Is it ethical for a vegan to own a cat as a pet since these animals require meat to live?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
"require" is the magic word here.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Pikachu I think the question should more be, where do they get the cat food from? Having a cat by itself is not the issue. That the cat is "obligted" to eat meat, makes the cat not being able to choose if it skips meat, so the cat needs to eat meat for it's survival. There is no choice, except for suicide, and we are not encouraging suicide for the cat. So the vegan needs to feed the cat with food, and the only thing they can do is try to consciously buy animal products from animals that endure the absolute least amount of suffering so they can feed the cat.
@Kwek00
But vegans don't consume meat or animal products no matter what the source because they consider it unethical.
If they own a cat then they are required to participate in what they consider to be an unethical action...so should they own a cat at all then?
Is it ethical for them to keep a cat in the manner that the cat requires?
But vegans don't consume meat or animal products no matter what the source because they consider it unethical.
If they own a cat then they are required to participate in what they consider to be an unethical action...so should they own a cat at all then?
Is it ethical for them to keep a cat in the manner that the cat requires?
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Pikachu Vegans also have a choice, they are not "obligated" or "required". Hence "require" is the magic word here. You make a conscious choise to eat meat, which affects another living beings "well being", that's why it's "immoral" [i](ethics is still something else for as far as I'm aware)[/i]. If they take good care of the cat, and allow it some liberty, then I don't see why it's "immoral". Considering that you make a conscious choise that improves the cats' well being. Since the cat can't choose, the only way to improve the cats well being is to feed it animal products. Which it would also do in nature. The thing you can do as a cat owner, is buy your cat food conciously from producers that don't let the animals that die for the cats food supply suffer[i] (and thus harm their well being)[/i]. Which... well, in nature, the cat would also need to hunt and considering the cat doesn't have moral frameworks [i](that we are aware off)[/i] it will not care about the well being of it's prey. As a pet owner, you can make that choice, and thus improve on other creatures well being even though they die to nourish the cat, which they would also do in nature but in worst circumstances.
@Kwek00
I feel like we're not quite discussing the same thing.
You seem to be making the case that if one owns a cat then the ethical choice is to feed it meat because they need that for their well-being.
I am making the case that if a vegan considers it unethical to contribute to animal suffering by consuming or otherwise making use of animal products then it is therefore unethical for them to own a pet that requires them to use animal products for its care.
I feel like we're not quite discussing the same thing.
You seem to be making the case that if one owns a cat then the ethical choice is to feed it meat because they need that for their well-being.
I am making the case that if a vegan considers it unethical to contribute to animal suffering by consuming or otherwise making use of animal products then it is therefore unethical for them to own a pet that requires them to use animal products for its care.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Pikachu
[quote]You seem to be making the case that if one owns a cat then the ethical choice is to feed it meat because they need that for their well-being.[/quote]
I don't think you disagree with that? Unless you believe that the cat should starve OR you shouldn't have a cat at all.
But when you say that the cat "requires" meat and is "obligated" to eat meat for it's survival. Then it would be immoral to own a cat and deprave it from it's food source. That would conciously decrease the well being of the cat.
[quote]I am making the case that if a vegan considers it unethical to contribute to animal suffering by consuming or otherwise making use of animal products then it is therefore unethical for them to own a pet that requires them to use animal products for its care.[/quote]
In that case the cat would be out there in the wild, seeking what it requires by itself. And it would still be killing for meat, 'cause it's "obligated" and "required". You can ask the question if no one holds cats, if there would be as many cats around, considering that some of them are breed for the sole purpose to sell them. But even for the cats that aren't actively breed, there would still be cats and some of them would find [i](in all kinds of ways) [/i]the help of an owner. Wouldn't be the first time a cat just attaches itself to a household even when it comes from a litter from the wild. For those cats that do get attached to a household, the moral thing to do, is to nourish it and you can decrease animal suffering by taking animal products that actively try to reduce the suffering of an animal.
Also, vegans ussually argue against people that can make a concious choice if they want or don't want to eat meat. They don't argue against creatures that don't have that choice for as far that I'm aware. That's the diffrence between what it means to be human and what it means to be a creature that is largely driven by instinct and the need for survival.
[quote]You seem to be making the case that if one owns a cat then the ethical choice is to feed it meat because they need that for their well-being.[/quote]
I don't think you disagree with that? Unless you believe that the cat should starve OR you shouldn't have a cat at all.
But when you say that the cat "requires" meat and is "obligated" to eat meat for it's survival. Then it would be immoral to own a cat and deprave it from it's food source. That would conciously decrease the well being of the cat.
[quote]I am making the case that if a vegan considers it unethical to contribute to animal suffering by consuming or otherwise making use of animal products then it is therefore unethical for them to own a pet that requires them to use animal products for its care.[/quote]
In that case the cat would be out there in the wild, seeking what it requires by itself. And it would still be killing for meat, 'cause it's "obligated" and "required". You can ask the question if no one holds cats, if there would be as many cats around, considering that some of them are breed for the sole purpose to sell them. But even for the cats that aren't actively breed, there would still be cats and some of them would find [i](in all kinds of ways) [/i]the help of an owner. Wouldn't be the first time a cat just attaches itself to a household even when it comes from a litter from the wild. For those cats that do get attached to a household, the moral thing to do, is to nourish it and you can decrease animal suffering by taking animal products that actively try to reduce the suffering of an animal.
Also, vegans ussually argue against people that can make a concious choice if they want or don't want to eat meat. They don't argue against creatures that don't have that choice for as far that I'm aware. That's the diffrence between what it means to be human and what it means to be a creature that is largely driven by instinct and the need for survival.
@Kwek00
[quote]Then it would be immoral to own a cat and deprave it from it's food source. That would conciously decrease the well being of the cat.[/quote]
Yes, i do agree with that. Cats are obligate carnivores. There is no other option but for them to eat other animals.
To be clear, i am in no way arguing against feeding cats meat.
[quote]In that case the cat would be out there in the wild[/quote]
Why?
Why isn't the cat just owned by a non-vegan? And even if it is out there in the wild hunting as any wild animal does, what would that have to do with a vegan's participation in industry they consider to be unethical?
How does they existence of carnivores in the wild make it morally correct for a vegan to participate in feeding them any more than they existence of meat eating humans would make it morally correct for a vegan to eat meat as well?
[quote]For those cats that do get attached to a household, the moral thing to do, is to nourish it[/quote]
Sure. But why not rehome it with someone else? We do that all the time with the foster system.
[quote]Then it would be immoral to own a cat and deprave it from it's food source. That would conciously decrease the well being of the cat.[/quote]
Yes, i do agree with that. Cats are obligate carnivores. There is no other option but for them to eat other animals.
To be clear, i am in no way arguing against feeding cats meat.
[quote]In that case the cat would be out there in the wild[/quote]
Why?
Why isn't the cat just owned by a non-vegan? And even if it is out there in the wild hunting as any wild animal does, what would that have to do with a vegan's participation in industry they consider to be unethical?
How does they existence of carnivores in the wild make it morally correct for a vegan to participate in feeding them any more than they existence of meat eating humans would make it morally correct for a vegan to eat meat as well?
[quote]For those cats that do get attached to a household, the moral thing to do, is to nourish it[/quote]
Sure. But why not rehome it with someone else? We do that all the time with the foster system.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Pikachu
[quote]And even if it is out there in the wild hunting as any wild animal does, what would that have to do with a vegan's participation in industry they consider to be unethical?[/quote]
When I listen to people that have a vegetarian or vegan stance, their arguments are not only concerned with the industry. The large point is that human beings can choose not to eat meat, and thus are able consciously dimish the suffering of animals as a whole. If human beings were not able to make that choice, this movement would take a diffrent dimension. If you were unable to choose, the argument would be about how much animal suffering there needs to be, to put food on your plate. Which becomes the dimension where the cat lives in, cause to survive, it NEEDS to eat animal food [i](as you point out)[/i], so the only thing you can do, is to diminish the harm done [i](or to infringe as little as possible on the animals' - that becomes food - well being)[/i]. That last part, is up too the owner of the pet, because they CAN make that concious choise.
[quote]How does they existence of carnivores in the wild make it morally correct for a vegan to participate in feeding them any more than they existence of meat eating humans would make it morally correct for a vegan to eat meat as well?[/quote]
Because the human can make a choise, the cat can't. As you said it yourself:
[quote]There is no other option but for them to eat other animals.[/quote]
[quote]Sure. But why not rehome it with someone else? We do that all the time with the foster system.[/quote]
So that the vegan can argue against the foster parent, about how unethical they are for keeping their cat alive by feeding it animal products? The only thing that keeps it alive at the first place? Something I think the overall majority of vegans won't do, exactly because they are aware the cat has no choice of eating anything else then animal products, which kinda absolves the cat from being immoral... it has no choice. For something to be immoral, you at least [i](at the bare minimum)[/i] need to be talking about a conscious act that diminishes an other living beings well being. Which is not the case when you feed [i](keep alive)[/i] a living creature that can't choose not to eat animal products.
[quote]And even if it is out there in the wild hunting as any wild animal does, what would that have to do with a vegan's participation in industry they consider to be unethical?[/quote]
When I listen to people that have a vegetarian or vegan stance, their arguments are not only concerned with the industry. The large point is that human beings can choose not to eat meat, and thus are able consciously dimish the suffering of animals as a whole. If human beings were not able to make that choice, this movement would take a diffrent dimension. If you were unable to choose, the argument would be about how much animal suffering there needs to be, to put food on your plate. Which becomes the dimension where the cat lives in, cause to survive, it NEEDS to eat animal food [i](as you point out)[/i], so the only thing you can do, is to diminish the harm done [i](or to infringe as little as possible on the animals' - that becomes food - well being)[/i]. That last part, is up too the owner of the pet, because they CAN make that concious choise.
[quote]How does they existence of carnivores in the wild make it morally correct for a vegan to participate in feeding them any more than they existence of meat eating humans would make it morally correct for a vegan to eat meat as well?[/quote]
Because the human can make a choise, the cat can't. As you said it yourself:
[quote]There is no other option but for them to eat other animals.[/quote]
[quote]Sure. But why not rehome it with someone else? We do that all the time with the foster system.[/quote]
So that the vegan can argue against the foster parent, about how unethical they are for keeping their cat alive by feeding it animal products? The only thing that keeps it alive at the first place? Something I think the overall majority of vegans won't do, exactly because they are aware the cat has no choice of eating anything else then animal products, which kinda absolves the cat from being immoral... it has no choice. For something to be immoral, you at least [i](at the bare minimum)[/i] need to be talking about a conscious act that diminishes an other living beings well being. Which is not the case when you feed [i](keep alive)[/i] a living creature that can't choose not to eat animal products.
@Kwek00
[quote]so the only thing you can do, is to diminish the harm done[/quote]
Not so. You can also reduce the harm that you are contributing to. And that's what vegans do when they refuse to use animal products.
You might make a similar argument and say that since cows are still being exploited for meat and milk that a vegan should just seek out sources that are less cruel but that would not be a coherent behaviour with their ethos.
So why would it make sense in the context of pet ownership to deliberately and unnecessarily involve yourself in a cruel industry by trying to choose less cruel options?
If you don't have to own an animal which requires the violation of your ethical position then how do you justify doing so?
[quote]so the only thing you can do, is to diminish the harm done[/quote]
Not so. You can also reduce the harm that you are contributing to. And that's what vegans do when they refuse to use animal products.
You might make a similar argument and say that since cows are still being exploited for meat and milk that a vegan should just seek out sources that are less cruel but that would not be a coherent behaviour with their ethos.
So why would it make sense in the context of pet ownership to deliberately and unnecessarily involve yourself in a cruel industry by trying to choose less cruel options?
If you don't have to own an animal which requires the violation of your ethical position then how do you justify doing so?
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Pikachu
[quote]Not so. You can also reduce the harm that you are contributing to. And that's what vegans do when they refuse to use animal products.[/quote]
... when it comes to human beings, you know, those that have a choise on what they eat.
You are conflating the cat with the human every step on the way. As if these two entities have the same position. But you already agreed that they don't have the same position, because they are "required" and "obliged" to eat meat. But conflating them again after admitting that they are not the same, doesn't come over as someone that wants to have an honest conversation about this.
They don't tell the calfs to stop drinking the cows milk though. They are still aware that in certain cases animal products need to be consumed. And if you make concious decisions on buying animal products that you believe reduces the least harm to the animal being killed to nourish the cat [i](because we don't want it to die of hunger)[/i], then it's quite easily justified. Considering the cat is "obliged" and "required" to eat animal products to nourish itself. Vegans aren't crossing the limits of what is possible to advocate for some kind of unreachable future. They are advocating to make a moral choise that doesn't hurt you either way.
[quote]Not so. You can also reduce the harm that you are contributing to. And that's what vegans do when they refuse to use animal products.[/quote]
... when it comes to human beings, you know, those that have a choise on what they eat.
