You may now add Semantics to the list of words that do not mean what you seem to think they mean.
That’s too bad because you missed the “most dogs won’t touch raw meat” gem.
Accusations of anti-semantic ideas are not called for.
Slavery, by definition, is the ownership of a human by another human. The fact that humans are animals doesn’t change this definition, or automatically broaden it to include non-human animals.
More broadly, I think this post illustrates the central flaw in your thinking. Not all animals are the same. A circumstance that would be intolerable to one animal can be negligible or even desirable to another. Keeping an eagle in an environment where it can’t ever fly is cruel. Keeping a penguin in an environment where it can’t ever fly is not cruel, because penguins can’t fly in the first place.
We know that keeping humans in a state of bondage is emotionally and physically distressing to them. This is why slavery is immoral. Keeping domesticated animals is neither emotionally nor physically distressing to them. This is not just speculation, it’s demonstrable fact: for the physical, animals living in captivity live longer, healthier lives than their feral counterparts. For the emotional, we can compare the behavior of domesticated animals who are treated well, with domesticated animals who are neglected, and domesticated animals who are actively mistreated, and use those observations to create a baseline of expected behavior: we know how these animals behave when they’re unhappy or abused, and we can see that this behavior is not exhibited in a well-cared for domestic pet.
Therefore, we can conclude the following: slavery is immoral because something in the nature of human beings does not respond well to being in that situation. Other animals have a different nature, and do not have that quirk of evolution that makes a life of involuntary service so painful. Therefore, owning those animals is not immoral. Since slavery has inescapable connotations of immorality and suffering, it is inappropriate to use that word to describe the relationship between pets and their owners.
Nature isn’t good. Nature isn’t evil. We can’t escape nature.
If you disagree on these points, I think you need to explain how.
First: Nature isn’t good. When we’re trying to figure out what’s good, we should not ever look to what’s natural. Our closest relatives, chimpanzees, engage in murder, warfare, rape, and cannibalism. These acts are common among other animals. Unless you conclude that murder, warfare, rape, and cannibalism are therefore morally unproblematic, it makes no sense to equate “natural” with “good.” Similarly, evolution isn’t moving toward the Highest Good or anything. It’s just a dynamic.
Nature isn’t evil either, though. Mutual assistance, altruism (on an individual, if not genetic, level), theory-of-mind-style empathy, and senses of justice also exist in the nonhuman world, and there’s some evidence that tendencies toward these behaviors may be part of our genetic heritage. We can’t look to nature to find out what to move past, either. It ain’t all red in tooth and claw.
And nature has two general definitions, either of which renders its meaning morally trivial. Either nature is the sum total of the cosmos–in which we’re part of nature–or it’s the world untouched by humans–in which case we’re not part of nature. Generally I prefer the first definition, but even if you prefer the second, we can’t look to the definition for any moral guidance. If we bred dogs to behave in a particular way, all that means is that the dogs who behaved in a particular way were able to extract advantages from another species (us) that dogs who behaved differently could not extract. Similarly the animals (without intention, of course) bred us: humans who could survive the animal-borne pathogens carried by dogs, chickens, cattle, etc., were able to enjoy the benefits provided by these animals and had higher reproductive success.
You can’t escape from nature. If humans bred wolves to behave a certain way, then that’s how the dogs are, naturally, because we’re part of nature.
There are some compelling arguments against human use of animals. But the argument-from-nature is profoundly flawed. You should stop using it.
Thank you for your kind words . . . and what you say is quite true of herd animals as well – fences mostly keep them out of danger and your crops, even now. I like your point that confinement and mate selection are both quite late features of domestication.
Though I think we need to be careful about the word “choice”, and only use it for individuals making decisions – when used to describe the ecology of populations it probably creates a less than accurate impression. However, animals do make decisions.
Look how exhausted he is after a day of toting barges and lifting bales.
Ahhh. So fluffy!
We should turn this thread into posting pics of our pets!
“Post your pet slave!”
“Um, no Evil Captor, we were joking.”
New rule: never enslave a cat big enough to eat you.
LOL
And we all know that dogs and cats think and feel just like Pocho, have the same preferences and opinions on issues like freedom and slavery, etc. Read your dog the 13th Amendment and watch him stand up and salute. Let your cat watch the series ROOTS and he will realize how his race, like that of Kunta Kinte, has been enslaved.
BTW, Pocho, why does a dog lick his balls? Because he can!
Maybe Pocho is a cat? A self aware cat.
Dr. Who anyone?
Pocho would be a really cute name for a cat
Well, as it looks like this thread is descending into silliness:
Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
Yeah, I’ll second that, pocho.
Silliness is good. IMHO the thread started out silly
Have you considered alternating puppy and kitteh fur instead? It would really show your dominance over our furry little slaves I should think…
Once I got so lucky
My Massa set me free
I went to ol’ Kentucky
To see what I could see
I couldn’t go no farder
I 'turned to Massa’s door
I lub him all de harder
I’ll neber leab no more!
– Old antebellum minstrel-show number