• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do You Have a Duty or Obligation to Care for Your Pets?

Do You Have a Duty or Obligation to Care for Your Pets?

  • Now

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maybe/Don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    30
Pets are property. If we don't call pets property - at least legally - there's nothing to stop any random person from taking the animal from you.

Legally we certainly don't treat all property the same. While you don't have to maintain your car you do have to perform some minimum amount of maintenance to be allowed to us it on public roads. Same with homes. Homes cannot be occupied unless they meet some minimum standard of habitability.

Morally, again not all property is created equally. Any rational moral system cannot treat all property the same. You can leave a book laying around for anyone to pick up but I don't think you can argue it's morally acceptable to do the same with your loaded firearm.

So, since children aren't property, Joe Random can just make off with them when we are distracted looking the other way, and there is nothing the law can do about it? Or... do you consider children property as well? (in other words, there are non-property 'things' that cannot just be taken, and perhaps pets are also those types of 'things')
 
Your house isn't being routinely robbed by the starving poor, right? What are they going to do, just say aw shucks and starve to death? Let their kids go hungry? Not likely.

our safety net programs aren't perfect, and there's always room for improvement, but they are necessary.

Americans, especially the poor, are far from starving.

fatgirls.jpg

In isolating poverty as the source of increased obesity in women, the
intersections of this data begs reiteration to identify at least one probable source
of heightened obesity in women with limited economic resources. In the unifactor
setting, women are more likely than men to be obese; women of color are
more likely to be obese than Caucasian women; poor women are more likely to
be obese than wealthy women. When these factors are combined, the disparities
in the data begin to align. Women of color are more than twice as likely as
Caucasian women to live at or below the poverty level.[59] What is more, women
in poverty are generally more likely to partake in the social welfare programs
discussed infra. Specifically, food stamps are provided to 4.5 million more
women than men, and 21 million women as opposed to 16 million men are
eligible to partake in the food stamps program.[60] Similarly, women are more
likely to participate in TANF, and TANF participants are twice as likely to
participate in the food stamps program.[61] As such, what seems to unify obese
women in America into a single group is poverty, and one consequence of that
poverty is a shared experience in the American social welfare system. Building
from this empirical analysis, then, the question becomes: is America’s social
welfare infrastructures making women obese? The answer is yes.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1183&context=djglp
 
Last edited:
So, since children aren't property, Joe Random can just make off with them when we are distracted looking the other way, and there is nothing the law can do about it? Or... do you consider children property as well? (in other words, there are non-property 'things' that cannot just be taken, and perhaps pets are also those types of 'things')

On the other hand most people purchase their pets and all purchased things - at least as far as I know - are considered property. People do not purchase children and in everyplace that I'm aware of doing so would be illegal. Further there is an ages old relationship between parents and their children that doesn't fit "purchaser-property" model. More a guardian type of model I'd guess you'd call it. I guess we could ignore "purchased thing" aspect and assume guardian-like relationship with respect to pets but that's really not the way we've treated animals historically.
 
Yes but in our society if you cannot (or will not) properly care for your children then you get gov't help to do so.

It's not that different with pets. A lot of animal shelters are at least partially funded with tax money.
 
It's not that different with pets. A lot of animal shelters are at least partially funded with tax money.

That is not funding (rewarding?) the pet "abusers" - hoping that will end their substandard care; that is placing the pets in a better (well at least safer) environment and allowing for their adoption into qualified new homes.
 
On the other hand most people purchase their pets and all purchased things - at least as far as I know - are considered property. People do not purchase children and in everyplace that I'm aware of doing so would be illegal. Further there is an ages old relationship between parents and their children that doesn't fit "purchaser-property" model. More a guardian type of model I'd guess you'd call it. I guess we could ignore "purchased thing" aspect and assume guardian-like relationship with respect to pets but that's really not the way we've treated animals historically.

It's not really a matter of purchasing so much as legal definition. As a matter of law, animals are defined as property in every state I know about. Domesticated animals or pets are owned by individuals; wild animals are owned by the state (often under common law principles).

The idea that animals should be given legal standing as persons (in some capacity or for some purposes), was first argued in Christopher Stone in his famous "Do Trees Have Standing?" Since then some animals rights groups have made similar or more expansive arguments for changing the status of animals from property to something else. I think even a few laws have been proposed on this, though none has passed.

The implications of doing so, as many have pointed out, would be wideranging and significant. If animals had rights per se, we would have a much different society than the one we have since we depend so much on animal products. Whether that change would be for the good or for the worse is something everybody has to decide for themselves.

I personally think strict animal protection and humane treatment laws are the best way to go, not changing the status of animals. Though for jurisprudential reasons, I agree with Stone that wild animals/natural areas should have legal standing to make it easier to protect them from undo exploitation and destruction.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand most people purchase their pets and all purchased things - at least as far as I know - are considered property. People do not purchase children and in everyplace that I'm aware of doing so would be illegal. Further there is an ages old relationship between parents and their children that doesn't fit "purchaser-property" model. More a guardian type of model I'd guess you'd call it. I guess we could ignore "purchased thing" aspect and assume guardian-like relationship with respect to pets but that's really not the way we've treated animals historically.

Stock is property and they are animals indeed. Pets are generally considered "part of the family", unlike stock, and so are under our guardianship and arenot property. However, some people do treat pets as property, and those people are usually considered horrible people by decent folks.

I am not sure why, but I find it offensive that these things aren't obvious to everyone.
 
It's not really a matter of purchasing so much as legal definition. As a matter of law, animals are defined as property in every state I know about. Domesticated animals or pets are owned by individuals; wild animals are owned by the state (often under common law principles).

