You're viewing a single thread.
I always wonder how vegans justify owning animals without their consent.
They don't. Pets aren't vegan.
Adopting non-human animals that would otherwise be killed for lack of facilities to care for them is basically the only way a vegan can end up with individual custody. Even then, it's harm reduction and not ideal.
Sanctuaries with professional full-time staff are better, but there are mass graves everywhere full of non-humans that there were no spots in a sanctuary for.
Adopting non-human animals that would otherwise be killed for lack of facilities to care for them is basically the only way a vegan can end up with individual custody.
That’s still owning an animal when it hasn’t consented to being owned.
In medicine there is a concept called "implied consent". Suppose you come across a human who is dying, they are not able to say that they would like you to save their life. You are assumed to have consent to try, assuming they have specifically not refused consent (e.g. through an advanced care directive) because there is the implication that they would prefer to live than die.
There is not really a good reason to apply this concept only to humans. For example, if you saw a train bearing down on an oblivious wombat moving the wombat off the tracks (or scaring them off or whatever) is obviously something you should try, despite generally having moral reservations about interfering in their life, because wombats generally aren't trying to commit suicide.
We can assume most abandoned animals that were formerly pets (or in entertainment industries or whatever) would like to go on living given that they continue to try staying alive. Although approaching that as ownership is definitely non-vegan, like if you take one into your life with a mindset that you can just stop caring for them or sideline their needs when inconvenient that is not vegan.
Veganism is centered around minimizing harm either directly or indirectly. Why are you so focused on consent?
Maybe the better question is why don’t you care about consent?
Well I do, but my cat really doesnt. She never consented to any of the food ive given her now I think of it. She just eats regular friskies though, cause she's a sloppy bitch and thats the way she likes it.
We have a cat.
We let the cat out the door.
The cat keeps coming back.
Is it? I can open my front door, and my dog will just stand there and look out. If there's a squirrel, she'll chase after it, but then come right back.
That seems like consent to me.
Have you ever seen a photo of a huge elephant tied by a rope to a stake in the ground? If you have you might have wondered how that tiny stake and rope could hold such an enormous, powerful creature.
You might have thought it was some high-tensile steel rope with the stake buried 10 feet into the ground. But then you look, and no. It’s just a wooden stake and a frayed-looking rope.
How can this be?
While young and weak an elephant is tied by a heavy chain to an immovable steel stake. No matter how hard the young elephant tries to pull the stake from the ground or break the chain, it cannot. From then on no matter how big and strong the elephant gets it believes that when it’s tied to a stake it cannot move.
As long as the stake is there it is powerless.
Outdoor feral cats are terrible for the environment/local fauna, dogs are domesticated so much that an outdoor feral life is miserable for them. It is absolutely compatible with veganism to give a home and care to cats and dogs who would otherwise be out on the streets. Buying specialty/novelty breeds from a breeder is not.
Veganism is less about absolutes, and more about reducing/not supporting animal harm and suffering wherever possible. Most vegans would agree that taking in a cat or dog and feeding them appropriate (meat) food is better overall then letting them roam feral. It is a very utilitarian view with regard to animals' wellbeing.
Im not vegan but I do have vegan relatives (with cats). Also you don't need to be vegan to agree with the points I brought up in the first paragraph.
Plenty of them do think it's wrong.
To be fair i frequently consider the ethics of owning pets.
I am not vegan and have multiple pets. There has only be a short section of my life i lived without.
I don't think i could personally choose to own a dog, though i love the one my partner came with and have fond memories of those from my youth.
its just how restrictive their freedoms are. Almost always in a closed area or on a leash. It’s a conscious adult animal who are we to say its wrong for it to act on its instincts. They cant leave or complain much, Its practically enslavement.
Cats however can roam freely and it’s not uncommon here for cats to visit multiple homes, possible finding a different house to live. Cats only listen if they want to and instinctively act with no regard of your human ideal. So i see much less issue there having them a part of a family.
Now before every online wildlife enthusiast screams at me for not oppressing their roaming space. Wild cats are native where i live.. locking them in is locally considered very cruel.
The fact we have to discuss that is an argument for just not owning any pets though.
Outdoor cats kill many native animals and most places consider them an invasive species.
They are only a meaningful problem where no native feline species are present. Asia, Africa and Europe (excluding islands) have native wild cats. House cats are a direct descendant of the African wild cat and have been domesticated and spread since ancient times. They can be a danger to the "genetic distinctiveness" of wild cats in some places. But they mostly are not the same level of danger to native species like they are in America and Australia.
I am aware and the damage they can do is legit, but people seem to automatically assume everyone lives in such place and i have been burned before.
As far as i am aware the concept of the family cat being a wild/stray that decides to just live at your house is an ancient dynamic here.
I once found a cat in need and took it to a vet where they found it had a chip. Returned it to the official owner, they already considered it the neighbors cat more than theirs and those neighbors hadn’t seen it for 3 months. They assumed it found some better place like rich lonely elders.
I assume you'll concede absolutely nothing to the "what about cats who roam free but come back of their own free will" point, as you don't think cats count because they're cruel invasive bird massacring demon monsters?
A friend had a cat move in voluntarily, so guess that would be one way. It's still an outdoor cat and can come and go as it pleases, it just seems to prefer staying there. It just gets food, scratches, and a place to stay, but is technically pretty much a wild animal. It behaves as if its lived with them for its whole life and tends to sleep next to my friend in her bed at night.
It's not vegan, that's all there is to it. Some keep animal companions since it's less harmful for them than a shelter but considering them "owned" is treating animals like property which is not vegan.
Trying to differentiate between owned pets and animal companions is splitting such fine hairs that it might as well be the same thing.
Ultimately, veganism relies on personal decisions of morality. It's not fully prescriptive and leaves room for differing opinions. The question here is whether or not the relationship is exploitative.
This leaves some room for nuance. There's a difference between purchasing a pet from a breeder, which adds further demand, and adopting an animal that would otherwise be euthanized, for example.
This leaves some room for nuance.
There is no room for nuance in a fucking circlejerk community, if you disagree with me you’re my number one enemy and I will destroy you and your reputation.
Uhh... Ohh... OK. Please don't hurt me! 😳
I fed my cat lettuce and now its first investigative documentary is coming out titled "Catastrophe"!
I always thought that as an obligate carnivore if you feed the cat lettuce it explodes in a little furry fireball.
It actually breaks down into little soot sprites who then immediately get to work building a multi-story wooden gazebo around the place the cat once was.
Words matter, mindset matters blah blah dont have the time for a "your hairsplitting vs. my careful differentiation" debate rn
Claiming ownership of an animal that doesn’t (and is unable to) consent overrules careful differentiation of words and mindsets.
Right which is why I said "less harmful than shelters" it's harm reduction not harmless
What if the animal is born in your property and never tries to leave because it wants to stay?
What then? Im not sure what your trying to say here. Animal on my property are my pets? Genuinely don't know what your hypothetical is meant to address?
Likely I misintepretted your post. I think I was saying its harmless in some cases not just harm reduction, but its not much point to make. Sorry!
No harm done 😄
If you let a cat outside and they come back, that would be the closest you could get to an animal consenting, without actually talking to them. Also dogs naturally drifted to humans, so dogs chillling with humans is kind of their natural behaviour? The rest would be harder to justify.
But if you let a cat outside and it dies then you’re a murderer with blood on your hands.
If it goes on a murder rampage then you’re an accomplice to murder.
That's what makes cats so great!
I think the guy running my cat over is the murderer, not me letting her outside.