Animal Slavery

[Minimalist]

Can you support this? Things like barns and fences and cages obviously indicate that the enclosed animals are not just fine with sticking around.

Such structures also keep predators out.

[John V]

My cat literally does NOTHING for me. He simply lives here and comes and goes out of the house as he pleases.

That's not slavery. The only thing I'm getting is an awesome friendship with a great cat.

That's nice. Unless you're arguing that all animals owned by humans are in a similar situation, it's not terribly relevant for this discussion.

---

I once ended up at a seminar about animal ethics, partly by chance. In the end one of the panelists expressed the view that we have the right to exploit animals, because we have assumed the right to do this. (Well, that was the gist of it. He had more explanations, but I won't tire you with them here)

But, would he say that one group of humans has the right to exploit another group of humans, because it has assumed the right to do so? That would be advocating slavery.

Like I said, convenience. To the extent that humans can ease the suffering of animals, we do so... as long as it doesn't deprive us of something we want or need (food, clothes, entertainment, plowed fields, etc). I don't think of it as slavery because when I think of that term I think of people acting against people, not animals. But you could make a case that it comes down to us deciding that we're sufficiently above other creatures so as to treat them in such a manner.

I think this is the justification most people use.

[Cato]

I must recuse myself on account of my fondness for bacon.

[Doggey75]

I own 16 pets. 9 Snakes,3 Dogs,2 Hamsters,1 leopard gecko and 1 Chinchilla. They are all living the life. Snakes really dont care,as long as they get feed they are happy. But, there are certain needs for other animals. But, as long as you give them love and care it is not slavery.

[KUSA]

Why don't you ask the animals what they think about it.

Oh snap they don't give a fuck.

OK, you're justifying animal slavery by our greater mental capacity.

Here you go Christian. They must obey their human master.

Holman Christian Standard Bible:
Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ

[bennyboy]

Pet animals are a special case. They've been bred so long to BE pets, that to allow them to exist in any other capacity would represent a horrific violation of contract: "YOU will have your evolution controlled by us, WE will cuddle and feed you and take care of you in every way that we can imagine, since we've destroyed the natural viability of your species." You can't take a miniature poodle and set him "free." That would be retarded.

The same goes for large-uddered milk cows: they'd surely be unviable in nature because of the phenotypes we've imposed on them through selective breeding. Or pigs-- I don't think if you turned domesticated pigs loose in nature that they'd be anything but a snack for wolves or other natural predators.

That being said, the forced EXISTENCE of millions of animals in poor living conditions-- food animals whose lives are spent in enclosed spaces and then shortened by slaughter, for example-- is morally wrong in my opinion. One of the arguments for abortion is that it's wrong to bring a child into the world if you already know it is doomed to have a horrible life. I don't see any non-anthropocentric and -arbitrary reason why this same standard of preknowledge of suffering shouldn't mean we should not force the existence of those animals.

[KUSA]

Domesticated pigs thrive in the wild. They turn feral and are a huge problem.

[truthBtold]

Release your cat! End the slavery!

Free puss n boots damit!!!

---

Wait a minute...... we r not to own people? WTF... Who am I gonna claim on my taxes?? I need a deduction. ..

[sven]

I once ended up at a seminar about animal ethics, partly by chance. In the end one of the panelists expressed the view that we have the right to exploit animals, because we have assumed the right to do this. (Well, that was the gist of it. He had more explanations, but I won't tire you with them here)

But, would he say that one group of humans has the right to exploit another group of humans, because it has assumed the right to do so? That would be advocating slavery.

That depends on what you mean by right. Before the slaves were emancipated in the USA, I believe slave holders had a legal right to own people as property. Do I believe that this was good from my etichal viewpont?
No, not at all. I am a secular humanist, so I believe that we as human beings have to decide together what is acceptable human behavior. What I am trying to say is that humanity treats animals the way it does because it is able to. The opposition isn't strong enough to prevent it, and the animals obviously lack the ability. Those who are for animal rights must face a fait accompli type of situation that has been in place since human history began -- long before that, even.
Having a right and being right isn't always the same thing.

[Angrboda]

I don't see any non-anthropocentric and -arbitrary reason why this same standard of preknowledge of suffering shouldn't mean we should not force the existence of those animals.

Funny that you should preface this with "non-anthropocentric," without justification, because by insisting that it be so, you've pretty much made whatever rationale you adopt for your stance an arbitrary one.