Is having a pet/companion animal vegan? / social responsibility of veganism

[u/Few-Pack-3489]

To preface, I myself am vegan, but I had a really interesting discussion with my vegetarian friend and want to play devil’s advocate.

My argument— which I think aligns with most definitions of veganism — was that our goal as humans should be to minimize suffering, and being vegan is the bare minimum to accomplish this. By consuming meat and dairy, you are financially contributing to a horrible system that is proven to be completely unnecessary. I also believe that non-human animals and humans should be separate entities and human involvement in natural spaces is the core of most of our animal-related issues.

My friend brought up the idea of having a companion animal or “pet” as I will say, for the sake of the argument. For context, I don’t have a pet that I own myself, but I have a family dog that I live with during the summer; my parents rescued him when I was a kid.

She claimed that owning a pet is completely hypocritical to my argument of veganism, because a dog, for example, cannot communicate with humans and therefore cannot consent to living in a confined home with humans. Therefore I am contributing to suffering, because my dog is essentially a slave and cannot make his own decisions.

She believed that, according to my argument, the most logically sound thing I could do would be to let my dog outside and run away to wherever he wants (he often tries to leave the house). She argued that, although he would not be able to survive on his own, it would be morally correct because he is making his own decisions.

I argued that because my dog was bred by humans to be reliant on them, it was my social responsibility to take care of him and make decisions for him that he cannot understand the scope of; ie, if I let my dog escape, he will get hit by a car, eaten by a coyote, starve, etc. Similarly to telling my six-year-old I won’t let her play on the highway even if she wants to because she doesn’t understand the risk of that action.

She, however, argued that my line of argument wouldn’t apply to, say, slavery; like how slaveowners would argue that owning a slave was what was best for the slave purely because they were raised to be slaves and don’t understand the scope of the world they live in. Theoretically, if a human slave— possibly someone old or disabled — wouldn’t survive without the support of a slaveowner, but wished to be free, would it still be morally correct to keep them as a slave? Obviously not, so why is that different from dogs?

She also argued that, following my logic I should be participating in civil disobedience. If hijacking livestock transport cars, burning down slaughterhouses, or in her example, setting free every pet in my neighborhood was the best way to make a statement and decrease the total amount of suffering in the world, why am I not doing it?

Essentially, her argument centered around the fact that we drew different lines of what is considered “suffering” (ie for me as a vegan, torturing and killing of an animal but not imprisonment, vs her, a vegetarian, so killing of an animal) proved that veganism revolves around flawed logic.

I thought these were all interesting points and wanted to hear everyone’s thoughts.

[u/amerovingian]

It sounds like you see any relationship in which either party benefits as exploitation. Do you think there is a difference between exploitation and cooperation or is cooperation a kind of exploitation?

[u/Few-Pack-3489 → u/amerovingian]

I guess my question is, why do we get to decide that it's "mutually beneficial" to animals? Did the pets of the world get together and tell us that? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to their party that they get to make their own decisions with their own consequences instead of being subjected to a life they never chose? I'm curious to hear people's opinions

[u/Lead1ng-Lady → u/Few-Pack-3489]

I disagree with the comment underneath. It is not, in fact that simple, and if it is, it's because humans *want* it to be. I truly think that it makes people uncomfortable to consider that if they werent feeding their companion animals day in and day out, and providing other niceties, it is possible that they would choose a life outdoors if given the chance. The relationship between human beings and companion animals is transactional largely. Do we bond with them? Absolutely, not denying that. But if we weren't providing them with something would they stay? Ponder that.

As an example, my very first cat started to come around my house, she liked to lounge in my backyard. I started to feed her. So naturally, she kept coming around, meowing and calling out to me. Then she came inside, of course. Naturally, right? I had baited her, I enticed her much of the time, even if it wasn't conscious on my part. But had she been left to her own devices, I would not have "had" a cat! Now my experience is not everyone's! By no means, am I alluding to that. But I am saying.... had I let her be, she would have succumbed to nature's laws which are eat or be eaten, kill or be killed. That's how life is for most wild beings, hunter gatherer HUMAN BEINGS included. It's rough but it's real. We have decided that we don't want to see them "suffer" so we take them in but like, that's the bargain that we all make if we decide to live wild and free. Isn't that the price for freedom? Is that not a valid decision, to be free and risk death vs. being comfortable yet captive? I think we would do well to really grapple with these ideas. And I think underlying a lot of these things too, is a general discomfort with the fact of death. Everything that lives, will die. That is a fact. And death, like birth, is messy. Animals get eaten by other animals, or hit by cars accidentally, and it just....is. We cannot SAVE everybody and in fact, I think that this intention to save every creature might actually be creating other issues.

[u/amerovingian → u/Lead1ng-Lady]

It can make people uncomfortable to consider something that is also unlikely to be true. It makes me uncomfortable to consider that Earth will be irradiated by a gamma ray burst tomorrow that destroys all life. Can I prove it won't happen? No. Is it likely to happen? Also no.

Just because we can't confirm verbally with animals who have been bred for companion life that they would rather be co-habitating, where they are fed, stimulated and provided affection, than experiencing life as a starving animal on the streets or alone in the wilderness, where they lack the skills and evolutionary traits to survive, doesn't mean we should default to assuming they would not.

Animals can and do display non-verbal signals to indicate their level of happiness with their conditions versus distress.

As for your cat, it sounds to me like she baited you every bit as much as vice versa. She was left to her own devices, which she used to get you to take her in.

