Does anyone else think that domestication of animals is not just unethical, but plain evil in its nature?

Does anyone else think that domestication of animals is not just unethical, but plain evil in its nature? We striped animals out of their independency, and basically made them our willing slaves

CRIME Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Only if you believe the same is true for humans (it is)

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Also a lot of modern pet dogs don't even see their owners as part of the pack, i forget what it was called, something like caretaker effect, or zookeeper effect.
    But basically if you have a bunch of wolves in a zoo, they aren't tamed, but they are not going to attack the zookeeper and may even play with him etc, but they would never consider the zookeper part of their pack, and some domestic dogs are basically like that but hunting dogs consider their owners as part of the pack.

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine you live in Iron Age Europe, you're hungry, you go out hunting, would you free your hunting dogs just because of moral reasoning?you wouldn't even think about it because you are hungry, there's no time for philosophy and introspection, that was our species for 99% of it's existence, so are they even guilty of domesticating dogs at all? feels like they were on the same primal urges as the dogs themselves were.

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Animals can't comprehend their enslavement.
    > Let's say you sat down with a man in captivity. He was raised in captivity with his parents, who were also raised in captivity. You can speak his language, whether its a real language or one his family made up from their captivity. The man has 0 knowledge of the outside world, ALL he knows is where he has lived.
    >You sit with him, and explain where he is, who he is, and life outside of captivity.
    Regardless of what he does next, of whether he wants to leave or stay, whether he believes you or not, the concept of enslavement, of captivity and a complete lack of personal freedom, is something he can comprehend.
    We, as humans, have the ability to comprehend these things.
    >Now lets say that you do the same with a jaguar at a zoo. Lets say that some device has been invented that allows animals to understand what you're saying.
    >You explain to the jaguar where it is, about it's captivity and the concept of a life outside of the zoo
    The jaguar would not be able to comprehend such things, because it's a fricking jaguar.
    And therein lies the solution of your ethical conundrum. Animals do not care that they're in captivity so long as they're happy and healthy. Captivity, slavery, is something they physically cannot comprehend, therefore the ethics do not apply.
    Our job is to treat the animals in our care with respect and make sure they're happy, healthy and able to live comfortably. And there's nothing wrong with that.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, because animals cannot be slaves.
    Animals aren't humans, therefore the term slavery cannot apply to animals. Therefore any moral quandary when it comes to animal ownership is simply down to whether or not the animal is healthy and happy, which they are bar abusive exceptions. Therefore owning animals is morally neutral.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >We striped animals out of their independency

    You are applying a liberal ethos to nature which does not work because it entails a human experience which does not apply to animals and because on a foundational level liberalism is incorrect about human nature to begin with.

    Chiefly being that the basis of liberalism is derived from the idea that man naturally yearns for freedom and some level of independence due to the poor understanding of anthropology at the time which assumed early humans operated mostly in solitary family units. However we now know that such interpretations were largely wrong and early humans were heavily clan based and stratified, demonstrating that man instinctually desires order and structure above "freedom" that liberalism argues as being a fundamental truth. You can even look to nature and you will see similar patterns of hierarchies and tribalism across the board.

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sounds like you view the world through an eternally cucked libshit lense. Might as well start crying about how we encroached on their territory and took away their land or kill so many in such huge numbers. Animals ≠ people. They can’t comprehend that they’re ‘slaves’ (barring maybe the very most intelligent ones), they only care that their most base instincts are satisfied and met.
    Also dogs/cats self domesticated

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/3oum8Rb.gif

      >We striped animals out of their independency

      You are applying a liberal ethos to nature which does not work because it entails a human experience which does not apply to animals and because on a foundational level liberalism is incorrect about human nature to begin with.

      Chiefly being that the basis of liberalism is derived from the idea that man naturally yearns for freedom and some level of independence due to the poor understanding of anthropology at the time which assumed early humans operated mostly in solitary family units. However we now know that such interpretations were largely wrong and early humans were heavily clan based and stratified, demonstrating that man instinctually desires order and structure above "freedom" that liberalism argues as being a fundamental truth. You can even look to nature and you will see similar patterns of hierarchies and tribalism across the board.

      Both based. Both true. Listen to these posters. Seeing the world the way you do now OP will have you eventually questioning whether or not it’s ok to even take a step on a blade of grass.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Dogs domesticated themselves early on. The indoor fido bullshit where we genetically build snub nosed abominations is evil, yes.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    what makes you think you have freewill?

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody forced that wolf to approach humans

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes it's the most reddit concept imaginable and it's the cause of people no longer breeding

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Other animals use other animals for their own benefit, or for food. Humans are just extra smart animals.

    Ants breed aphids so they can eat them. They raise them and show them where to eat so they get nice and plump. If that's not immoral than neither is domestic cattle.

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    No animal has ever been “independent”, literally every living thing is slaved in dependence upon the whims of other living things and circumstance. From food and shelter to microscopic flora to macro and micropredation. Domestication just adds some new dependencies (human-related) and lessens the importance or reduces the impact of others.

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    No because nature itself is amoral.

    /thread

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nature's amoral, sure.
      But humanity itself came up with the concept of morals and therefore morality could be applied to our actions.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        So stop eating meat. Or at least stop eating factory-farmed chickens and pigs and veal calves that live their short lives in horrendous misery, squalor, pain and darkness.
        Don't wag your little dick around pretending to be virtuous while you're actively supporting the animal-torture industrial complex.
        I'm not PETA. I'm not even vegetarian. But if you're not vegetarian, or better still vegan, don't be tickling your own balls and pretending to care about animals.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          It just sounds like you desperate to shut down the harmless theoretical discussion
          Just hide the thread and move on with your life man

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            That wasnt even the same anon, look at the poster count. The "theoretical discussion" you want to bring is just stupid, thats all. If you can't even discern diffetent posters whats the point. Refer back to my first post

            https://i.imgur.com/CbBNMpL.gif

            No because nature itself is amoral.

            /thread

            /thread

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not at all. You are free to carry on with your important discussion about ethics in human treatment of animals while sucking down your factory-farmed chicken tendies.
            You can actually taste the misery. I taste the misery more in ham than I do in chicken, but I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it's because I feel more pity for the factory-farmed pigs than I do for the factory-farmed chickens because the factory-farmed pigs are more like you and me.
            I do still hate the pain and squalor that we inflict on factory-farmed chickens, but I relate more to the pain and the squalor that we inflict on the factory-farmed pigs.
            Of course that's a completely fricked-up thing for me to say because I can't possibly imagine the suffering of a sow in a sow stall.
            But all you animal lovers out there, go out and get your bacon!

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >pretending to care about animals
          Why do you think one can't eat meat and still care about animals? Are you baiting? This isn't black and white, you can absolutely still respect nature and life as a whole whole eating a steak.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >falling for bait
            OP is moronic

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        No. Wild animals are in a state of perpetual stress, hunger, and suffering. They need to experience a constantly elevated stress level in order to be on edge enough to survive.
        Dogs and cats in particular CHOSE domestication.

        Domestic animals do not have human philosophical concepts of liberty and freedom either. Only shit like apes, orcas and dolphins might.

        Morality based on what fundamental truth and where is the proof this fundamental truth is part of material or spiritual reality? Morals are ultimately a ghost story and a way of making arbitrary behavior sound reasonable in order to enable group cooperation. Don't put too much thought into them beyond how they affect consensus/cooperation and survival. Taking "morals" seriously is feminine.

        Yes it's the most reddit concept imaginable and it's the cause of people no longer breeding

        Actually that's women's liberation and the skyrocketing cost of raising a family.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *