PETA slogan-"Animals are not ours to use"

Vegan Dogs

Forum Legend
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Reaction score
196
Age
65
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
PETA slogan..."animals are not ours to use" is this a belief ? philosophy people believe in and practise ?

Even non vegans...know this PETA slogan ...and so i ask and suggest...is this the fundamental basis of veganism or not ?

If it is...then i think it is simple and explains the WHY it is unethical according to veganism to breed and kill animals for any purpose.

it is a concept of "ownership" legally that this statement and belief involves.

Gary L Francione the Abolitionist lawyer vegan leader ...creater of the 6 principles of Abolitionist Veganism...addresses primarily in his focus to explain veganism...the notion that humans have the "right" to "own" either humans or non humans is what is morally wrong.


PET ownership is fundamentally wrong therefore as it involves humans "owning" animals and forcing sterilisations vaccinations food and leads and collars on them that control their entire lives.


Some species of wild animals are illegal to "own" by humans so protected against ownership.

The reason we have the "right" to breed and kill animals is because they are under the law..."things"..."chattels" that we own and therefore entitled to kill if we do not wish to keep owning them...that includes pets owned i add of course in case anyone doubts that...there is no distinction between a farm animal and a pet animal if the owner wants to kill them. Legally that takes place every day for both unwanted pets or farm animals....for whatever reason...no reasons are needed to kill an animal someone owns.


So i present those issues as open to replies and views firstly....


I agree...that ownership of animals by human animals is wrong ethically.

No animal in nature keeps pets. No animal in nature breeds and kills captive prisoner animals.

No animal in nature keeps and feeds an adult animal of another species for life.


All those things...are what we humans do to animals we own.



Now...any objections or views on that principle ?

Are animals...ours to own and use ethically or not ? PETA vegan slogan and Gary L Francione law professor leader of Veganism ethics says not if Vegan.


Which leads me neatly to the prompt about ...?

Using animals as pet food fodder.

I have ethically and philosophically a problem...if i accept...as i do...that "animals are not ours to use" ...then i do not see how i can then show that i breed and use animals by killing them and feeding them to an animal i keep as a prisoner pet unnaturally just because i prefer one animal to 3000 other animals.



Where ? does "responsibility" for taking lives start and end ?

If only responsible for the animals that I own...then that permits me to kill and eat even animals others own...but that i buy so end up owning when dead of course.


That is the fundamental problem i have ethically with anyone trying to justify killing bred by humans animals for use as pet food.


Views welcome....addressing the first issue...do people accept that..."animals are not ours to use" is the basis of veganism or not ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlandersOD
Question: What should be done with the current populations of dogs and cats in animal shelters? Philosophy is important, but there are also practical problems that need to be solved now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
Wow. that's a lot to unpack. I don't think i can hit every point but let's see.....


I agree...that ownership of animals by human animals is wrong ethically.

Mostly. I don't have any animal pets. I never have. Oh wait - I used to have an aquarium with fish.
However, I do believe that horses, dogs, and cats are special cases. I may be wrong but I think even PETA thinks so. I'm pretty sure that PETA makes an exception for "companion animals". And even if they don't - i do to some extent.

The way I handle it ethically is that humans and animals have formed partnerships. Each member of the partnership brings something to the table.

No animal in nature keeps pets. No animal in nature breeds and kills captive prisoner animals.
No animal in nature keeps and feeds an adult animal of another species for life.

This is debatable. Well, you said in "nature" so that means Koko and her kitten doesn't count. But there are baboons that kidnap puppies. Although they may not be "pets". that might be an example of a partership. Then there is the ants that farm aphids.

but this is all besides the point in my book. If vegans don't allow meat-eaters to use the argument that animals kill animals as an argument for eating meat. Then I don't think it's valid to use animal behaviour as a premise for not keeping pets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlandersOD
Question: What should be done with the current populations of dogs and cats in animal shelters? Philosophy is important, but there are also practical problems that need to be solved now.


hi lol...sneaky asking another question before replying to one main one noted

here is the deal based on that...

