A cat gets hurt, who is responsible?

[Gunnhvatr]

I can't really discuss this with my family so I thought I might bring it here.

 

So, I live with my parents and my sister.  My father wanted to get a dog, my mother did not want us to get a dog.  I supported it.  I said "He is a grown man, he should be able to get a dog if he wants.  But I want it to be clear that it is not my dog and I claim no ownership or responsibility for it."

 

In my state it is illegal to allow a cat to be outside after 6pm.  Sometime around 8pm the dog was let outside to do his business and he found a cat in our yard.  He is almost completely an inside dog so there doesn't seem to be enough of a presence out there to deter cats from being in our yard.  He attacked the cat.  The cat seems to have suffered a minor eye injury and is bleeding from the mouth, possibly a broken tooth.

We took the cat to a vetinary hospital.  It has no ID chip and has not been desexed, it was almost certainly not a stray cat, though.

The hospital will give the cat the care it needs, desex it and send it to an animal shelter to be adopted.  These costs will be paid by whomever adopts it.

There is a case network involved.  So, say you're the owner of that cat you can call shelters or the RSPCA or whatever else and they'll find this case in their system and tell you where the cat is.

We live in a multicultural area so there is a chance its owners would not know this exists, but hopefully they would have that presence of mind to find it.

But there is a chance this cat will end up destroyed.

 

I suggested that one thing we could do is pay these costs, take the cat, release it near our house and let it find its way home.  I offered to pay a share of these costs, though as I said this dog is not my responsibility.

My parents vehemently denied any responsibility for the cat other than taking it to the Vet, refused to consider paying these costs, claimed it was not our fault the cat was in our yard and it should not have been there in the first place.

 

Now, I can see their point but it doesn't sit all that well with me.  No, the cat should not have been in our yard.  But I can see a cat here that was hurt and it was their dog that did it. 

If it was my dog that hurt an animal I think I'd feel compelled to pay all the costs and see that this cat gets home.  I wouldn't want this cat given a lethal injection because of an animal that was my responsibility.

 

What do you think about all this?

[dsayers]

If the cat is owned, the owners have a responsibility to keep it on their property if they don't want to risk something undesirable happening to it.

 

Of course that doesn't mean that other people (like yourself) can't offer to help for whatever reason they choose.

[cobra2411]

I said "He is a grown man, he should be able to get a dog if he wants.  But I want it to be clear that it is not my dog and I claim no ownership or responsibility for it."

 

Financial responsibility of animals is one thing, but dogs in particular don't understand "It's your dog, not mine". They see the family as a pack and are eager to please to be included in the pack. Being ignored by some can cause mental instability in the animal. Just wanted to point that out. 

 

Now, as far as the cat / dog situation. As a long time SPCA volunteer and as someone who has both dogs and cats, including a cat that vehemently wants to be an outside cat, I'll say this. It's the cat owners responsibility. That can be hard to determine and if you can't, you do have some responsibility to ensure the animal doesn't needlessly suffer. That could be as simple as calling animal control to pick it up as a stray and let them deal with it. The cat was in your dogs yard and some dogs can be very territorial. Some dogs also have a prey drive and will hunt the cat as if it's food.

 

If it were me I'd do what you did. Take it to a shelter to be adopted out. I would not bear the cost to have it nutered and then release it back in the neighborhood. My cats are microchipped so they can be identified in situations like this. 

[alexqr1]

If the cat is owned, the owners have a responsibility to keep it on their property if they don't want to risk something undesirable happening to it. Of course that doesn't mean that other people (like yourself) can't offer to help for whatever reason they choose.

Exactly, if the cat was in your yard then the owner of the cat is responsible. If the cat has no owner then there is no discussion, but it is nice of you to help an animal in need. So all the context regarding how you got the dog would be irrelevant here.

In my state it is illegal to allow a cat to be outside after 6pm.

If you are asking who is morally responsible, then the law has nothing to do with it. If you are asking who is legally responsible then that depends on your state laws and how they relate to federal laws and on how those laws are interpreted by the "authorities" analyzing the case.

I suggested that one thing we could do is pay these costs, take the cat, release it near our house and let it find its way home.

