I think as a responsible owner of a pet, he should do something to avoid over-population,and out-of-control-situation of taking care of the pet. Actually, it is for the pet's good and bebefit. Provided that the neuter operation must be done in a way that it would avoid pain-suffering of the pet as much as possible.
Thanks, Davy. I trust that owners of cats, say, have “good” reasons, such as those you raised, to treat their feline companions that way. Nevertheless, I suggest that the following moral issues should also be look into:
(1)The cats can no longer have sex for life. (This is really heavy) (2)The cats can no longer have their own kittens. (This too is heavy) (3)The cats cannot even realise the substantial changes inflicted on their bodies, though they may be aware of their loss of sex drive someday. (This is pitful) (4)The cats cannot even say no should they not agree to their being neutered.
This is true that cats know no birth control or population control, but does it thus necessarily justify their being neutered by their human owners?
No doubt, human's acts of imposing castration on cats are no difference from Nazis' experiments on Jews in concentraton camps. Perhaps even worse. I can only imagine that only alien predators (non-earth residents)may possibly commit such atrocious and barbaric crimes, and only in sci-fi thrillers! The most inhuman acts are always committed by humans. Most human beings are not here on earth behaving humanely in life! Most are monsters manipulating animal life under all sorts of inexcusable excuses! Darwin's theory should actually be about "Evilation" of human beings, not evolution...
i support Davy. If one is really care about the welfare of a pet, they should not raise a pet in the first place. If it is animal right for pets to breed freely naturally, the number of off springs is totally unbearable (as you cannot kill the animals also)
Bare sense of toleration of animals leads to feeling of annoyance. The natural outcome will be killings of animals as pets, without constructive solution.
Therefore a sense of collaboration and accommodation must be cultivated and developed, and the foundation must be built upon creativity, to be nurtured under education.
Human agency, if properly manoeuvred, on a stronghold of eco-philosophy of nature, should be helpful perhaps. Unfortunately we are not yet there, and that explains why concept of animal ethics are very often being laughed at. What a pity! But we must not get frustrated. We are on the road even though it's a very long road.
from human's angle: to learn about love~ as a learning material to show love to the others and to take care of something, the pet. and to know what life is.
To study animal ethics is to query conventional 'human angle and perspective'. If one still discusses the topic from human angle, one never comes out from a vicious cycle of conceit!
In other words, your comment is void of relevant knowledge in this topic, defeating the purpose of joining this course. Please explore more... Thanks.
Let us be not over-confident of ourselves. Human beings are no different from locusts or pests:- 聰明反被聰明誤、 We are cocooned by the cocoon made by ourselves... 自掘墳墓、 自作孳... Our developments so far have made us more powerful and merciless with our cruel means of weapons for destruction, not on our humanity... Earth always looks more beautiful in greenery, fresh air, and blue water, with less people.
I think as a responsible owner of a pet, he should do something to avoid over-population,and out-of-control-situation of taking care of the pet. Actually, it is for the pet's good and bebefit. Provided that the neuter operation must be done in a way that it would avoid pain-suffering of the pet as much as possible.
回覆刪除(By: Davy)
This question is a tricky one. We should answer it philosophically with logical reasoning.
刪除We may not agree upon Heidegger's anthropocentric view of nature in 3 levels (Please refer to M. Heidegger's Letter on Humanism, 1947):
1. The stone is worldless.
2. The animal is poor in world.
3. Man is world-forming
but such simple stratification may still be helpful to our discussion.
[A])Let us start with a person (A) who loves his pet (e.g. a cat) so much that he says my pet (his cat) is my family member!
Moral Principle (A): No family member should be treated as a pet.
Account of relevant facts: The cat is said to be a pet AND a family member.
The relevant facts require that:
(a) A cat is an animal.
(b) This particular animal is a pet.
(c) This particular pet is also a family member.
Practical Conclusion:
According to the above Moral Principle (A),
(i)the person (A) is wrong as his claim that the cat is a family member should disallow him to keep the cat as a pet
AND
the person (A) is also wrong under his claim of ownership that the cat is a pet as such a claim already should disqualify the cat as a family member.
THEREFORE a cat as a pet as a family member NEVER EXISTS.
I will go on attempting another level of discussion later in another blog...
Thanks, Davy. I trust that owners of cats, say, have “good” reasons, such as those you raised, to treat their feline companions that way. Nevertheless, I suggest that the following moral issues should also be look into:
回覆刪除(1)The cats can no longer have sex for life. (This is really heavy)
(2)The cats can no longer have their own kittens. (This too is heavy)
(3)The cats cannot even realise the substantial changes inflicted on their bodies, though they may be aware of their loss of sex drive someday. (This is pitful)
(4)The cats cannot even say no should they not agree to their being neutered.