I reply to your question.....but you...then reply to mine...

do you believe animal ownership is wrong ...and that the PETA slogan of..."animals are not ours to use"...which is based on animals being free as the goal of veganism not owned as captives of humans...is what you believe in ...?

or do you think it is ok to own animals breed them and kill them and continue as is the law currently to see animals except some protected by law wild life speces....as ownable property by humans....that they are entitled to kill if they wish and eat them or just dump them ? due to being "owned property" under the law.

OK...that main BELIEF in veganism question reput...i now answer you follow on focus only on PET animals question

1st. the reason pet animals are in shelters....and killed if not wanted as property by humans to own...is due to the first issue....animal ownership

If animal ownership were seen as not natural and gradually people held that view...animal ownership would reduce and so would the 4 million per year killed in shelters in the usa alon

fyi...having researched this topic...it is the ame 10 percent dumped and killed in every nation that has pet ownership

fyi...100 years ago pet ownership was not seen as normal people kept animals if useful to draw transport or hunt for them etc...it really is a 19th century onwards fashion to keep captive animals aspets.Then the dangerous lions pets were banned so leaving just fairy docile easily managed not dangerous animals designed in fact by humans kept as pets.

laws change when enough people in society change their views..be that human slave ownership or animal ownership or womens votes rights.

2. Should the tax payer fund keeping unwanted pet animals alive ?

obviously not. It costs already tax payers...non animal owners money clearing them off the streets where they are risking car etc accidents and passing on diseaeses or attacking people....and also destroying them.

Keeping them alive forever is just a huge expense....in cages where really they do not get taken out on any quality walks never off chains and collars ?

So once that question is accepted...no ...the tax payer is not liable to pay to keep unwanted animals in cages who were once pets ...then killing them is what happens.

Charities do collect money to keep funded by charities shelters going financially...but everyone realises there is just not enough money to keep all alive forever and the reality is...10 percent of all pets end up killed in shelters when dumped. Many are unsocial ...old...sick...or plain just not wanted.


So i have replied to your question...not that you suggested what YOU thought was a solution to the dumped in shelters animals.


Those 2 issues affect what happens to animals unwanted as pets in shelters.


What happens to rescue chickens and turkeys and pigs ? every wondered about them ?

Why do vegans...not offer to buy those heading to slaughter and put them in rescues they fund ?

I suggest the answer is...because it would cost too much money is clear.

So ...why are dogs and cats different to chickens pigs and turkeys ? why ? should chickens pigs and turkeys be kileld to feed unwanted dogs and cats ? is another logical follow on question ?

I have been...to "rescues" where they have on one side..."rescue rabits and chickens" then on the other side..."rescue cats and dogs" that they buy in killed rabbits and chickens to feed.

What is the point of that ? well ?

Why take money...from donations...to keep alive rescue pet rabbits and chickens but feed those same species to the rescue pet dogs and cats in that rescue ?

Can you answer that issue ? because is it the "title" of "rescue" that gives a rabbit the "right to life" ? and so the farm rabbit bred and killed in a tin or packet of dog food life is not worth anything ?



Too many questions ?

Should i answer my own questions ? well i will ....not that you have yet answered one main question of mine...but i will set an example...and reply to my additional related to your question asked issues.....and reply to my additional questions related to that question you raised questions....


I believe...animals are not ours to use. Is the first point as a point of principle and philosophy and practice.


i believe...in "Minimal harm" so that is clear "minimal lives taken or deaths caused"


I believe...the quality of life of a caged in rescue animal is low...be it a farm animal or a pet animal. I do not believe that is a natural or ethical way to force animals to live...as captives...pets of humans.

I believe...there is 99 percent abuse of pets and farm animals that is "unseen" as animals are not in public being tortured but in private so animal ownership is encouraging the 99 percent of unheard about abuses.