You are conflating the cat with the human every step on the way. As if these two entities have the same position. But you already agreed that they don't have the same position, because they are "required" and "obliged" to eat meat. But conflating them again after admitting that they are not the same, doesn't come over as someone that wants to have an honest conversation about this.
They don't tell the calfs to stop drinking the cows milk though. They are still aware that in certain cases animal products need to be consumed. And if you make concious decisions on buying animal products that you believe reduces the least harm to the animal being killed to nourish the cat [i](because we don't want it to die of hunger)[/i], then it's quite easily justified. Considering the cat is "obliged" and "required" to eat animal products to nourish itself. Vegans aren't crossing the limits of what is possible to advocate for some kind of unreachable future. They are advocating to make a moral choise that doesn't hurt you either way.
@Kwek00
[quote]You are conflating the cat with the human every step on the way[/quote]
I'm really not lol.
I think maybe you're arguing that if a vegan owns a cat and the cat needs meat then it is morally sound for the vegan to feed the cat meat.
I agree with that.
What i am arguing is that since owning a cat requires that it be fed meat, it is not ethical for a vegan to own a cat in the first place.
The choice of owning a cat is the same choice that the vegan makes in other areas: Either participate in a system which requires the torture and/or death of animals or do not participate.
[quote]You are conflating the cat with the human every step on the way[/quote]
I'm really not lol.
I think maybe you're arguing that if a vegan owns a cat and the cat needs meat then it is morally sound for the vegan to feed the cat meat.
I agree with that.
What i am arguing is that since owning a cat requires that it be fed meat, it is not ethical for a vegan to own a cat in the first place.
The choice of owning a cat is the same choice that the vegan makes in other areas: Either participate in a system which requires the torture and/or death of animals or do not participate.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Pikachu
[quote]What i am arguing is that since owning a cat requires that it be fed meat, it is not ethical for a vegan to own a cat in the first place.[/quote]
[i]In that case the cat would be out there in the wild, seeking what it requires by itself. And it would still be killing for meat, 'cause it's "obligated" and "required". You can ask the question if no one holds cats, if there would be as many cats around, considering that some of them are breed for the sole purpose to sell them. But even for the cats that aren't actively breed, there would still be cats and some of them would find (in all kinds of ways) the help of an owner. Wouldn't be the first time a cat just attaches itself to a household even when it comes from a litter from the wild. For those cats that do get attached to a household, the moral thing to do, is to nourish it and you can decrease animal suffering by taking animal products that actively try to reduce the suffering of an animal.[/i]
[quote]Why isn't the cat just owned by a non-vegan? And even if it is out there in the wild hunting as any wild animal does, what would that have to do with a vegan's participation in industry they consider to be unethical?[/quote]
[quote]Sure. But why not rehome it with someone else? We do that all the time with the foster system.[/quote]
[i]So that the vegan can argue against the foster parent, about how unethical they are for keeping their cat alive by feeding it animal products? The only thing that keeps it alive at the first place? Something I think the overall majority of vegans won't do, exactly because they are aware the cat has no choice of eating anything else then animal products, which kinda absolves the cat from being immoral... it has no choice. For something to be immoral, you at least (at the bare minimum) need to be talking about a conscious act that diminishes an other living beings well being. Which is not the case when you feed (keep alive) a living creature that can't choose not to eat animal products.[/i]
... Espescially, at least I believe, when you feed a cat animal products that you buy according to the concept of "least harm to the animal", in comparisson to the murder by instinct [i](as in shredding an animal to pieces) [/i]as it's done in nature. But again... I don't think vegans have issues with nature. But the animal that died for the cat in a vegans house likely suffers less [i](if conciously bought)[/i] then an animal in the wild.
