family inadvertently adopted our dog from a puppy mill. When we first got her, her health bore signs of neglect. As she's aged, we've realized that she has got to be just about the most "clingy" animal we've ever had (and we have had many.) She fears abandonment, and she gets jealous when other animals get more attention than she. In short, I think her personality was shaped by her puppyhood trauma of not getting the amount of love and attention requisite for a healthy adult life. As I think along these lines, it strikes me that "parenting" animals during their "childhood" plays a huge role in determining the nature and quality of their adult lives-- as it does with parenting human children. But that's something we can mostly agree on, I think. Here's something else. I have a one year old kitten who desperately wants to go outside. But I live in an area with a moderate amount of danger for outside cats. Is it morally worse for me to keep her locked inside, effectively extinguishing by force her want to go out; or is it worse for me to facilitate her want, let her out, and subject her to a danger that she doesn't know is out there? Or is it beyond the realm of moralty altogether? LovePrevails: I agree that there are certain acts of "parenting" animals that are clearly impermissible, but it gets murky for me when I try to adhere to principles of negotiation and the right of my pets to self-determine their own lives in particular situations.
LovePrevails Posted April 27, 2013 Posted April 27, 2013 Here's something else. I have a one year old kitten who desperately wants to go outside. But I live in an area with a moderate amount of danger for outside cats. Is it morally worse for me to keep her locked inside, effectively extinguishing by force her want to go out; or is it worse for me to facilitate her want, let her out, and subject her to a danger that she doesn't know is out there? Or is it beyond the realm of moralty altogether? I wouldn't necessarily consider it a moral consideration, although it depends were you draw the line on extension of respect for preferencespersonally I often think my mum "overmanages" her cats just the same as she tries to "overmanage" everything, and there is no need as cats are very independent animals! the real question to ask is : is it really a serious danger for the cat going outside or am I just managing my own anxiety about her getting hurt? If you conclude that you are just overworried you might want to let her out for a couple of hours to see if she's happier and moans to get out less. If you think it's a real risk then maybe it's best to keep her inside, I like to respect my cats preferences but sometimes I may want to put them in the kitchen at night so they don't get hair everywhere or wake us up etc. it just depends
Recommended Posts