I believe...all unwanted animals who were pets should be destroyed....as i believe...if people did not have the "comfort factor" of thinking..."they will be rehomed" there would in a short period of even just 1 year...be a massive drop in the number of pets abandoned and drop in number of pets owned due to people realsing...if not wanted...this animal will die.

This would benefit millions of animals lives.


Additionally...for those in shelters...i do not believe in keeping them alive in those cages feeding them bred by humans and killed by humans thousands millions of animals. It is not saving any lives at all....for 4 million rehomed per year USA dogs and cats hundreds of millions of baby chicks turkeys pigs lambs were killed bred by humans captives. No lives are being saved by feeding them other animals is the truth.
 
Wow. that's a lot to unpack. I don't think i can hit every point but let's see.....




Mostly. I don't have any animal pets. I never have. Oh wait - I used to have an aquarium with fish.
However, I do believe that horses, dogs, and cats are special cases. I may be wrong but I think even PETA thinks so. I'm pretty sure that PETA makes an exception for "companion animals". And even if they don't - i do to some extent.

The way I handle it ethically is that humans and animals have formed partnerships. Each member of the partnership brings something to the table.



This is debatable. Well, you said in "nature" so that means Koko and her kitten doesn't count. But there are baboons that kidnap puppies. Although they may not be "pets". that might be an example of a partership. Then there is the ants that farm aphids.

but this is all besides the point in my book. If vegans don't allow meat-eaters to use the argument that animals kill animals as an argument for eating meat. Then I don't think it's valid to use animal behaviour as a premise for not keeping pets.


So you would say...some species of animals should be allowed to be kept as pets ? horses dogs and cats...but not any other species ? is that your view ?

It seems to be so from what you wrote.


Otherwise...your last sentence criticising the statement that it is unnatural to keep an animal for their entire adult life as a "pet" is invalid surely....my point was...it is as unnatural for a human to keep a human as a pet or owned under total control of their lives for all their human life as it is for any other species....that some animals nuture different species babies is not the same at all as keeping an animal ...human or non human...for their entire lives as "pets" dependants controlling every aspect of their lives.


Why ? should addtionally..dogs cats and horses...be forced to live as captives of a human...have their genitals cut off...deprived of the natural right to choose to have families of their own...simply due to the unilateral decision of the owner of them ? the human...no consent to all those unnatural forced on them abuses of natural choices ?

Just because any animal once captive becomes compliant and wags their tails ...is no different to human slaves who learned to comply and smile and be grateful for food and pets from the slave owners who called them even "members of their families" and boasted about how well groomed and cared for they were....it is not a fair free situation but domination by the human species abuse of a living creatures rights.


Just because some species are more compliant...does not change the unequal unfair domination aspect of the relationship.....i assure you as many know...any animal can be made "tame" to comply and show affection to a dominant owner of it...that does not make it right for some species to be forced to be toys to humans as more useful entertainment when walking up and down the road with some animal with a collar and leash on it.

I had to SMILE when you wrote.. "each brings something to the table" as that of course is what animals are usually...they are on tables to be eaten lol wink wink...i am sure you did not mean it literally like that...but it is an interesting expression....that shows...that there has to be "payback" involved...we humans...expect to GET something from a relationship with a pet...and that is "using" the animal i suggest and ethically wrong.

SURE we GET pleasure from seeing wild life like birds and foxes etc free...but they do that freely...not with a view to entertaining us...as pets have to...the way captive animals behave is forced on them by their unnatural not free status...and to think...those species we GET more from that we value for petting needs or entertainment needs should be subjected to a life of being PETS is unfair to them...their species...is not free and is forced into a lifestyle and deprived of life with their own species .....so the status of PET is wrong for any animal.

Additionally of course...you did not address the issue of breeding animals to feed pet ones.....but...i repeat the issue of...if "animals are not ours to use" then we cannot ethically justtify breeding and killing some to feed some prisoner pet ones. If a pig...is not ours...their lives are not ours to take from them. That we have taken the liberty and right to reproduce away from a pet dog is clear...just how much TAKING are we going to do ? take their lives ?


