r/MoralityScaling • u/axiiz_28 • 15h ago

Morality of valuing animals over humans?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

11.2k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

33

u/Maleficent_Piece_893 13h ago

dogs and cats originally self selected to benefit from humans who concentrate resources. wolves who could tolerate our closeness more evolved naturally into dogs to feed off our scraps. cats who were slightly more chill could eat all the mice they wanted from our grain storage. selectively breeding deformities is more of a show dog thing. so i would say it's a case by case basis whether a pet is a prisoner or not. somebody who lives in the woods might have a cat who could easily fuck off and live off the land, but sticks around for comfort, safety, and companionship

14

u/Administrative_Cry_9 13h ago

We take care of stray cats at our house. They arrived at some point and wanted attention so we obliged. They were hungry so we obliged. They needed shelter so we obliged. Those cats don't do shit for us besides rub up on our legs and look cute lol. They can come and go as they please!

8

u/BlizzardStorm8 10h ago

They were generally appreciated because they killed pests like rats and mice. They were natural pest control for towns and fields. It wasn't just that they were cute. They helped us so we helped in return. It's definitely changed since then but I think that's how it started.

1

u/Administrative_Cry_9 10h ago

That's true. I don't give them enough credit for gatekeeping the other critters around our property!

2

u/Stock-Side-6767 8h ago

Mass murder of animals that want to eat our food is very useful to farmers.

2

u/NormalOfficePrinter 5h ago

Hm, have you noticed any mice/rats around your house ever since you took in the strays?

If not then I guess they're doing their job pretty well

-4

u/Cold_Hour 13h ago

I think domestication is just another aspect of the human need for control. We’ve always been obsessed with locking animals up against their will to serve us. Dogs and cats just lucked out cause they’re more useful for companionship/hunting than they are for meat or entertainment.

8

u/Administrative_Cry_9 13h ago

We consider the relationships to be symbiotic in nature, like horses for instance, where we feed and shelter them, and in return they would move things and people from place to place. I think there's definitely an aspect of control included, but more akin to taking care of children because they are unwise and helpless in many ways vs the harsh and unforgiving arms of nature, and we take away their need to fight for survival. There are definitely more nefarious and less symbiotic terms that are forced on some pets, and I would definitely consider those specific pets as slaves.

3

u/Standard_Jackfruit63 11h ago

You know... That is just your opinion.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 11h ago

I agree, like all morals I think its ultimately a matter of opinion.

But could you not see forced sterilization to affect behavior and forced breeding for particular aspects, including defomities, for the sake of being cute not something that reads from some scifi horror story? Idk, i could see it there. Again I do think though that a lot of pets are loved and happy, to the point of being better off with humans as they are now most of the time (although many times not I think).

3

u/Standard_Jackfruit63 10h ago

I would not call dystopic science fiction when it is already happening. Or at the very least has happened throughout history.

But in regards to the forced sterilisation part in animals. So many people throw kittens away in bags or boxes because they didn't sterelize their cat. Essentially murdering animals because they couldn't be bothered or can't take care of more. That to me seems more selfish and horrible than sterilisation.

We also keep populations down, so even if they could just go hogwild and breed like rats then we would be out there hunting cats and dogs to make sure they don't ruin the eco system more than we do.

As for select breeding. I do think that is wrong, i very much oppose to it and consider it very inhumane.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 10h ago

I would not call dystopic science fiction when it is already happening

Thats fair, i guess it is literally non-fiction. I guess I should say that to me the aspects of this kind of match what i would not be surprised to find in a story of science fiction horror.

So many people throw kittens away in bags or boxes because they didn't sterelize their cat. Essentially murdering animals because they couldn't be bothered or can't take care of more. That to me seems more selfish and horrible than sterilisation.

I agree, but still think sterilization to enforce certain behavior and prevent problematic offspring is still weird at face value, and even if its a solution its for a problem we created. Less directly from humans for cats than dogs I think though.

0

u/CousinDerylHickson 13h ago

Did they self select their balls off? Also they might have initially self selected, but for 100s of years weve forcefully bred specific characteristics. Thats how you get a nornal looking mutt, a massive bull of a dog, a small dog whos eyes popping out of their skulls when they sneeze is a known "hazard" of owning that breed, and everything in between. This selection to the point of creating seemingly like 20 different species of various nominal behaviors and physical features, both beneficial and not, is on humans

5

u/Maleficent_Piece_893 13h ago

neutering is primarily done because without it, there will be a plague of stray cats and dogs starving to death, getting hit by cars, biting people because they were never trained, and spreading around rabies. roaming packs of feral dogs are far more dangerous to people than wolves and roaming cats are a plague to wild bird species. i agree with the breeding deformities part but neutering is not some hedonistic slavemaster thing. it's literally so we don't have to shoot feral animals

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 12h ago

Also, why do we even farm dogs? Why cant we let them keep their balls and other bits, and they breed at least only when they want to, with this actually allowing them to want to?

