Keeping dogs, cats as pets unethical....

[marko]

Unethical? Hmmm. In some sense, I guess so. It really depends on the pet. Certainly I'm against zoos where pets are in jail. I guess there's a point to be made that homes are still jails.

Some pets (like most of the pets on this forum) seem to have it really good - -but for others, i wonder if they would 'choose' to be pets. The higher up the evolutionary ladder, the more it seems 'unethical'.

If there is other (more powerful) intelligent life out there, and they thought humans were cute, As a sentient being, I wouldn't want to be anyone's pet...... Am I being ridiculous?

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/08/k...ys-scientists/

[hazelrunpack]

Well, housecats are not native in North America, so letting them loose at this point would be highly unethical, not only for them, but for the natives they take a toll on. As for dogs--they aren't native anywhere in their current state, so who's to say what their 'emotions and their full autonomy' even entail? And lets not even get into goldfish, which can also wreak havoc on native ecosystems...

I guess, in my view, we're picking and choosing between different ethical dilemmas. I do wish there would be a ban on keeping fad-driven exotics from the pet market, though. Especially exotics that pose a recognizable danger if they escaped or were released.

I wouldn't want to be someone's pet, but we are all guided and controlled by society. Should we dissolve society and be cut loose to live or die on our own so we can experience our proper 'emotions and full autonomy'? (Some days I think so )

My hunch is that this is a PETA-funded research study that the article reported on. I can't see any link to the actual study, or any information on who funded the study--and the results are reported by a newspaper, not a scientific journal. To my eye, that puts the whole thing in that nebulous gray area of pseudo-science.