Well actually PETS lives are taken...if people owning them do not want them anymore.

So how do you live with that issue i wonder ? i say...pet ownership is wrong and causes the deaths of unwanted ones...you if you encourage pet ownership..are actually recognising..that animals lives do not matter if of no USE as pets to humans who own them and are implying killing unwanted property that animals are is ok.

Right now...there will NEVER be a law forcing any pet animal owner to not kill that animal...in this matter...pets and farm animals are exactly the same under the law...and PETA everyone has to recognise this...the title PET for an animal does not mean it has any right to life.
 
Round my way are a lot of dog owners, too many.


good well observed point.

This is the problem also however...how many ? is too many ? everyone will have a different view on this issue of who should own a dog...how housed...how treated...very vague never verifiable criteria only are ever possible as guidlines...and totally unverifiable for the even basics...99 percent of owned animals are out of sight so 99 percent of abuse or failing in even the basics goes undetected


If as should be the case...no one owned an animal as a captive...there would be 99 percent reduction in pet abuse cases.

John Bryant of the RSPCA wore a book some years ago after years of being animal welfare occupeid..

called..."fettered kingdoms" saying pet ownership needed to cease...to free the dog of their chains and servitude as entertainment to humans.

After years of seeing abuse...the 1 percent that end up even seen and reported ...he realised...animal ownership is wrong and leads to this abuse.
 
This post...has digressed a bit to PET OWNERSHIP issue...which is actually an ANIMAL OWERSHIP Issue

Gary L Francione...the vegan leader professor of law says... owning any sentient being is wrong.

Owning human slaves who were described as well treated "members of my family" was common as a similar argument pet owners use today.

Whatever the fantasy of their situation and status is...the reality is they are OWNED and if any owner wants to have them killed ...genitals cut off...leashed...then all that is perfectly legal.

One cannot have ...ownership and restrictions on all those actions if a human or non human animal is an OWNED animal is obvous.....people really struggle with this...there is nothing...the law can do...to stop the owner of anything or anyone killing them castrating them caging them....if that is what the owner wants to do.

The only way to avoid those forced on the owned animals issues ...is if they were not owned. No pets owned is the goal of a egan world where then 99 percent of the current pets abused badly would end...but even now...their lives are not free and they are pathetic shadows of what a wild animal life would be

Many rightly think...because their pet cat or dog lives a more safe from diseases accidents starvation life than a wild animal does...that this justifies pet ownership.

So why do people not fund feeding all that wild life that starves to death ? lions...foxes...who have accidents...are not vaccinated...get diseases ....why ? is it only the captive pet animals that people deal with ? it is moral hypocrisy to think the pet lives are worth more than any animal life out there...farm animal...or wild animal...and the only reason people feed and pamper and take to vets the pet animals is because they GET things they like from them for petting needs and the other animals do not matter really to them.

That is why people think it is ok for their well fed vet treated housed pet cats to go kill wild defenseless birds...they the pet cats would be DEAD if out not fed and cared for by their owners and those birds lives not lost...nor the bred by humans and killed by humans farm animals that people feed their pet cats.

it is all about...what people want to GET from animals that determines what value people put on their lives hey
 
There's even a dog owners yearly parade down what's called the Wortley Rd. Village in Old South.
 
There's even a dog owners yearly parade down what's called the Wortley Rd. Village in Old South.


aha i noticed you mark youself as a FLEXITARIAN

so ? you think animals ARE our right to breed and kill.

That is the answer to the question of this post.

Understood.

You have an objection to too many pet dogs also noted.

Well suggest to the owners they bbq them or feed them to the cat shelter when no longer wanted maye

Maybe you actually save more animals lives being not vegan not a pet owner and flexitarian....than a supposed calling themselves vegan person who causes the deaths of bred by humans thousands of animals per year to feed a non vegan animals bred by humans pet dog or cat hey.
 