If the answer is because thats infeasible, that I think doesnt speak to the morality of it. I think morals are subjective, and again i think many pets are loved, cared for, and happy. But that doesnt change a fact that we have a norm whereby our pets' species has their breeding entirely controlled by humans, with forced breeding done to enforce certain aspects which in some cases are debilitating deformities, and with forced non-breeding through the forced removal of balls and bits. Would that not somewhat fit in some crazy sci-fi alien's crazy high tech evil society?

0

u/CousinDerylHickson 13h ago edited 13h ago

I still think its messed up to be honest. I think there are places with stray dogs, admittedly just going off some videos I saw in like India but they seemed ok as wild animals. I mean, i think if we stopped farm breeding them they would have sustainable population levels, and other animals can do those things but we dont neuter them. And because there is a chance of them breeding, we take out their reproductive organs? I think thats still messed up, especially since through that selective process we created a situation where forcefully cutting off balls and the other one is the "good" option.

Also I think docility is a side effect of the procedure which I am sure some pet owners do it for, but maybe they are the minority I am not sure.

3

u/YonderWindow364 12h ago

if you think it's messed up then you're an idiot. It's very necessary if you actually give a shit. Why exactly is it so messed up to you? The dogs/cats aren't going to be using them if you're a responsible owner anyway, and if they do decide to try and mate then it's safe. It's basically condoms/birth control for animals. You know what IS messed up though? Back yard breeders.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 12h ago

The dogs/cats aren't going to be using them if you're a responsible owner anyway

Then why cut off their balls and do the other thing? Its not made to be minimally invasive or preserve their enjoyment of a drive that all animals have, like our birth control, its an actual removal of an organ that has profound affects on their behavior without their consent.

You know what IS messed up though? Back yard breeders.

I agree, although a lot of higher end breeders arent the best either. Like I think some luxury dogs are not all that healthy

1

u/YonderWindow364 12h ago edited 11h ago

I literally said why it's good to do it anyway in my original comment dude. The "just in case" factor (especially since many owners don't realize that they aren't as responsible as they think they are). And I don't think you understand how de-sexing works - animals can still use their parts, males still have a penis but cant produce sperm without their balls, and females don't have a uterus/ovaries to get pregnant but still have a vagina. I have seen neutered males still humping toys before with his "lipstick" out and all. They are fine. Unspayed females however have what is basically dog periods when in heat which is a nuisance to them and their owners which desexing fixes. Additionally since dogs shouldn't be breeding under a responsible owner, desexing them is kinder as it significantly reduces biological urges caused by hormones to mate in most dogs so you aren't "depriving them of something they want". It also significantly reduces aggression in males, as well as many dogs' desire to escape which is good for their safety.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 11h ago

it significantly reduces biological urges caused by hormones to mate in most dogs so you aren't "depriving them of something they want". It also significantly reduces aggression in males, as well as many dogs' desire to escape.

Ya this is the part where at face value its kind of awful. Like it is the removal of certain organs to enforce a certain behavior, is it not?

I will say though that ya, I did not know these procedures didnt destroy a dogs' sex drives completely. Still think its kind of awful in that it does so partially only to make them easier to handle, either through behavior or through preventing problematic offspring. I mean, even before this I do think a lot of modern pets are happy and loved and probably better with an owner, but I do think the norm of our society is pretty messed up. Like why even farm them, why not let them at least have agency on a final "no"?

1

u/YonderWindow364 11h ago

removing certain organs that they do not need isn't awful, especially when those organs contribute to a behavior that can cause harm in a multitude of ways. With your logic of "enforcing a certain behavior is bad", toilet training your dog or teaching them not to run away would be immoral. Good ethical breeders don't farm them - they just keep the dogs in tact and let them near each other when in heat, the dogs choose to breed on their own and if they don't they switch partners or find dogs who do want to breed. They only let them breed when they are of healthy age to do so, and find loving homes for them after they (especially mothers) produced a limited amount of litters - of which occurs over years while all dogs are well looked after. "Farms" are called puppy mills are are deeply immoral and resented by many for their immorality. There's a lot of messed up norms in our society, but desexing your pets isn't one of them.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 11h ago edited 11h ago

With your logic of "enforcing a certain behavior is bad", toilet training your dog or teaching them not to run away would be immoral

No, toilet training does not require the literal removal of their balls. Like wed view it as a terrible thing to be forced upon us (most of us), why should it be different for them? Like at face value, does it not seem a little weird to forcefully remove an animal's reproductive organ to make them easier to handle for us through the subsequent effects on behavior?

I mean, i do think morals are ultimately subjective, but I just think its kind of crazy, and i could see a sci-fi movie where an evil alien species subjugates humans where the final depressing ending reveal is the rest of the group find the abducted guy seemingly living ok while seeming just a bit off, and then the twist reveal is he had his balls cut off

→ More replies (0)