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 »
BlueVeins · 22-25
Cats don't [i]necessarily[/i] require meat to live,
https://www.ecodogsandcats.com/meal-time/cat-food/
but obviously there are obviously health conditions which might necessitate it. For example, my parents' cat is prediabetic and thus, can't consume any carbs at all. Any cat food made from plants is gonna have some of that, even if it meets every other nutritional need a cat may have. Vegan cats can also have issues with urine pH, but this can be measured and corrected for.
Ignoring all that, a cat in a shelter will consume as much meat as a cat in a home, so why would it be immoral to transform the former into the latter? I struggle to find a reason. A feral cat will kill rodents and birds for food, so why is it immoral to bring that cat inside and kill farm animals on its behalf? The amount of death doesn't clearly decline in that case. You could shoot the cat, sure, but it seems absurd to expect people to kill a member of their own family. The only scenario where it's clearly immoral imo is when the cat is purchased from a breeder, in which case the alternative was the cat not existing to begin with, and thus not killing any animals.
Having said that, I do think vegans have a moral responsibility to make [i]some[/i] effort to reduce the damage caused by their cats' diet. Examples include:
-Trying out a vegan cat food brand and seeing if it works
-Supplementing in meat of non-sentient sessile bivalves
-Supplementing in meat of less sentient insects
-Supplementing in vegetables for your cat (which is advisable for health reasons anyway)
-Attaining items like cutting room scraps, which do not contribute to market demand for meat
-Feeding the cat lab-grown meat when it becomes available
https://www.ecodogsandcats.com/meal-time/cat-food/
but obviously there are obviously health conditions which might necessitate it. For example, my parents' cat is prediabetic and thus, can't consume any carbs at all. Any cat food made from plants is gonna have some of that, even if it meets every other nutritional need a cat may have. Vegan cats can also have issues with urine pH, but this can be measured and corrected for.
Ignoring all that, a cat in a shelter will consume as much meat as a cat in a home, so why would it be immoral to transform the former into the latter? I struggle to find a reason. A feral cat will kill rodents and birds for food, so why is it immoral to bring that cat inside and kill farm animals on its behalf? The amount of death doesn't clearly decline in that case. You could shoot the cat, sure, but it seems absurd to expect people to kill a member of their own family. The only scenario where it's clearly immoral imo is when the cat is purchased from a breeder, in which case the alternative was the cat not existing to begin with, and thus not killing any animals.
Having said that, I do think vegans have a moral responsibility to make [i]some[/i] effort to reduce the damage caused by their cats' diet. Examples include:
-Trying out a vegan cat food brand and seeing if it works
-Supplementing in meat of non-sentient sessile bivalves
-Supplementing in meat of less sentient insects
-Supplementing in vegetables for your cat (which is advisable for health reasons anyway)
-Attaining items like cutting room scraps, which do not contribute to market demand for meat
-Feeding the cat lab-grown meat when it becomes available
@BlueVeins
[quote]Cats don't necessarily require meat to live,[/quote]
I know that vegan cat food is sold. I'm not sure the science is there to back it up.
[quote]The amount of death doesn't clearly decline in that case.[/quote]
But as a vegan you wouldn't be participating in what you consider to be a an unethical system. If the cat is going to be eating meat either way, surely it's the more moral choice not to participate.
[quote]Cats don't necessarily require meat to live,[/quote]
I know that vegan cat food is sold. I'm not sure the science is there to back it up.
[quote]The amount of death doesn't clearly decline in that case.[/quote]
But as a vegan you wouldn't be participating in what you consider to be a an unethical system. If the cat is going to be eating meat either way, surely it's the more moral choice not to participate.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@Pikachu [quote]I know that vegan cat food is sold. I'm not sure the science is there to back it up.[/quote]
The studies we have on vegan cat food have generally been encouraging. I agree that we need more research on the subject to make sure it's completely safe, but if it were critically unhealthy, we'd at least know that by now. Further adoption of these vegan cat foods would help us get a clearer picture.
[quote]But as a vegan you wouldn't be participating in what you consider to be a an unethical system. If the cat is going to be eating meat either way, surely it's the more moral choice not to participate.[/quote]
That option isn't more moral; it's simply shifting costs from yourself to a creature with no moral agency. There are cases where moral cost shifting is legitimate (e.g. accepting moral costs in cases of nuclear blackmail gives the perpetrator of the blackmail more power), but in this case, the animal very clearly isn't acting on a higher strategic level and can't be expected to apply moral consideration for its actions.