That would be a nice thing to do, but you do not have any moral obligation towards the cat in any way. You could had let the cat die if it got to that and you, or your family, would have no moral responsibility. That would make you kind of a douche and other people would not tend to react in a positive way towards your actions, but it would not make you morally wrong.

[SBRFS]

"Hey, look!  There's an animal that nobody's protecting.  Let's chop off its gonads and lock it in a cage!" 

[Prairie]

I understand your situation to be this: you live with some people. They have a dog. You don't want a dog so you don't take part in its management. The dog injured a cat in the yard. You all took it in. The hospital will put it up for adoption. You want to pay the cost and manage the cat's fate yourself. But you want the people you live with to pay for part of it. They don't want to. This bothers you.

[cobra2411]

"Hey, look!  There's an animal that nobody's protecting.  Let's chop off its gonads and lock it in a cage!" 

I'm a big fan of the TNR programs, either to a managed colony or unmanaged one. As far as spay/neuter, do you have any idea how prolific cats are in breeding? I've had foster mom cats go back into heat 8 weeks after having a litter. At 6-8 months the little ones are ready to start breeding. They don't have any real predators and since we don't really want to many natural predators around we have to do something. 

 

Most TNR people will make assessments to the cats temperament and will place it up for adoption if it's suitable. Some cats are simply feral and need to go back to the wild. 

[cab21]

in this case, the cat.

if you want to pay the costs for the cat, you can do so.

if people that want to adopt the cat want to pay, they can do so

if there are owners that want the cat, the owners can do so

if the hosbital wants to pay , the hosbital can do so.

[lee1138]

I had a cat that was just ill suited to living indoors.  Didn't like it.  She sought very little petting from me or anyone.. her playing was VERY rough and she would occasionally pee on things and PEOPLE in the house.  She was already fixed and not declawed, so we chose to let her outside.  She was a little frightened at first and hung around the house but wouldn't come near anyone or the food that we put out for her.  After a week or so, she moved on.  I saw her about a year later, still looking pretty healthy..  She either found another family better suited to her style, or she was doing very well on the hunt.

[SBRFS]

I'm a big fan of the TNR programs, either to a managed colony or unmanaged one. As far as spay/neuter, do you have any idea how prolific cats are in breeding? I've had foster mom cats go back into heat 8 weeks after having a litter. At 6-8 months the little ones are ready to start breeding. They don't have any real predators and since we don't really want to many natural predators around we have to do something. 

 

Most TNR people will make assessments to the cats temperament and will place it up for adoption if it's suitable. Some cats are simply feral and need to go back to the wild. 

 

What does it matter what I know of cat breeding?  I don't see how that even applies, other than as a way of diverting.

 

1.  Humans introduce animals as pets.

2.  The animal population explodes.

3.  Humans blame the animals.

 

In other words, it's using the rate of reproduction as justification for further abuse.

 

Animals aren't being abused in the wild.  But inviting them in, making them dependent on us, then subjecting them to painful surgeries and hormone disorders when they become a nuissance -- that's abuse.

[cobra2411]

Humans invade an animals natural habitat then remove the natural predators. They also destroy the environment the pray animals survive on. The population of pray animals without natural predators increases beyond the ability to sustain them. Do humans have any responsibility in this and if so what should they do? 

 

As far as pets, can an animal make an informed, intelligent and voluntary choice to be a pet or not?  I say no. They are living creatures with limited intelligence and a capacity to feel so I feel it's moral to treat them with respect and not subject them to anything cruel and unusual. Is spay/neuter surgery abuse? Sure, there are hormonal change and some after surgery pain but the surgery is done under anesthetic and most of the animals I've seen are back to normal the next day. Unaltered animals have a greater drive to reproduce, even to the point of escaping to make it happen. There is an overpopulation of domesticated and semi-domesticated animals which regularly get rounded up and euthanized. 

 

The failure IMO is a human one; not taking proper care of their domesticated animals. I however disagree with your assertion that sterilization is abuse. My pets live pampered lives, receive regular medical checkups and are very happy and content. They are all altered. 

