Should it be legal to harm your pets [Debate]
Pets are legally owned by their human owners.
Being cruel to pets effects nobody else in a negative manner(assuming their is one propeitor).
So why can people not abuse their pets? They are not humans and hence should not be covered by a legal system devised for and by humans. Animals who are not property can be massacred and enslaved yet nobody bats an eyelid. Those who are owned should not be entitled to rights, as that infringes on the private property rights of the owner and it is hipocritical for us as a society to ban cruelty to pets whilst condoning far worse practices.
Being cruel to pets effects nobody else in a negative manner(assuming their is one propeitor).
So why can people not abuse their pets? They are not humans and hence should not be covered by a legal system devised for and by humans. Animals who are not property can be massacred and enslaved yet nobody bats an eyelid. Those who are owned should not be entitled to rights, as that infringes on the private property rights of the owner and it is hipocritical for us as a society to ban cruelty to pets whilst condoning far worse practices.
(edited 9 years ago)
Why would any reasonable and sane person be interested in legalising cruelty to pets?
Most people regard it as abhorrent and with good reason, psychopaths who harm people usually work their way up from harming pet animals iirc.
Ownership does not confer the right to do whatever you want with a piece of property. You may legally own a Ferrari but you are not entitled to drive it around the M25 at maximum speed.
Most people regard it as abhorrent and with good reason, psychopaths who harm people usually work their way up from harming pet animals iirc.
Ownership does not confer the right to do whatever you want with a piece of property. You may legally own a Ferrari but you are not entitled to drive it around the M25 at maximum speed.
They aren't 'property' in the same way a guitar is. To call them that presupposes they can be treated cruelly, so invoking private property rights is a circular argument.
The purpose of the law is to uphold the morality of the current society, and the vast majority of people in our society would consider causing animals pain to be immoral. Of course there is no objective foundation for this - there is nothing to say harming a human is objectively wrong, either - it's just generally accepted that causing pain is wrong. Animals can feel pain.
As to it being hypocritical, you're entirely right, but the fact that thousands of people are slaughtered in Africa doesn't mean murder should be legal, and similarly farming abuses don't justify pet abuse.
The purpose of the law is to uphold the morality of the current society, and the vast majority of people in our society would consider causing animals pain to be immoral. Of course there is no objective foundation for this - there is nothing to say harming a human is objectively wrong, either - it's just generally accepted that causing pain is wrong. Animals can feel pain.
As to it being hypocritical, you're entirely right, but the fact that thousands of people are slaughtered in Africa doesn't mean murder should be legal, and similarly farming abuses don't justify pet abuse.
Typical ****ing TSR bolllocks.
Original post by Joinedup
Why would any reasonable and sane person be interested in legalising cruelty to pets?
Most people regard it as abhorrent and with good reason, psychopaths who harm people usually work their way up from harming pet animals iirc.
Ownership does not confer the right to do whatever you want with a piece of property. You may legally own a Ferrari but you are not entitled to drive it around the M25 at maximum speed.
Most people regard it as abhorrent and with good reason, psychopaths who harm people usually work their way up from harming pet animals iirc.
Ownership does not confer the right to do whatever you want with a piece of property. You may legally own a Ferrari but you are not entitled to drive it around the M25 at maximum speed.
Yes but you cannot drive your ferrari at such speeds due to the harm it could potentially inflict on others.
Original post by Octohedral
They aren't 'property' in the same way a guitar is. To call them that presupposes they can be treated cruelly, so invoking private property rights is a circular argument.
The purpose of the law is to uphold the morality of the current society, and the vast majority of people in our society would consider causing animals pain to be immoral. Of course there is no objective foundation for this - there is nothing to say harming a human is objectively wrong, either - it's just generally accepted that causing pain is wrong. Animals can feel pain.
As to it being hypocritical, you're entirely right, but the fact that thousands of people are slaughtered in Africa doesn't mean murder should be legal, and similarly farming abuses don't justify pet abuse.
The purpose of the law is to uphold the morality of the current society, and the vast majority of people in our society would consider causing animals pain to be immoral. Of course there is no objective foundation for this - there is nothing to say harming a human is objectively wrong, either - it's just generally accepted that causing pain is wrong. Animals can feel pain.
As to it being hypocritical, you're entirely right, but the fact that thousands of people are slaughtered in Africa doesn't mean murder should be legal, and similarly farming abuses don't justify pet abuse.
A slightly better response than the above, yet still misguided.
Firstly if the morality of society is as you have conceeded, hypcritical, what authority does it hold?
Secondly, to call them property in no way presupposes they can be treated cruelly and yes they are, how are they any different from a guitar? A good guitar in the hands of a skilled guitar player benefits society more than Mr Nibbles.
Original post by Academic Bruv
A good guitar in the hands of a skilled guitar player benefits society more than Mr Nibbles.
Mr Nibbles in the hands of a skilled owner benefits society more than a skilled guitar player (see rescue dogs, sniffer dogs, those which help the blind, etc.)
Original post by Academic Bruv
Firstly if the morality of society is as you have conceeded, hypcritical, what authority does it hold?
Secondly, to call them property in no way presupposes they can be treated cruelly and yes they are, how are they any different from a guitar? A good guitar in the hands of a skilled guitar player benefits society more than Mr Nibbles.
Secondly, to call them property in no way presupposes they can be treated cruelly and yes they are, how are they any different from a guitar? A good guitar in the hands of a skilled guitar player benefits society more than Mr Nibbles.
You say that "you cannot drive your Ferrari at such speeds due to the harm it could potentially inflict on others". You assume that harm to a human is bad. I'm saying that harm to an animal is bad in the same way that harm to a human is bad, whereas you seem to be saying that morality should be based only on what harms humans, and that pain caused to an animal is irrelevant.
Because morality is subjective, there is nothing to say either of us are correct. However, I suspect most people would be of the opinion that causing pain to an animal is intrinsically bad.
There is no authority - it's up to us to create authority, and we do that based on our instinct for what is and isn't bad. A lack of objectivity is not to be feared, because in practice there's rarely any confusion.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Academic Bruv
Pets are legally owned by their human owners.
Being cruel to pets effects nobody else in a negative manner(assuming their is one propeitor).
So why can people not abuse their pets? They are not humans and hence should not be covered by a legal system devised for and by humans. Animals who are not property can be massacred and enslaved yet nobody bats an eyelid. Those who are owned should not be entitled to rights, as that infringes on the private property rights of the owner and it is hipocritical for us as a society to ban cruelty to pets whilst condoning far worse practices.
Being cruel to pets effects nobody else in a negative manner(assuming their is one propeitor).
So why can people not abuse their pets? They are not humans and hence should not be covered by a legal system devised for and by humans. Animals who are not property can be massacred and enslaved yet nobody bats an eyelid. Those who are owned should not be entitled to rights, as that infringes on the private property rights of the owner and it is hipocritical for us as a society to ban cruelty to pets whilst condoning far worse practices.
Of course it shouldn't be legal. Harming your pets is immoral under any moral philosophy, I would think. It entails unnecessary suffering and, using the rule of universalizability, you wouldn't want it being done to yourself.
Furthermore, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because we still barbarically enslave and massacre nonhuman animals unnecessarily in the meat industry, it doesn't mean that we can barbarically harm our pets. So, your argument is fallacious. Moreover, slaves used to be owned, but it didn't mean that they shouldn't have been given rights as they eventually were, because we're talking about morality, not some pathetic "private property rights" nonsense. The law should reflect what's moral and what's not. We should be looking to end all animal cruelty by ensuring that people can't harm pets, that the meat industry is abolished, and that animal experimentation is phased out.
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?