Philosophical Vegan Forum

Here's something I just saw, which could be a great example of how confinement in a small cage isn't always in itself cruel (prior I have used estuary animals, or other more general examples).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphiprioninae

Once an anemone or coral has been adopted, the clownfish will defend it. As there is less pressure to forage for food in an aquarium, it is common for clownfish to remain within 2-4 inches of their host for their entire lifetime.

[citation needed] though. It's incredibly interesting, and given their natures, it seems to make some sense. Four inches is amazing. Do you think there's merit to this?

My point is usually, if the natural habitat range is smaller than the cage, there's no problem with the confinement itself.

Reef fish, clownfish in particular, seem to be an almost perfect example.

Any thoughts?

It's still mean to put a dog in a small cage, of course, they like to run around and explore. Different animals with different natural ecosystems can be very... different.

So perhaps having a clownfish as a pet is morally acceptable?

I guess it's still not our choice to decide whether it is confined though.

miniboes wrote: I guess it's still not our choice to decide whether it is confined though.

Well, what is house arrest to a severe agoraphobic?

If it doesn't make any difference to the fish, I can't see anything wrong with it (provided there aren't other related consequences or harms).

I'm sort of with miniboes on this. Even though the fish can live happily, the actual decision to change/decide it's living space shouldn't be up to us. We exercise a right we don't have, because we can.
To stick to the topic: the confinement in itself might not be cruel, but the violation of rights are still wrong.

PPP wrote:I'm sort of with miniboes on this. Even though the fish can live happily, the actual decision to change/decide it's living space shouldn't be up to us. We exercise a right we don't have, because we can.
To stick to the topic: the confinement in itself might not be cruel, but the violation of rights are still wrong.

We really just need more information. The wiki says 'it is common', which can pretty much mean anything.

PPP wrote:To stick to the topic: the confinement in itself might not be cruel, but the violation of rights are still wrong.

Doing so, in this case, you're not violating any of the animal's wants.
It'd only be wrong if he had any desire not to be in that place.
If you're not violating his wants, nor he suffers, and the fish isn't able to tell the difference, I don't see anything wrong.
Having the right to put him there or not is meaningless to the consequences, since the change of place wouldn't make a difference.

thebestofenergy wrote: If you're not violating his wants, nor he suffers, and the fish isn't able to tell the difference, I don't see anything wrong.
Having the right to put him there or not is meaningless to the consequences, since the change of place wouldn't make a difference.

Right. It's a "victimless crime"; the idea of natural rights without victims is a form of dogma. In order to make something absolutely wrong, it has to violate the wants of the victim in some way (such as by causing suffering).

I would still worry about any suffering involved in transportation, and pet stores can be remarkably cruel to fish (accepting a certain amount of spillage, fish dying in overcrowded dirty tanks).

So, procuring the fish might be a problem. There could be a few good breeders out there, but it might be tricky to find one.


And there's another problem: By keeping an aquarium, other people might see it, and think it's cool and decide to do the same thing... but they might not be as responsible. They might run off to a typical pet store, and support an industry with a relatively high degree of cruelty in the process.

You'd have to be careful to educate anybody who saw the aquarium to avoid that outcome.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

thebestofenergy wrote: I would still worry about any suffering involved in transportation, and pet stores can be remarkably cruel to fish (accepting a certain amount of spillage, fish dying in overcrowded dirty tanks).

So, procuring the fish might be a problem. There could be a few good breeders out there, but it might be tricky to find one.


And there's another problem: By keeping an aquarium, other people might see it, and think it's cool and decide to do the same thing... but they might not be as responsible. They might run off to a typical pet store, and support an industry with a relatively high degree of cruelty in the process.

You'd have to be careful to educate anybody who saw the aquarium to avoid that outcome.

I agree with the above.
About the dogma: so a real life Truman Show starring a person who doesn't like to travel, would be fine?

PPP wrote: About the dogma: so a real life Truman Show starring a person who doesn't like to travel, would be fine?

Sure. Assuming said person had no inherent objection to being the star of a TV show without knowing about it. For a great many people, they would like to be part of a TV show, whether they knew it or not.

Humans are a bit more emotionally complex and can have some strange wants and hangups, though.

Notable might be a sense of shame, from being watched by others, wherein even if they didn't know about it they would not want it to happen. This is true for some people.

Just as some humans have an inordinate interest in what happens to their bodies after they die. Fish, not as much, since they don't likely even have concepts of those things by which to formulate the interests.

It's a much more complicated discussion to ask whether we should respect the irrational desires of others, including other humans, if violating those desires without the person's knowledge doesn't cause them suffering. But if the desire isn't even there, then there's no issue.

I respectfully disagree. To make another movie analogy: the Matrix would be fine in your opinion? I say no.

"For a great many people, they would like to be part of a TV show, whether they knew it or not." -this is sort of contradicting, if they never knew about it you can't say it's what they wanted or that it fits their wants.

I think this reasoning in the end would only lead to: the most powerful have the right to control the less powerful as long as they do it at a high enough level.
Obviously this discussion has led away from the clown fish and it's living space, but I find it an interesting one nonetheless.