The studies we have on vegan cat food have generally been encouraging. I agree that we need more research on the subject to make sure it's completely safe, but if it were critically unhealthy, we'd at least know that by now. Further adoption of these vegan cat foods would help us get a clearer picture.
[quote]But as a vegan you wouldn't be participating in what you consider to be a an unethical system. If the cat is going to be eating meat either way, surely it's the more moral choice not to participate.[/quote]
That option isn't more moral; it's simply shifting costs from yourself to a creature with no moral agency. There are cases where moral cost shifting is legitimate (e.g. accepting moral costs in cases of nuclear blackmail gives the perpetrator of the blackmail more power), but in this case, the animal very clearly isn't acting on a higher strategic level and can't be expected to apply moral consideration for its actions.
@BlueVeins
I think that woman in the video you shared was citing some problems with UTIs especially for female cats.
I wonder too about the price tag. Do you know how those foods compare to regular cat food?
I did a quick google scholar for results on vegan cat food but didn't find anything that encouraging. But it was a pretty superficial search lol
[quote] it's simply shifting costs from yourself to a creature with no moral agency[/quote]
How so?
I can't stop people from eating meat but i can refuse to participate in it myself.
I can't stop people from owning cats and feeding them meat but i can refuse to participate in it myself.
That seems to me to be the morally superior choice for a vegan.
I think that woman in the video you shared was citing some problems with UTIs especially for female cats.
I wonder too about the price tag. Do you know how those foods compare to regular cat food?
I did a quick google scholar for results on vegan cat food but didn't find anything that encouraging. But it was a pretty superficial search lol
[quote] it's simply shifting costs from yourself to a creature with no moral agency[/quote]
How so?
I can't stop people from eating meat but i can refuse to participate in it myself.
I can't stop people from owning cats and feeding them meat but i can refuse to participate in it myself.
That seems to me to be the morally superior choice for a vegan.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@Pikachu [quote]I think that woman in the video you shared was citing some problems with UTIs especially for female cats.
I wonder too about the price tag. Do you know how those foods compare to regular cat food[/quote]
I think you're referring to the urine pH issue mentioned earlier, right? Low urine pH -> urinary blockages -> medical emergencies & UTIs? Yeah, that's a legitimate risk, but it can be managed by measuring urine pH periodically. I'll concede that this and the price issue is bad from a practicality standpoint, but that doesn't change the fact that it's morally a better thing to do.
[quote]How so?
I can't stop people from eating meat but i can refuse to participate in it myself.
I can't stop people from owning cats and feeding them meat but i can refuse to participate in it myself.
That seems to me to be the morally superior choice for a vegan.[/quote]
These situations aren't analogous. In the former case, the actual amount of animals killed declines as a consequence of your non-participation. In the latter case, the actual amount of animals killed does not decline; it remains constant. Choosing not to act is still a choice.
I wonder too about the price tag. Do you know how those foods compare to regular cat food[/quote]
I think you're referring to the urine pH issue mentioned earlier, right? Low urine pH -> urinary blockages -> medical emergencies & UTIs? Yeah, that's a legitimate risk, but it can be managed by measuring urine pH periodically. I'll concede that this and the price issue is bad from a practicality standpoint, but that doesn't change the fact that it's morally a better thing to do.
[quote]How so?
I can't stop people from eating meat but i can refuse to participate in it myself.
I can't stop people from owning cats and feeding them meat but i can refuse to participate in it myself.
That seems to me to be the morally superior choice for a vegan.[/quote]
These situations aren't analogous. In the former case, the actual amount of animals killed declines as a consequence of your non-participation. In the latter case, the actual amount of animals killed does not decline; it remains constant. Choosing not to act is still a choice.
@BlueVeins
I guess i'm not understanding your validation of the difference.
Keeping a cat and feeding it meat doesn't decrease the number of animals killed.
Not keeping a cat doesn't decrease the number of animals killed.
If neither choice results in fewer animals being killed then how is it not the more ethical choice to not be a party to the killing?
If you can't stop it, how is it not better to refuse to participate?
I guess i'm not understanding your validation of the difference.
Keeping a cat and feeding it meat doesn't decrease the number of animals killed.
Not keeping a cat doesn't decrease the number of animals killed.
If neither choice results in fewer animals being killed then how is it not the more ethical choice to not be a party to the killing?
If you can't stop it, how is it not better to refuse to participate?
LordShadowfire · M
@BlueVeins I sincerely hope you don't own a cat.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment