Arguments for and against keeping pets?

Answer 1

Many people consider their pets to be members of the family, and treat them with love and respect. The feeling often appears to be mutual, as our dogs and cats seek us out to play, to be petted, or to just simply sit in our laps. They provide unconditional love and devotion. To deny them and us this relationship seems unthinkable to some.

Also, keeping pets does not "use" the animals in the same way that factory farms, animal testing labs or circuses use and abuse the animals.

The Humane Society of the US argues that we should keep pets:So, should we have pets? Of course. Pets are creatures with whom we share a world, and we rejoice in their companionship. You don't have to anthropomorphize to recognize that the feelings are returned. If we are wise enough to see, they teach us about humility and empathy and loyalty. Their eyes hold the spark of life, the same as ours. Let us be close and cherish each other always.

The vast majority of animal activists advocate spaying and neutering. However, most will say that the reason is the millions of cats and dogs who are killed in shelters every year, as opposed to any basic opposition to the keeping of pets.

What are the arguments against keeping pets?Some animal activists argue that we should not keep or breed pets regardless of whether we have an overpopulation problem. There are two basic arguments against keeping and breeding pets.

One argument is that cats, dogs and other pets suffer too much at our hands. Theoretically, we may be able to provide good homes for our pets, and many of us do. However, in the real world, animals suffer abandonment, cruelty, and neglect.

Another argument is that even on a theoretical level, the relationship is inherently flawed and we are unable to provide the full lives that these animals deserve. Because they are bred to be dependent on us, the basic relationship between humans and companion animals is flawed because of the difference in power. PETA opposes keeping pets, partially for this reason:Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to. Because domesticated animals retain many of their basic instincts and drives but are not able to survive on their own in the wild, dogs, cats, or birds, whose strongest desire is to be free, must be confined to a house, yard, or cage for their own safety . . . Even in "good" homes, cats must relieve themselves in dirty litterboxes and often have their digits removed by "declawing," and dogs often have to drink water that has sat around for days, are hurried along on their walks, and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet.

Answer 2

Some armchair psychologist ( of the type similar to the recently deceased Dear Abby type) blasted pet-keeping in the twenties. He or She argued essentially the dog or cat ( some exceptions for, obviously Guide Dogs for the Blind)- were in effect tame and harmless child substitutes, and stated many multiple pet-owners tended to go overboard on their charges, considering them part of the family, and so on. Animals are NOT on an equal footing with Humans in The Bible or under most faiths, it is known Saint Francis of Assisi was a nature lover but this has to be carefully understood and balanced out with his human concerns ( the Franciscan Friars, for example) There was a moderate argument against pets on the ground that they are (Child substitutes) which would not be presented against such hobbies as stamp or coin collecting, Ham Radio, etc.

Answer 3

well... one disadvantage would be that if you are travelling abroad then the people abroad have to keep your pet for some time depending on the country to check for rabies and things like that. hope that helped!