This is true that cats know no birth control or population control, but does it thus necessarily justify their being neutered by their human owners?
No doubt, human's acts of imposing castration on cats are no difference from Nazis' experiments on Jews in concentraton camps. Perhaps even worse. I can only imagine that only alien predators (non-earth residents)may possibly commit such atrocious and barbaric crimes, and only in sci-fi thrillers! The most inhuman acts are always committed by humans. Most human beings are not here on earth behaving humanely in life! Most are monsters manipulating animal life under all sorts of inexcusable excuses! Darwin's theory should actually be about "Evilation" of human beings, not evolution...
刪除作為一個飼養者，我們應該為寵物作絕育手術。其實說穿了就不過是為了一己方便，可以容易控制和照顧寵物。
回覆刪除然而，我們是否應該考慮動物都有感覺、感受，不只是我們的配角，牠們都有權利可以生兒育女，不可以因為我們自以為人類比牠們高等，而視之寵物，並剝奪牠們與生俱來的本能。
所以在人道立場上，我們不應該為動物作絕育手術。
More properly stated, it should be 天道立場!
刪除人道就是最恐怖的「自然界無間道」，人間道正等待天譴！
i support Davy. If one is really care about the welfare of a pet, they should not raise a pet in the first place. If it is animal right for pets to breed freely naturally, the number of off springs is totally unbearable (as you cannot kill the animals also)
回覆刪除Bare sense of toleration of animals leads to feeling of annoyance. The natural outcome will be killings of animals as pets, without constructive solution.
刪除Therefore a sense of collaboration and accommodation must be cultivated and developed, and the foundation must be built upon creativity, to be nurtured under education.
Human agency, if properly manoeuvred, on a stronghold of eco-philosophy of nature, should be helpful perhaps. Unfortunately we are not yet there, and that explains why concept of animal ethics are very often being laughed at. What a pity! But we must not get frustrated. We are on the road even though it's a very long road.
from human's angle:
回覆刪除to learn about love~
as a learning material to show love to the others and to take care of something, the pet. and to know what life is.
To study animal ethics is to query conventional 'human angle and perspective'. If one still discusses the topic from human angle, one never comes out from a vicious cycle of conceit!
刪除In other words, your comment is void of relevant knowledge in this topic, defeating the purpose of joining this course. Please explore more... Thanks.
在一切動物之中，區別人的主要特點的，與其說是人的悟性，不如說是人的自由主動者的資格。自然支配著一切動物，禽獸總是服從；人雖然也受到同樣的支配，卻認為自己有服從或反抗的自由。而人特別是因為他能意識到這種自由，因而才顯示出他的精神的靈性
回覆刪除盧梭《論人類不平等的起源和基礎》
這可能人與寵物之間的關係，是愛護寵物，還是須要支配的權力，愛它的服從。
Let us be not over-confident of ourselves.
刪除Human beings are no different from locusts or pests:-
聰明反被聰明誤、
We are cocooned by the cocoon made by ourselves...
自掘墳墓、
自作孳...
Our developments so far have made us more powerful and merciless with our cruel means of weapons for destruction, not on our humanity...
Earth always looks more beautiful in greenery, fresh air, and blue water, with less people.
Hi! Worth seeing what's in the SPCA-HK website on this topic :-
回覆刪除http://www.spca.org.hk/welfare/chi/SNAP.asp
(From : Davy Lee)
以下是節錄自愛護動物協會網頁的部分內容：
回覆刪除「香港每年有數以萬計不必要的小狗和小貓出生，很多都是由寵物狗或貓意外交配繁殖所致。......防止這個問題，愛護動物協會主張所有寵物貓和狗都應該接受絕育手術，這還對牠們的健康有好處。」
在下明白愛護動物協會的動物絕育資助計劃有其現實需要(尤其只站於人的立場看有關問題)，惟我們如何判別甚麼貓狗是「不必要的小貓和小狗」呢？縱是小貓小狗，其生命有必要與不必要的分別的嗎？誰來決定必要與不必要？人吧。
「很多(小狗和小貓出生)都是由寵物狗或貓意外交配繁殖所致」-- 何謂「意外交配繁殖」？對誰是意外？小狗和小貓？還是人？人吧。
「所有寵物貓和狗都應該接受絕育手術，這還對牠們的健康有好處。」-- 那些所謂接受絕育手術對健康的好處，有多少除了適用於寵物貓和狗身上，也適用人身上的呢？防止族群數量過度膨漲影響整體生活質素？防止性激素刺激引發侵略甚至暴力行為招致傷亡？防止患性病或性器官腫瘤？全都是吧。假如這些就是支持所有寵物貓和狗都應該接受絕育手術的理由，人豈不是亦應揮刀自宮？