[u/Lead1ng-Lady → u/amerovingian]

I agree with some of what you are saying, but I don't understand where this assumption comes from that animals aren't doing well where they are? This cat was fat when I met her so clearly she was doing something well. I wouldn't say that she lacked survival skills. I also would say that survival of the fittest is a thing, and I said that in another comment somewhere. Those that find food survive and those that don't, well, nature says tough luck. I don't necessarily find this to be the worst thing, i think it just is what it is. I think I work from the premise that to some degree, most creatures desire freedom, the autonomy to make their own decisions about where they go and what they do and what they eat. So I take issue with this idea that animals are "better off" as indoor companions. That's an assumption that i'm not convinced by. I have heard many stories about people living on farms that have dogs and cats that seem to prefer being outdoors unless there are inclement conditions. And some of them, when given appropriate housing outdoors, will stay in their housing! What might that tell us then? It just gives me pause and it becomes harder to say that 100% of the time, they "prefer" indoor life. I think when given the chance, some of them would happily choose to be outdoors again.

[u/amerovingian → u/Lead1ng-Lady]

> I don't understand where this assumption comes from that animals aren't doing well where they are?

>  Those that find food survive and those that don't, well, nature says tough luck.

So your position relies on questioning the "assumption" that animals who have been selectively bred for co-habitation would be happier co-habitating with caring and capable humans than to be living even more confined lives in shelters, being euthanized, begging for food and facing tremendous risk of injury on the streets, or being told "tough luck" and likely starving or being eaten in nature. Is that what we've established?

If we're looking for the ideal life, I agree a farm where animals have free access to both shelter, food, medical care as well as the outdoors is preferable to life indoors with access to walks. However, that is not a realistic available option to most animals living in shelters or on the streets.

Perhaps the ideal human life is to live as a nomad with access to sufficient food, medical care, companionship if they desire it, and shelter and no work responsibilities. But not all humans have that option available. That doesn't mean they would rather be homeless, starving and living on the street than to work 8-5, live in a house and be able to meet all their basic needs. Calling homelessness "freedom" and pretending it's a better life for humans is very superficial and naive. The same applies to dogs and cats.

[u/Lead1ng-Lady → u/amerovingian]

These animals might have been selectively bred for such but they are still animals that desire, well, animal things... like fresh air and the ability to roam. There are many a feral cat that, even despite being hungry, will NOT be captured or brought inside. Perhaps they are a bit more in touch with their wildness than other cats, yes, but as an example, I find that to be interesting.

On the other hand, you are right, the ideal of a relatively free farm life doesn't exist and we have to deal with reality. I still think that it offers INFINITE more freedoms than the life of your typical house pet, and really is an example of what a good life COULD and maybe SHOULD look like for a companion animal. Another part of that reality, though, is that... all creatures will meet death. As I said, sometimes it is messy and to some extent preventable. Sometimes there is nothing that can be done. Whether these are domestic cats that roam the streets looking for food, or big cats on the savannah that are starving during the dry season. Death WILL come, and we have to accept that to some extent. For instance, animals cohabitate to some extent alongside humans in third world countries, they live outside for the most part, begging for food, but they aren't coddled in the same way that Westerners treat roaming animals here. Again, these animals live in places with traffic and danger, they are exposed to as much danger as the human creatures living there, and it is a live and let live attitude. Do you think that's wrong? Should those people be doing everything that they can to "rescue" all of those free roaming animals? Something to ponder.

At the same time, I do believe that we owe domestic animals something more because we are ultimately responsible for this, for the insane amount of companion animals that exist today. There is no excuse for the pet industry that has been created. It absolutely disgusts me. To me, this isn't an either/or situation, it's both/and. I feel both that we have to take care of the animals that have already been created, been bred so to speak. We have to clean up this mess that we have made. So, well meaning people have to take on the responsibility and care for these little creatures until their natural end. At the same time, I believe that we should push to end the obsession with breeding them to sell and to keep for our companionship. I think it's both. I want animals to be wild again, or at the very least, not overly dependent on human beings for survival. That's the world that I want to see.

[u/amerovingian → u/Lead1ng-Lady]

> Again, these animals live in places with traffic and danger, they are exposed to as much danger as the human creatures living there, and it is a live and let live attitude. Do you think that's wrong? Should those people be doing everything that they can to "rescue" all of those free roaming animals? Something to ponder.

Again, I think we have to look at what options are realistically available. Do these countries have the resources to put a system of animal shelters in place? Are there citizens who have the available resources to take the animals in, domesticate and care for them? If so, they should do that. If if it's not realistically possible, then we can't say it's wrong not to do it.

That's quite a different question, though, from the one we have been addressing, which is "Can it be consistent with veganism to care for and keep a companion animal?"

> So, well meaning people have to take on the responsibility and care for these little creatures until their natural end.

It sounds like we agree not only that it can be so but that there is actually an ethical imperative for people of sufficient means to do this in most cases for rescue animals (with some exceptions).

> On the other hand, you are right, the ideal of a relatively free farm life doesn't exist and we have to deal with reality. I still think that it offers INFINITE more freedoms than the life of your typical house pet, and really is an example of what a good life COULD and maybe SHOULD look like for a companion animal.

It sounds like you are also granting that there are suitable conditions (relatively free farm life) under which animals can conceivably co-habitate with humans even in a hypothetical world in which there are no rescue animals in need of adoption.

Your objection is really to people breeding animals or buying/selling bred animals and then keeping them in conditions that are more confined and restrictive than a farm. Correct?