I was very interested to see...that hardly any interest in this topic.

Why is the maybe ?

"animals are not ours to use" is not a principle that people agree on is possibly why.

Which is interesting.

What that implies is...people think...it is ok to "own" animals and just argue about how they are "treated"

Seems some people would like to make a list of which animals should be allowed to be "pets" and which not...as it is...only some wild animals are banned as being "owned" by humans mostly on grounds that they are "too dangerous to humans" rather than any reason related to an animals right to live free of human controls.

So in essence...people do not object at all to animals being owned by humans. Be they farm animals pet animals or wild animals that are not dangerous to humans.

We can cut off their genitals...reproduce them...kill them...and even kill the wild animals...none of that is ethically wrong is what people really believe.

Interesting...that the principle of "animal ownership" and "animals are ours to use" is actually what most people believe in despite the vegan leaders trying to tell us that it is wrong.

All we need to bother about really is...what colour we dye the fur our our pets...and how we kill the wild lions we pay for and the farm animals we also pay for.

The principle that "non human animals are ours to use" is unchallenged really. All people wish to argue about is which ones and how we use them. Which leaves a great deal of energy and effort on promoting the ones we are most interested in and ignoring those we are not so interested in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlandersOD
PETA slogan..."animals are not ours to use" is this a belief ? philosophy people believe in and practise ?

Even non vegans...know this PETA slogan ...and so i ask and suggest...is this the fundamental basis of veganism or not ?

If it is...then i think it is simple and explains the WHY it is unethical according to veganism to breed and kill animals for any purpose.

it is a concept of "ownership" legally that this statement and belief involves.

Gary L Francione the Abolitionist lawyer vegan leader ...creater of the 6 principles of Abolitionist Veganism...addresses primarily in his focus to explain veganism...the notion that humans have the "right" to "own" either humans or non humans is what is morally wrong.


PET ownership is fundamentally wrong therefore as it involves humans "owning" animals and forcing sterilisations vaccinations food and leads and collars on them that control their entire lives.


Some species of wild animals are illegal to "own" by humans so protected against ownership.

The reason we have the "right" to breed and kill animals is because they are under the law..."things"..."chattels" that we own and therefore entitled to kill if we do not wish to keep owning them...that includes pets owned i add of course in case anyone doubts that...there is no distinction between a farm animal and a pet animal if the owner wants to kill them. Legally that takes place every day for both unwanted pets or farm animals....for whatever reason...no reasons are needed to kill an animal someone owns.


So i present those issues as open to replies and views firstly....


I agree...that ownership of animals by human animals is wrong ethically.

No animal in nature keeps pets. No animal in nature breeds and kills captive prisoner animals.

No animal in nature keeps and feeds an adult animal of another species for life.


All those things...are what we humans do to animals we own.



Now...any objections or views on that principle ?

Are animals...ours to own and use ethically or not ? PETA vegan slogan and Gary L Francione law professor leader of Veganism ethics says not if Vegan.


Which leads me neatly to the prompt about ...?

Using animals as pet food fodder.

I have ethically and philosophically a problem...if i accept...as i do...that "animals are not ours to use" ...then i do not see how i can then show that i breed and use animals by killing them and feeding them to an animal i keep as a prisoner pet unnaturally just because i prefer one animal to 3000 other animals.



Where ? does "responsibility" for taking lives start and end ?

If only responsible for the animals that I own...then that permits me to kill and eat even animals others own...but that i buy so end up owning when dead of course.


That is the fundamental problem i have ethically with anyone trying to justify killing bred by humans animals for use as pet food.