[SBRFS]

Humans invade an animals natural habitat then remove the natural predators. They also destroy the environment the pray animals survive on. The population of pray animals without natural predators increases beyond the ability to sustain them. Do humans have any responsibility in this and if so what should they do?

First, to be clear, just because I may not have the perfect solution, that doesn't mean that my point is invalid or that humans get off scot free. I think humans, being capable of understanding how their behavior may have a disproportionately large influence in the world they share with other creatures, have a responsibility to minimize the disruption they cause. As our technology grows, so will our ability to safely and peacefully carve our habitat out of the wilderness. For example, we might move to the stereotypical glass-domed cities popular in science fiction, or the solution might be something as simple as changing how we dispose of scavenger-attracting garbage. 

As far as pets, can an animal make an informed, intelligent and voluntary choice to be a pet or not?  I say no. They are living creatures with limited intelligence and a capacity to feel so I feel it's moral to treat them with respect and not subject them to anything cruel and unusual. Is spay/neuter surgery abuse? Sure, there are hormonal change and some after surgery pain but the surgery is done under anesthetic and most of the animals I've seen are back to normal the next day. Unaltered animals have a greater drive to reproduce, even to the point of escaping to make it happen. There is an overpopulation of domesticated and semi-domesticated animals which regularly get rounded up and euthanized.

We are all animals, some of us smarter than others. If higher intelligence (or the ability to comprehend philosophy) is what gives some animals a sort of "right" to inflict their desires on the rest, then for the sake of consistency, you must also condone the same surgical practices on mentally retarded humans. Yet, for some reason, most people cringe at the notion of using humans of beast-level intelligence for food stock, scientific experiments, and the like.We can't have it both ways. If intelligence is the determining factor, then we have to treat beasts as respectfully as we do the least capable of humans. But if it is species that determines what ends up on the dinner plate, then it's just another form of bigotry, and I dread to think what will happen when humans eventually encounter (or create) another intelligent life form. 

The failure IMO is a human one; not taking proper care of their domesticated animals. I however disagree with your assertion that sterilization is abuse. My pets live pampered lives, receive regular medical checkups and are very happy and content. They are all altered.

And I know humans who were sterilized because their wardens didn't want the headaches associated with unwanted pregnancies. So, let's adapt a page from Stef's book, concerning the way he treats his daughter: If a beast were capable of taking a reasoned look at things, and could reflect on the gonad-free life you forced upon it, versus the experience of raising young, would it thank you for making the decision you did? No human would, so why would you assume different from a non-human?

[cobra2411]

I disagree that we are all simply animals and have evolved to be the smartest animals in the room. Biologically there is little difference between animals and humans, however, there is a profound jump in intelligence between animals and humans. It's not just simple intelligence though, we have the ability for abstract thought - the ability to grasp concepts that we can not sense. We have the ability to take a known rule and generate new expressions as well as mix and match different elements to make new concepts. We can also mix and match ideas from different domains of knowledge like philosophy and biology. We also have the ability to preserve our experiences and knowledge so it may be passed onto others. This makes humans fundamentally different than animals. 

 

Assuming however that humans and animals were simply animals and equal other than simple intelligence level; If we applied our morality then no animal could ever be killed to support the growth and survival of another. We would all have to become vegetarians. Additionally since we're all equal except our level of intelligence carnivorous animals would have to stop killing. You introduced the idea that an animal and mentally retarded person were on par or close to par then since we would not allow a mentally retarded person to kill a human to eat, then no animal should kill to eat - all animals being equal. Otherwise all animals should be allowed to kill to eat - including humans killing humans. Since that argument isn't valid then I believe the whole animals and humans being equal except for levels of intelligence must also be invalid. There is a fundamental difference between animal and human. 

 

Oh, and I wasn't criticizing you for not having a perfect solution, I was only trying to state what you had said in a different way. I do believe that humans are at fault and morally have responsibility in that regard. We just differ on what taking responsibility is. I do not believe sterilization of animals is abuse. I however, agree that sterilization of humans is wrong. I see no fault here as I believe humans and animals are different. 