The idea that animals should be given legal standing as persons (in some capacity or for some purposes), was first argued in Christopher Stone in his famous "Do Trees Have Standing?" Since then some animals rights groups have made similar or more expansive arguments for changing the status of animals from property to something else. I think even a few laws have been proposed on this, though none has passed.

The implications of doing so, as many have pointed out, would be wideranging and significant. If animals had rights per se, we would have a much different society than the one we have since we depend so much on animal products. Whether that change would be for the good or for the worse is something everybody has to decide for themselves.

I personally think strict animal protection and humane treatment laws are the best way to go, not changing the status of animals. Though for jurisprudential reasons, I agree with Stone that wild animals/natural areas should have legal standing to make it easier to protect them from undo exploitation and destruction.

I think property vs. full personhood rights is a false dichotomy. I think you do too, because you argue for humane treatment.
 
It's not really a matter of purchasing so much as legal definition. As a matter of law, animals are defined as property in every state I know about. Domesticated animals or pets are owned by individuals; wild animals are owned by the state (often under common law principles).

The idea that animals should be given legal standing as persons (in some capacity or for some purposes), was first argued in Christopher Stone in his famous "Do Trees Have Standing?" Since then some animals rights groups have made similar or more expansive arguments for changing the status of animals from property to something else. I think even a few laws have been proposed on this, though none has passed.

The implications of doing so, as many have pointed out, would be wideranging and significant. If animals had rights per se, we would have a much different society than the one we have since we depend so much on animal products. Whether that change would be for the good or for the worse is something everybody has to decide for themselves.

I personally think strict animal protection and humane treatment laws are the best way to go, not changing the status of animals. Though for jurisprudential reasons, I agree with Stone that wild animals/natural areas should have legal standing to make it easier to protect them from undo exploitation and destruction.

Granting animals standing (the ability to sue for relief if they are harmed) seems to me to lead to absurdities. Not only because we use animals products as you stated but because except in for a small number of situations that we'd assume animals would object to if they could (like being eaten) how could we determine that they are being harmed and would want to sue for relief?

I would extend that to wild animals as well. Wildlife protection isn't a burning interest of mine - are there problems there that can't be addressed by regulations?
 
Stock is property and they are animals indeed. Pets are generally considered "part of the family", unlike stock, and so are under our guardianship and arenot property. However, some people do treat pets as property, and those people are usually considered horrible people by decent folks.

I am not sure why, but I find it offensive that these things aren't obvious to everyone.

Why would you differentiate between pets and stock animals? Why do you treat a cow, that's destined to become a steak, differently? What about animals that fulfill both a work and familial role - like sheepherding dogs?

I have two dogs and consider them part of my family but I have no problem also considering them my property. I think you're equating property with I can do whatever I want with them, which I'm not
suggesting at all. I stated somewhere that all property is not created equal equal and it's not a contradiction - either legally or morally - to attach conditions to property that limit what the owner can do with it.
 
I think property vs. full personhood rights is a false dichotomy. I think you do too, because you argue for humane treatment.

One of the issues you'll come up against is there isn't an "other" category in our society. You're either a person, with all the rights that pertain to persons, or you aren't. And in most cases things that aren't are property.
 
Granting animals standing (the ability to sue for relief if they are harmed) seems to me to lead to absurdities. Not only because we use animals products as you stated but because except in for a small number of situations that we'd assume animals would object to if they could (like being eaten) how could we determine that they are being harmed and would want to sue for relief?

I would extend that to wild animals as well. Wildlife protection isn't a burning interest of mine - are there problems there that can't be addressed by regulations?


I hear you. Stone's argument is based on the fact that it has been historically difficult to protect wilderness and wild animals under the law since you have to first provide standing as a litigant, and that's not always possible, even if the law protecting the environment is being violating. So his goal is more pragmatic than philosophical.

In contrast, the Deep Ecology/biocentric/animal rights movement makes a philosophical argument that animals have some sort of personhood (or at least are extensions of our person which is redefined to include the biosphere around us), thus eliminating most development that isn't directly related to our needs. Like I say this would probably be very effective in protecting the environment, but it would mean a total revision of how our economy works.
 
One of the issues you'll come up against is there isn't an "other" category in our society. You're either a person, with all the rights that pertain to persons, or you aren't. And in most cases things that aren't are property.

It is still a false dichotomy, and therefore it is the laws that are inadequate as currently defined. People should be punished WAY more than they are when they mistreat animals, but not punished as much as when they mistreat real persons (like humans). There, that was simple.
 
Why would you differentiate between pets and stock animals? Why do you treat a cow, that's destined to become a steak, differently? What about animals that fulfill both a work and familial role - like sheepherding dogs?

I have two dogs and consider them part of my family but I have no problem also considering them my property. I think you're equating property with I can do whatever I want with them, which I'm not
suggesting at all. I stated somewhere that all property is not created equal equal and it's not a contradiction - either legally or morally - to attach conditions to property that limit what the owner can do with it.

I am not saying that is the way it ought to be. I am saying that is how people think about it. People don't think about pets as stock, and stock is what is treated as simple property. People think about pets as part of the family, as more than property (and perhaps also as property). Perhaps there should be laws about the humane treatment of stock as well, but right now most of us only think of people as assholes who treat pets as mere property.

I am not going to address the issue of the poor treatment of stock. I will say right now that I disagree that we should be allowed to treat dogs and cats as property in any manner. It should be a matter more like custody, rather than ownership. I think it diminishes us to treat them as property (not as much as it diminished us to treat humans as property during slave days, but still diminishes us).
 
Back
Top Bottom