Views welcome....addressing the first issue...do people accept that..."animals are not ours to use" is the basis of veganism or not ?
It is a fundamental guide for Veganism, but, in my opinion because there are other reasons for becoming a Vegan, I would dispute that as there are reasons other than the ill treatment of animals. Initially at the beginning it probably was the main if not the only reason, but now many turn to it just as a healthier way to live. I don't think we have to right to question that, it would be an invasion of a persons right to make their own decision for their own reasons. My father coined the phrase " animals are not our do do with as we like" in the 30's. He was one of the three founder members of the Vegan Soc. and also suggested other names and the word Vegan as the name of the belief. Several names were discussed by the 3, my father, Arthur Ling and D Watson. It was decided between the 3 of them that Vegan was the right one. My father was very instrumental in forming the "constitution" for the Vegan Soc. I have had dogs all my life and have to disagree with you that it not right. I'm not going to go into it as there's no point an others have said about all there is to say on the matter for both sides. As far as I know, I was the 1st Vegan baby in the UK, we had 7 dogs at home, all vegan and apart from one, all lived to ripe old ages happily. I have to take issue with you on the keeping of pets. Other animals do keep pets. Humans aren’t the only ones to keep pets. All sorts of animals from right around the world have been spotted forming masterful relationships with other species. But unlike us with our cats and dogs, these mutualistic creature companionships are usually essential for both animals’ well being, if not their very survival. For instance: Tarantulas, frogs, sharks, deer & monkeys, some birds and other creatures are known to keep pets. As to your other assumptions about that subject, I can't comment as I don't know and have never looked into it. My father was a prolific writer and wrote many articles concerning philosophy, veganism and the ill treatment of animals. He founded Plamil Foods with A Ling (it was called Plantmilk Ltd then) and they were the 1st people to get white protein from green leaf. Their 1st product was called "Plantmilk, a substitute for dairy milk" and had picture slogan on the label of a cow saying to it's calf "That is for humans". The company is still flourishing in Folkestone and now produces many Vegan products. It is dedicated to Vegan products only as it has from the beginning. About taking lives. Humans are the only species that kill for pleasure as well as food. There is some evidence that Orcas kill for pleasure but I don't know if it's been proved. I accept that there some instances, where it is best for the animal, that it is humanely put down. I have had to make that decision and it was the hardest one of my life.
 
Last edited:
I think there is a big difference between taking care of animals for companionship and paying money for animals to be slaughtered, but there are things that are bad about it too. Such as people not taking proper care of the animals, or puppy mills. People are especially bad when it comes to smaller animals, because they treat them like a toy for their child. Or how about people declawing their cats because their furniture is so important, and they don't want to come up with other ways to deter their cat from scratching.
 
Last edited:
I don't have any pets. My choice. my decision. but i don't mind other people having pets.
Hey, but don't you have cats and dogs?
why do you not reply to the post question instead of asking a different question ? start i suggest by setting an example...answer the question put...do you believe..."animals are not ours to use" or not ? as the principle of veganism.
 
It is a fundamental guide for Veganism, but, in my opinion because there are other reasons for becoming a Vegan, I would dispute that as there are reasons other than the ill treatment of animals. Initially at the beginning it probably was the main if not the only reason, but now many turn to it just as a healthier way to live. I don't think we have to right to question that, it would be an invasion of a persons right to make their own decision for their own reasons. My father coined the phrase " animals are not our do do with as we like" in the 30's. He was one of the three founder members of the Vegan Soc. and also suggested other names and the word Vegan as the name of the belief. Several names were discussed by the 3, my father, Arthur Ling and D Watson. It was decided between the 3 of them that Vegan was the right one. My father was very instrumental in forming the "constitution" for the Vegan Soc. I have had dogs all my life and have to disagree with you that it not right. I'm not going to go into it as there's no point an others have said about all there is to say on the matter for both sides. As far as I know, I was the 1st Vegan baby in the UK, we had 7 dogs at home, all vegan and apart from one, all lived to ripe old ages happily. I have to take issue with you on the keeping of pets. Other animals do keep pets. Humans aren’t the only ones to keep pets. All sorts of animals from right around the world have been spotted forming masterful relationships with other species. But unlike us with our cats and dogs, these mutualistic creature companionships are usually essential for both animals’ well being, if not their very survival. For instance: Tarantulas, frogs, sharks, deer & monkeys, some birds and other creatures are known to keep pets. As to your other assumptions about that subject, I can't comment as I don't know and have never looked into it. My father was a prolific writer and wrote many articles concerning philosophy, veganism and the ill treatment of animals. He founded Plamil Foods with A Ling (it was called Plantmilk Ltd then) and they were the 1st people to get white protein from green leaf. Their 1st product was called "Plantmilk, a substitute for dairy milk" and had picture slogan on the label of a cow saying to it's calf "That is for humans". The company is still flourishing in Folkestone and now produces many Vegan products. It is dedicated to Vegan products only as it has from the beginning. About taking lives. Humans are the only species that kill for pleasure as well as food. There is some evidence that Orcas kill for pleasure but I don't know if it's been proved. I accept that there some instances, where it is best for the animal, that it is humanely put down. I have had to make that decision and it was the hardest one of my life.
so...trying to find the reply to the simple question..you do not agree...that animals are not ours to use.