[quote]What i am arguing is that since owning a cat requires that it be fed meat, it is not ethical for a vegan to own a cat in the first place.[/quote]
[i]In that case the cat would be out there in the wild, seeking what it requires by itself. And it would still be killing for meat, 'cause it's "obligated" and "required". You can ask the question if no one holds cats, if there would be as many cats around, considering that some of them are breed for the sole purpose to sell them. But even for the cats that aren't actively breed, there would still be cats and some of them would find (in all kinds of ways) the help of an owner. Wouldn't be the first time a cat just attaches itself to a household even when it comes from a litter from the wild. For those cats that do get attached to a household, the moral thing to do, is to nourish it and you can decrease animal suffering by taking animal products that actively try to reduce the suffering of an animal.[/i]
[quote]Why isn't the cat just owned by a non-vegan? And even if it is out there in the wild hunting as any wild animal does, what would that have to do with a vegan's participation in industry they consider to be unethical?[/quote]
[quote]Sure. But why not rehome it with someone else? We do that all the time with the foster system.[/quote]
[i]So that the vegan can argue against the foster parent, about how unethical they are for keeping their cat alive by feeding it animal products? The only thing that keeps it alive at the first place? Something I think the overall majority of vegans won't do, exactly because they are aware the cat has no choice of eating anything else then animal products, which kinda absolves the cat from being immoral... it has no choice. For something to be immoral, you at least (at the bare minimum) need to be talking about a conscious act that diminishes an other living beings well being. Which is not the case when you feed (keep alive) a living creature that can't choose not to eat animal products.[/i]
... Espescially, at least I believe, when you feed a cat animal products that you buy according to the concept of "least harm to the animal", in comparisson to the murder by instinct [i](as in shredding an animal to pieces) [/i]as it's done in nature. But again... I don't think vegans have issues with nature. But the animal that died for the cat in a vegans house likely suffers less [i](if conciously bought)[/i] then an animal in the wild.
@Kwek00
[quote]In that case the cat would be out there in the wild[/quote]
We already covered this.
The option is not to either violate your ethics and feed the cat meat or let it hunt in the wild. You can pass it on to another family which can provide for the cat's needs without requiring the vegan to behave in a way contrary to their values.
Additionally, if we take that argument to its logical conclusion, vegans should be pulling as many cats off the street as they can and feeding them ethically sourced meat requiring them to actively participate and contribute to an industry they find unethical.
[quote]In that case the cat would be out there in the wild[/quote]
We already covered this.
The option is not to either violate your ethics and feed the cat meat or let it hunt in the wild. You can pass it on to another family which can provide for the cat's needs without requiring the vegan to behave in a way contrary to their values.
Additionally, if we take that argument to its logical conclusion, vegans should be pulling as many cats off the street as they can and feeding them ethically sourced meat requiring them to actively participate and contribute to an industry they find unethical.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Pikachu
[quote]You can pass it on to another family which can provide for the cat's needs without requiring the vegan [b]to behave in a way contrary to their values.[/b][/quote]
Which they aren't doing in the example that I give. I literally adress why this is the case.
[i]Something I think the overall majority of vegans won't do, exactly because they are aware the cat has no choice of eating anything else then animal products, which kinda absolves the cat from being immoral... it has no choice.[/i] [...] [i]... when you feed a cat animal products that you buy according to the concept of "least harm to the animal", in comparisson to the murder by instinct (as in shredding an animal to pieces) as it's done in nature. But again... I don't think vegans have issues with nature. But the animal that died for the cat in a vegans house likely suffers less (if conciously bought) then an animal in the wild.[/i]
[quote]You can pass it on to another family which can provide for the cat's needs without requiring the vegan [b]to behave in a way contrary to their values.[/b][/quote]
Which they aren't doing in the example that I give. I literally adress why this is the case.
[i]Something I think the overall majority of vegans won't do, exactly because they are aware the cat has no choice of eating anything else then animal products, which kinda absolves the cat from being immoral... it has no choice.[/i] [...] [i]... when you feed a cat animal products that you buy according to the concept of "least harm to the animal", in comparisson to the murder by instinct (as in shredding an animal to pieces) as it's done in nature. But again... I don't think vegans have issues with nature. But the animal that died for the cat in a vegans house likely suffers less (if conciously bought) then an animal in the wild.[/i]
@Kwek00 [quote]Which they aren't doing in the example that I give[/quote]
But your example doesn't comprehensively address the available options. It sets up a false dichotomy between "let cats hunt in the wild" and "participate in a cruel industry".
That doesn't seem valid to me but perhaps i am misunderstanding.
This time instead of copy/pasting what you've already said you could rephrase why you think it's more ethical for a vegan to own a cat and attempt to find less cruel meat sources than it is for a vegan to not participate at all in the unethical industry.
Obviously with respect to the fact that the choices aren't only cats in the wild or cats in a vegan home.
But your example doesn't comprehensively address the available options. It sets up a false dichotomy between "let cats hunt in the wild" and "participate in a cruel industry".
That doesn't seem valid to me but perhaps i am misunderstanding.
This time instead of copy/pasting what you've already said you could rephrase why you think it's more ethical for a vegan to own a cat and attempt to find less cruel meat sources than it is for a vegan to not participate at all in the unethical industry.
Obviously with respect to the fact that the choices aren't only cats in the wild or cats in a vegan home.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Pikachu
[quote]But your example doesn't comprehensively address the available options. It sets up a false dichotomy between "let cats hunt in the wild" and "participate in a cruel industry".[/quote]
Do you believe in levels of cruelty? Or is this just black and white here?
Because I actually adress the cruel industry in my responds, but I guess the industry can only be full on cruel. And I don't even think it's a false dichonomy, unless you are going to kill and make the food yourself. Which is actually an option in my original responds.
[quote]This time instead of copy/pasting what you've already said you could rephrase why you think it's more ethical for a vegan to own a cat and attempt to find less cruel meat sources than it is for a vegan to not participate at all in the unethical industry.[/quote]
Because the cat NEEDS to eat meat, the human doesn't.
And thus the human can choose not to eat meat, while the cat can't.
And thus you either let the cat run outside and let it hunt at it's own leisure OR you provide food too your pet that you conciously buy because the cat needs to eat.
If the vegan trully was as dumb as you present them here, then they would advocate against pets that eat meat. But conisdering that they have the option to hold a cat and still provide nourishment in a way that is less cruel then nature, I don't see a reason why you would be against holding a pet. Unless it's some kind of freedom argument, I know that excist out there but it ussually has nothing to do with being vegan.
[quote]But your example doesn't comprehensively address the available options. It sets up a false dichotomy between "let cats hunt in the wild" and "participate in a cruel industry".[/quote]
Do you believe in levels of cruelty? Or is this just black and white here?
Because I actually adress the cruel industry in my responds, but I guess the industry can only be full on cruel. And I don't even think it's a false dichonomy, unless you are going to kill and make the food yourself. Which is actually an option in my original responds.
[quote]This time instead of copy/pasting what you've already said you could rephrase why you think it's more ethical for a vegan to own a cat and attempt to find less cruel meat sources than it is for a vegan to not participate at all in the unethical industry.[/quote]
Because the cat NEEDS to eat meat, the human doesn't.
And thus the human can choose not to eat meat, while the cat can't.
And thus you either let the cat run outside and let it hunt at it's own leisure OR you provide food too your pet that you conciously buy because the cat needs to eat.
If the vegan trully was as dumb as you present them here, then they would advocate against pets that eat meat. But conisdering that they have the option to hold a cat and still provide nourishment in a way that is less cruel then nature, I don't see a reason why you would be against holding a pet. Unless it's some kind of freedom argument, I know that excist out there but it ussually has nothing to do with being vegan.
@Kwek00
[quote]Or is this just black and white here?[/quote]
No i don't think it's black and white. But in the end and in a best case scenario, it still means taking an animals life.
[quote]And I don't even think it's a false dichonomy,[/quote]
Of course it is. Because you're presenting the options as either let a cat hunt in the wild or kill animals to feed your pet
Those are not the only available options.
[quote]And thus you either let the cat run outside and let it hunt at it's own leisure OR you provide food too your pet that you conciously buy because the cat needs to eat.[/quote]
lol come on, no.
Option 3: you do not choose to own a cat. You do not propose to stop nature from being nature and you do not choose to kill animals to feed your pet.
You choose not to be a party to taking the life of an animal.
[quote] then they would advocate against pets that eat meat[/quote]
Some of them do. Or at least recognize as problematic the keeping of such pets.
Nothing stupid about it.
Actually, Blueveins shared in this thread a woman talking about vegan cat food. She intelligently discussed the pros, cons and dangers. She said she loves cats but that if you really want a vegan animal...don't get a cat.
Nothing stupid about that either.
[quote]Or is this just black and white here?[/quote]
No i don't think it's black and white. But in the end and in a best case scenario, it still means taking an animals life.
[quote]And I don't even think it's a false dichonomy,[/quote]
Of course it is. Because you're presenting the options as either let a cat hunt in the wild or kill animals to feed your pet
Those are not the only available options.
[quote]And thus you either let the cat run outside and let it hunt at it's own leisure OR you provide food too your pet that you conciously buy because the cat needs to eat.[/quote]
lol come on, no.
Option 3: you do not choose to own a cat. You do not propose to stop nature from being nature and you do not choose to kill animals to feed your pet.
You choose not to be a party to taking the life of an animal.
[quote] then they would advocate against pets that eat meat[/quote]
Some of them do. Or at least recognize as problematic the keeping of such pets.
Nothing stupid about it.
Actually, Blueveins shared in this thread a woman talking about vegan cat food. She intelligently discussed the pros, cons and dangers. She said she loves cats but that if you really want a vegan animal...don't get a cat.
Nothing stupid about that either.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Pikachu
[quote]No i don't think it's black and white. But in the end and in a best case scenario, it still means taking an animals life.[/quote]
Which is unavoidable in your example. You accept that, we talked about this and you are still not over it.
And thats why I have to keep repeating that a cat isn't a human, because you say you get it but you keep forgetting it in your reasoning.
[quote]Option 3: you do not choose to own a cat. You do not propose to stop nature from being nature and you do not choose to kill animals to feed your pet.
[/quote]
Now no one has cat. Which is what I adress in the last bit. But considering that there is a level of cruelty, that you admit excist in your first part of your responds. It's just forgotten in this part and the vegan can't have a cat. Altough the vegan has the option when taking a cat, to reduce harm to the prey that will be eaten, because the cat is now back in the wild as I've been saying all along. And the vegan has to argue against holding pets, because they can't give them to a foster care, because that would make them implicit with what (at least in your perception of a vegan is) they believe is morally wrong. But the cat will keep eating and what ever it is it eats will keep dieing.
Well, I guess me and the woman in your last example will partially disagree for now. I do still think that vegans can have a cat, because of what Is stated earlier. Considering we have to keep repeating ourselves, I think it's fair to say we can do something else with our time.
[quote]No i don't think it's black and white. But in the end and in a best case scenario, it still means taking an animals life.[/quote]
Which is unavoidable in your example. You accept that, we talked about this and you are still not over it.
And thats why I have to keep repeating that a cat isn't a human, because you say you get it but you keep forgetting it in your reasoning.
[quote]Option 3: you do not choose to own a cat. You do not propose to stop nature from being nature and you do not choose to kill animals to feed your pet.
[/quote]
Now no one has cat. Which is what I adress in the last bit. But considering that there is a level of cruelty, that you admit excist in your first part of your responds. It's just forgotten in this part and the vegan can't have a cat. Altough the vegan has the option when taking a cat, to reduce harm to the prey that will be eaten, because the cat is now back in the wild as I've been saying all along. And the vegan has to argue against holding pets, because they can't give them to a foster care, because that would make them implicit with what (at least in your perception of a vegan is) they believe is morally wrong. But the cat will keep eating and what ever it is it eats will keep dieing.
Well, I guess me and the woman in your last example will partially disagree for now. I do still think that vegans can have a cat, because of what Is stated earlier. Considering we have to keep repeating ourselves, I think it's fair to say we can do something else with our time.
@Kwek00
[quote]And thats why I have to keep repeating that a cat isn't a human, because you say you get it but you keep forgetting it in your reasoning.[/quote]
lol i can't understand why you think cats being carnivore with no choice in the matter has any bearing on the arguments i am making.
I don't think i can't make it any clearer that these choices are all about what the morality of the human actions.
[quote]And the vegan has to argue against holding pets, because they can't give them to a foster care, because that would make them implicit[/quote]
That doesn't make them complicit in the industry. That means they are a) not letting the cat go shred animals in the wild b) not participating in the taking of animal life and c) not killing the cat which would be absurd.
But it seems we can't help but talk at cross purposes so i agree we can end the discussion there.
Have a pleasant day✌️
[quote]And thats why I have to keep repeating that a cat isn't a human, because you say you get it but you keep forgetting it in your reasoning.[/quote]
lol i can't understand why you think cats being carnivore with no choice in the matter has any bearing on the arguments i am making.
I don't think i can't make it any clearer that these choices are all about what the morality of the human actions.
[quote]And the vegan has to argue against holding pets, because they can't give them to a foster care, because that would make them implicit[/quote]
That doesn't make them complicit in the industry. That means they are a) not letting the cat go shred animals in the wild b) not participating in the taking of animal life and c) not killing the cat which would be absurd.
But it seems we can't help but talk at cross purposes so i agree we can end the discussion there.
Have a pleasant day✌️