[SBRFS]

 

 

I disagree that we are all simply animals and have evolved to be the smartest animals in the room. Biologically there is little difference between animals and humans, however, there is a profound jump in intelligence between animals and humans. It's not just simple intelligence though, we have the ability for abstract thought - the ability to grasp concepts that we can not sense. We have the ability to take a known rule and generate new expressions as well as mix and match different elements to make new concepts. We can also mix and match ideas from different domains of knowledge like philosophy and biology. We also have the ability to preserve our experiences and knowledge so it may be passed onto others. This makes humans fundamentally different than animals.

Though I doubt you're arguing against the biology of it, I would like to point out that humans are weaker than other animals in every way, except our minds.  We have evolved in the direction of abstract thought, as you say, precisely at the expense of the gorilla's muscles and the cheetah's speed.  But to say that humans are "fundamentally different" from other animals, I believe is an exaggeration.

It's been a long time coming, but we're finally recognizing that a number of other animals possess near-human level problem-solving ability.  Some invent tools to use, some even engage in rudimentary conversation via human sign language.

First it was "humans are the only ones to use language", then, when that was proven false, it became "humans are the only ones to use tools".  Today, it's been pushed all the way back to the obscure criteria you described -- and still it sounds ridiculously chauvinist of us.  Seriously, "knowledge like philosophy and biology" and "the ability to preserve our experiences"?  I don't mean to criticize you personally, but surely you can see how similar that argument is to "the god of the gaps".

 

Assuming however that humans and animals were simply animals and equal other than simple intelligence level; If we applied our morality then no animal could ever be killed to support the growth and survival of another. We would all have to become vegetarians. Additionally since we're all equal except our level of intelligence carnivorous animals would have to stop killing. You introduced the idea that an animal and mentally retarded person were on par or close to par then since we would not allow a mentally retarded person to kill a human to eat, then no animal should kill to eat - all animals being equal. Otherwise all animals should be allowed to kill to eat - including humans killing humans. Since that argument isn't valid then I believe the whole animals and humans being equal except for levels of intelligence must also be invalid. There is a fundamental difference between animal and human.

I don't think that follows what I said.  I stated that "animals aren't being abused in the wild", which implies that the wild has no ethical standard.  But we're talking about deliberately taking animals into human society (or being careless enough to attract them), where there is an ethical standard.

Beyond clarifying that, it's hard for me to argue against the rest of your message, as it's still based on the notion that humans are "special", which I still feel is a miscalculation.

In any case, though, I think that "fixing" animals is at best a palliative to the problem of overpopulation.  I'd much rather see that replaced by a peaceful approach which 1) teaches people not to take animals as pets, 2) makes human communities undesirable to wild animals, and 3) somehow makes domesticated breeds more capable of life without human care.

[cobra2411]

I'm not saying that humans are special, but that they are different for the reasons listed above. You even acknowledge they are different when you said animals have no ethical standards and humans do. Since they are different arguing for or against principals for one does not automatically make the same argument for the other. Therefore arguing for neutering animals is not an argument for neutering humans. Yes animals have communication, but human's level of communication is at least 10 fold that of animals. Animals can use tools and perform complex problem solving but again, humans abilities are far superior.

 

So lets look at neutering animals to see if it's abuse. It's a surgical procedure done under anesthetic by a doctor. The animal is monitored both during the surgery as well as after and antibiotics and pain medication are given as needed. Localized pain dissipates within 1-2 weeks at most and future complications are rare. Yes there are hormonal changes, but that has positives as well as negatives. Neutered animals tend to live longer and are free from certain forms of cancer. They are also much less likely to roam where they can be harmed or killed.

 

From your arguments I'm going to assume that it's abuse because we force our will upon the animal. Animals are not capable of the level of complex thought needed to knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enter into agreements or contracts. Therefore we are their custodians and as such when we decide to bring them into our life as our pets we have to make those decisions for them. I don't see how making a decision about a medical procedure in hopes of producing a healthier and longer life rises to the level of abuse. Further the pet relationship can be beneficial to both the human and animal so the simple act of having a pet by itself does not seem to be abuse. 

 

Now this does mean that abuse doesn't occur or that animals can not be abused. I believe that animals have a right to be free from abuse, but there should be some foundation for the accusation of abuse. Lets go back to neutering. Female cats go into heat for 4-5 days every 3 weeks during mating season. It is very uncomfortable for them and I feel it's more abusive given the repetitive nature of it to prevent them from mating than it is for them to have a surgery. Sure, we could not have a cat as a pet, but as I've said, most pet relationships are beneficial to both the animal and human. In fact, my outdoor cats frequently return and seek me out for affection and care. Similarly my dogs have gotten free of my fenced yard and yet have returned. When I travel my one dog stands watch for me and will not come into the house for 3-4 days. She is then overjoyed when I return. Hell, even my free range chickens show up in their coop every night and follow me around when I'm in the yard. So I don't believe a case can be made that keeping pets is always abusive. Now, as a long time volunteer at a local animal shelter I see all to often cases of clear abuse, so there is a problem out there that should be addressed. I have, however, seen improvements made in how people care for animals in general; like boycotting puppy mills and adopting from shelters. Shelters are getting better at matching animal to human resulting adding value to adopting a pet vs buying from a breeder. In the case of wild animals many people build bird houses and other animal shelters. Wolves have been reintroduced to Yellow Stone park to restore the balance destroyed by man years ago which has made huge positive impacts reaching much farther than just the lives of the wolves. I read of a bridge that was constructed or is being constructed with grass and trees on top instead of a road bed to allow animals to cross highways safely. So we are learning that we can coexist peacefully with nature. 

[SBRFS]

I agree that humans can have mutually beneficial survival arrangements with other animals, so perhaps our disagreement is on the concept of a "pet".  I think your example of the free-range chickens is closest to the ideal situation, with the chickens being free to live their lives without your interference, but also free to partake of your hospitality.  When it starts getting more restrictive than that, you're basically creating a pet, and doing so by using the same psychological tactics that human "social predators" do.  (I tried to say that in the least inflammatory way I could think of.)  Basically, once the animal gets hooked on something you provide -- food, affection, approval -- then you can keep it there by threatening to take the thing away.  That's when it becomes manipulative.  "Obey me or I shun/starve you, pet."  If it's wrong to manipulate a child like that, then it can't be any better to do the same thing with animals of childlike emotional intelligence.

[cobra2411]

Basically, once the animal gets hooked on something you provide -- food, affection, approval -- then you can keep it there by threatening to take the thing away.  That's when it becomes manipulative.  "Obey me or I shun/starve you, pet."  If it's wrong to manipulate a child like that, then it can't be any better to do the same thing with animals of childlike emotional intelligence.

Well that's a fuzzy line in the sand... 

 

Wouldn't it be simple if allowing the animal to do what it wants is ok but training it is automatically abuse. You are once again confusing the difference between animals and humans. Making an argument for one doesn't automatically make the argument for the other. Dogs do not have the level of understanding of abstract concepts like even children do.

 

Now, when I talk  about training I'm not talking about the classic compulsion training. That's almost totally been replaced by professional trainers today. The preferred training is positive reward / negative punishment. Rewards are given to increase a target behavior and rewards are taken to reduce undesirable behavior. You are punishing by negating the reward, not slapping the dog around. That's no more manipulative than getting a good or bad rating from a DRO. 

 

Ah, but I can hear it now, if the dog keeps being bad I'll keep withholding food till the dog starves. If you keep performing bad at work won't you get fired which will affect your ability to eat? When you do good you get a raise. See, positive reward, negative punishment.  

[SBRFS]

For the neutering-as-kindness argument to work, there must be a line that differentiates the beast from the thinker.  I don't see how it's possible for such a line to exist, seeing as cognition is a sort of spectrum.  To have it your way, it would have to be very much like the "day under 18 / day over 18" legality argument, and such binary standards just don't work with a spectrum.  I mean, neutering is an all-or-nothing approach, as is "owning" an animal.  How are we supposed to deal with animals that are of near-human intelligence?  Because the day will come when such creatures exist, be they naturally- or artificially-created.  If the current answers don't mesh with the realistic hypothetical example, then perhaps we need to reconsider the validity of the current answers.