you seem to think...that if we enjoy owning animals and pet them enough and cut off their genitals to stop them living a natural life it is ok as they learn to show affection for the food and affection we give them

because a rat turkey dog cat any animal learns to respond with positivity to those who feed and keep them

anyway

just one more step to take...kill and eat them...we are just using them in both cases
 
PETA slogan..."animals are not ours to use" is this a belief ? philosophy people believe in and practise ?

Even non vegans...know this PETA slogan ...and so i ask and suggest...is this the fundamental basis of veganism or not ?

If it is...then i think it is simple and explains the WHY it is unethical according to veganism to breed and kill animals for any purpose.

it is a concept of "ownership" legally that this statement and belief involves.

Gary L Francione the Abolitionist lawyer vegan leader ...creater of the 6 principles of Abolitionist Veganism...addresses primarily in his focus to explain veganism...the notion that humans have the "right" to "own" either humans or non humans is what is morally wrong.


PET ownership is fundamentally wrong therefore as it involves humans "owning" animals and forcing sterilisations vaccinations food and leads and collars on them that control their entire lives.


Some species of wild animals are illegal to "own" by humans so protected against ownership.

The reason we have the "right" to breed and kill animals is because they are under the law..."things"..."chattels" that we own and therefore entitled to kill if we do not wish to keep owning them...that includes pets owned i add of course in case anyone doubts that...there is no distinction between a farm animal and a pet animal if the owner wants to kill them. Legally that takes place every day for both unwanted pets or farm animals....for whatever reason...no reasons are needed to kill an animal someone owns.


So i present those issues as open to replies and views firstly....


I agree...that ownership of animals by human animals is wrong ethically.

No animal in nature keeps pets. No animal in nature breeds and kills captive prisoner animals.

No animal in nature keeps and feeds an adult animal of another species for life.


All those things...are what we humans do to animals we own.



Now...any objections or views on that principle ?

Are animals...ours to own and use ethically or not ? PETA vegan slogan and Gary L Francione law professor leader of Veganism ethics says not if Vegan.


Which leads me neatly to the prompt about ...?

Using animals as pet food fodder.

I have ethically and philosophically a problem...if i accept...as i do...that "animals are not ours to use" ...then i do not see how i can then show that i breed and use animals by killing them and feeding them to an animal i keep as a prisoner pet unnaturally just because i prefer one animal to 3000 other animals.



Where ? does "responsibility" for taking lives start and end ?

If only responsible for the animals that I own...then that permits me to kill and eat even animals others own...but that i buy so end up owning when dead of course.


That is the fundamental problem i have ethically with anyone trying to justify killing bred by humans animals for use as pet food.


Views welcome....addressing the first issue...do people accept that..."animals are not ours to use" is the basis of veganism or not ?
This slogan, "Animals are not ours to use" was coined by my father in the 1940's when he was writing about veganism, a word that was not known at that time. It has become a slogan for many animal rights organisations since then. Of all the reasons to be vegan this covers them all.