Having pets (again)

[DarlBundren]

Hi everybody,

I am aware that the question as to whether having pets is right or wrong has probably been asked several times around here, but I would still like to ask you something. As far as I can tell, the general consensus is that, from a consequentialist perspective, having pets is a moral thing to do as long as you don't get them from a breeder. Now, what I was wondering is the following: wouldn t it be right, from a consequential standpoint, to let your pets die instead of feeding them other animals? How do you justify having to kill more animals to let them live? I know that when it comes to human beings, it is often argued that although, say, pushing someone under a train in order to save more lives can sometimes be a good decision, that would create a 'world in which we would not be glad to live'. However, the same thing cannot be said for pets. They simply would not be aware of it. Dogs can be fed vegetarian, but both dogs and cats are mostly fed meat. Is it wrong to have them? Any thoughts on this?

[brimstoneSalad]

To having pets, I'll first summarize with a quote from another thread:

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2258&p=24083#p24083

Really, if you want to be super strict about it, it's probably not vegan to have pets at all (and some vegans certainly do feel strongly about that).

I don't agree with that, and particularly when it comes to rescues (even perhaps sometimes for animals that eat some meat although that's more controversial) I don't think a credible argument can be made against it being vegan. Whenever we criticize others, we adopt a pretty heavy burden of proof too.

Only in the case of acquiring an animal for whom all of these apply would I make that argument:

1. Has been bred or sold as commercially desirable rather than rescued from death
2. Has a non-vegan diet (to a non-negligible extent)
3. Is kept in captivity for private reasons (e.g. not bred in a wildlife sanctuary or zoo for conservation/public education purposes)
4. There is no reason to believe this is necessary (e.g. as a service animal where better options are not viable, or as natural pest control)

Short any one of those requirements, I would probably not dare to suggest it was non-vegan.

I would not recommend adopting pets that need to eat meat, as I do not think that's effective altruism and is probably harmful. Adopt vegan pets if you want pets, and let other people adopt the meat eating pets. Rabbits, dogs, and even female cats are probably viable options.

However, many people have such pets (as male cats, or snakes, etc.) since before going vegan, and see it as a commitment. Kind of like the leather shoes you already bought, so you'll wear them out rather than discarding them. The cat you had since before you went vegan you might continue to care for on that basis until it expires, and then just never get another.

If you already have pets that eat meat and you aren't comfortable keeping them, then you could give them to somebody else to care for if you know somebody who wants the animal and is "in the market" for one, or give them up to an animal shelter (even a no-kill shelter).
There is the concern that such an action would not look very good -- it might kind of look like pawning off your responsibility on others, but I wouldn't judge it.
I think killing them would look particularly bad, since it's probably not too hard to find somebody who wants the animal or a no-kill shelter.

it is often argued that although, say, pushing someone under a train in order to save more lives can sometimes be a good decision, that would create a 'world in which we would not be glad to live'. However, the same thing cannot be said for pets.

I think the same might be said for pets, given the responsibility of care you are seen to have taken on. It's a difficult situation.

[Vincent Berraud]

Looking after animals and letting them die would reflect extremely poorly on what we are doing with 99.99999999% of people.

As such, it would be wrong to let them die rather than feed them meat as the consequences would be negative when it comes to advocacy.

[brimstoneSalad]

Looking after animals and letting them die would reflect extremely poorly on what we are doing with 99.99999999% of people.

As such, it would be wrong to let them die rather than feed them meat as the consequences would be negative when it comes to advocacy.

What about killing them with kindness by "setting them free"?

There was a youtuber who advocated that, under the premise that they would survive on their own terms or die, and that cats hate their owners and being in houses, being denied the opportunity to hunt and be hunted as is natural to give them meaning in life through survival. Or something like that.

It was a ridiculous argument on its own merits (it had none), but maybe he was being disingenuous, and lying to trick people into killing their meat eating cats while feeling good about it, all while avoiding the bad PR.

[DarlBundren]

I would just like to point out that regardless of what the 'answer' of this dilemma is, I have both cats and dogs and they are/will be properly fed.

If you already have pets that eat meat and you aren't comfortable keeping them, then you could give them to somebody else to care for if you know somebody who wants the animal and is "in the market" for one, or give them up to an animal shelter (even a no-kill shelter).

I think that if that would be the alternative, then it could be argued that being vegan and having pets would result in avoiding to overfeed them or, in the case of dogs, giving them vegetarian meals if possible. So maybe that is a reasonable answer. Animal shelters are often run by people who don't consider feeding them meat an issue, I am afraid.

As such, it would be wrong to let them die rather than feed them meat as the consequences would be negative when it comes to advocacy.

It certainly would put many people off veganism, I agree. However, I am sure that the same thing can be said for many things that we feel compelled to do as vegans, so I am always a bit skeptical when it comes to the 'it would look bad' argument. It is, importantly, something that people can point to when they want to show our hypocrisy. It's not difficult to dismiss those arguments when they are made on a deontological basis (most of the time), it's more difficult to deal with them if our interlocutor happens to be a consequentialist. Having a cat means having to feed someone meat at least twice a day. It's almost like having a meat-eater child (if not worse since cats only eat meat). Shelters often kill them (not in my country, to be honest) and that is generally something that people accept. How would you feel about giving them to a shelter if that had the best outcome in terms of animal lives?

Again, I am not saying that the 'it looks bad' argument is wrong - It is what I generally tell people. I just wanted to read your thoughts on this.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think that if that would be the alternative, then it could be argued that being vegan and having pets would result in avoiding to overfeed them or, in the case of dogs, giving them vegetarian meals if possible. So maybe that is a reasonable answer. Animal shelters are often run by people who don't consider feeding them meat an issue, I am afraid.

If somebody who wants a cat adopts your cat, that person will not acquire another cat, thus: one fewer cat.

Having a cat means having to feed someone meat at least twice a day. It's almost like having a meat-eater child (if not worse since cats only eat meat).

Cats can eat somewhere between half or all vegan cat food if it's specially formulated.
Males just have trouble with 100% vegan.

As an alternative, you can feed a male cat half vegan and half freegan, supplementing just a bit with kitty vitamins to make up for what's missing in the meat half (since cooked meat loses things; vegan foods are already fortified). It means a little extra work for you, but it's a good option.

Shelters often kill them (not in my country, to be honest) and that is generally something that people accept. How would you feel about giving them to a shelter if that had the best outcome in terms of animal lives?

I'll wait for Vincent's response on that.

[DarlBundren]

If somebody who wants a cat adopts your cat, that person will not acquire another cat, thus: one fewer cat.

You are right. If somebody has already a cat, then that's a good idea. But I guess it would be reasonable to adopt an older cat or dog who would probably be not adopted otherwise if you are able to provide them a good life. What do you think?

I didn't know that cats could eat half vegan cat food. Thanks for the info. I'll look it up on the internet.

[brimstoneSalad]

You are right. If somebody has already a cat, then that's a good idea.

I mean if somebody wants to get a cat.

But I guess it would be reasonable to adopt an older cat or dog who would probably be not adopted otherwise if you are able to provide them a good life. What do you think?

I would not suggest adopting cats in general, and particularly not male cats. It's more reasonable to adopt female cats who can be fed vegan.

I didn't know that cats could eat half vegan cat food. Thanks for the info. I'll look it up on the internet.

Female cats and eat up to all vegan. The problem with vegan cat food is not so much that it's lacking in anything as it has too much of certain things in it (like oxalates) which can cause stones. It's more of a problem for male cats, females can pass them more easily.