 

Edit:  And again, your argument seems to be based on "because we're smarter, we're entitled".  I don't know how to counter that, but it feels "wrong" somehow.

[cobra2411]

For the neutering-as-kindness argument to work, there must be a line that differentiates the beast from the thinker.  I don't see how it's possible for such a line to exist, seeing as cognition is a sort of spectrum.  To have it your way, it would have to be very much like the "day under 18 / day over 18" legality argument, and such binary standards just don't work with a spectrum.  I mean, neutering is an all-or-nothing approach, as is "owning" an animal.  How are we supposed to deal with animals that are of near-human intelligence?  Because the day will come when such creatures exist, be they naturally- or artificially-created.  If the current answers don't mesh with the realistic hypothetical example, then perhaps we need to reconsider the validity of the current answers.

 

Edit:  And again, your argument seems to be based on "because we're smarter, we're entitled".  I don't know how to counter that, but it feels "wrong" somehow.

You're being disingenuous with your rebuttals. I have repeatedly made the case that humans and animals are fundamentally different and you still act as if I've agreed that humans and animals are the same except for a slight difference in intelligence. 

 

An average four year old has 5 times the vocabulary of even the smartest dog. The average adult has 30 times the vocabulary. Humans can engage in abstract thought and conceptualize things they can't sense. That's just the tip of the iceberg. This goes far past "we're smarter". You continue to base your argument on the idea that humans and animals are the same and you continue to apply the same standards to animals that you make with humans. I continue to show you that we are different. Please refute this and show how humans and animals are the same. 

[SBRFS]

You're being disingenuous with your rebuttals. I have repeatedly made the case that humans and animals are fundamentally different and you still act as if I've agreed that humans and animals are the same except for a slight difference in intelligence.

But the criteria you use are entirely anthropocentric!  You talk about how we can think this way or that, we can practice science and what not, et cetera.  All of those are an outgrowth of the intelligence we developed, wheras the other animals have developed equally-impressive traits in other areas.  Yet everything that you say qualifies us to be their masters, you place squarely in our camp.  It's like a judge deciding what evidence gets to be presented in a case about limiting the power of the judiciary!

 

There are only two possible reasons for humans to have rightful dominion over other animals: either it is our intellectual capacity (whatever criteria you include), or it is the fact that we are homo sapiens sapiens.  If the former, then any animal of greater intellgence can rightly dominate one of lower intelligence.  If the latter, then we are bigots who, by nature of our genetic inheritance, claim the right to dominate any life form we encounter (regardless of its intellectual capacity).

 

 

An average four year old has 5 times the vocabulary of even the smartest dog. The average adult has 30 times the vocabulary. Humans can engage in abstract thought and conceptualize things they can't sense. That's just the tip of the iceberg. This goes far past "we're smarter". You continue to base your argument on the idea that humans and animals are the same and you continue to apply the same standards to animals that you make with humans. I continue to show you that we are different. Please refute this and show how humans and animals are the same.

And the average dog has many times the olfactory "vocabulary" of any human child.  Why does one type of specialization trump another?  You give examples of how one feature of humans is as highly-developed as different features in other animals, and you continue to assert that particular outgrowths of that feature are what gives us some sort of "right" (for lack of a better term) to have our way with them.  At least that's how it sounds to me.

 

You ask me to prove that humans and other animals are the same.  They are not.  Humans are different from donkeys, which are different from tigers.  They are all equally adapted to their environments -- the wild for beasts, civilization for humans.  Neither their location nor their abilities make any of them morally superior to the others in any way.  Humans have no more "right" to cage a tiger than the tiger has a "right" to eat the humans.  But at least the tiger can claim ignorance of empathy and morality.  Humans, because their development is precisely in those traits, cannot.

 

To kidnap a creature from its natural habitat and force it to live in a place where it has no comprehension of the social norms, is by itself an act of cruelty.  If pet owners actually had the empathy they claim to, they would respect the dignity of beasts by leaving them in their natural habitats, and allow the creatures to evolve in their own particular ways.

[SBRFS]

I feel that I'm still not understanding your view, so I'll withdraw from the conversation now.  Thanks for the discussion.