• 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? (1 Viewer)

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

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
63,769
Reaction score
35,350
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Another spin off thread. Some argue that animals are property, nothing more. You owe no duty to your property to care for it. If I have a car, I don't have a moral obligation to keep it running. So is it the same with animals? What do you think? Do you have a duty (morally, ethically, etc.) to care for your pet?

Working on a poll.
 
Another spin off thread. Some argue that animals are property, nothing more. You owe no duty to your property to care for it. If I have a car, I don't have a moral obligation to keep it running. So is it the same with animals? What do you think? Do you have a duty (morally, ethically, etc.) to care for your pet?

Working on a poll.

I'd say yes. Not necessarily the same level of obligation towards a person, but definitely some obligation there.
 
Yes? I don't see how anyone could say no. Children aren't property and pets aren't either.
 
Its a living thing with feelings and emotions (at least if its not a fish or something, not so sure about fish). Cats and dogs, absolutely.
 
Another spin off thread. Some argue that animals are property, nothing more. You owe no duty to your property to care for it. If I have a car, I don't have a moral obligation to keep it running. So is it the same with animals? What do you think? Do you have a duty (morally, ethically, etc.) to care for your pet?

Working on a poll.

Ohhhhh, don't get me started. A couple houses down from me, there is a family that likes cats apparently. These are outdoor cats. These are outdoor cats that are feral. These are feral cats that get into my garbage all the time. These are feral cats that take naps and poop in my yard all the time. Now, apparently cats are "free-spirits" and there is not a damn thing I can do about it.
 
I could see arguments for both sides. Again, morality is very subjective so it depends on the person.
 
Another spin off thread. Some argue that animals are property, nothing more. You owe no duty to your property to care for it. If I have a car, I don't have a moral obligation to keep it running. So is it the same with animals? What do you think?
Do you have a duty (morally, ethically, etc.) to care for your pet?

Working on a poll.




Anyone who doesn't recognize the fact that if you have a pet, you have a moral obligation to give it good care is a lowlife loser who shouldn't be allowed to keep pets.


That's not just my opinion, it's also the law just about everywhere on this planet. A lot of people who didn't take good care of their pets are locked up right now.

The desire not to locked up is another good reason to take good care of your pets.

It's a sad reflection on some peoples lack of morality that we even need laws to protect animals from abuse.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who doesn't recognize the fact that if you have a pet, you have a moral obligation to give it good care is a lowlife loser who shouldn't be allowed to keep pets.


That's not just my opinion, it's also the law just about everywhere on this planet. A lot of people who didn't take good care of their pets are locked up right now.

The desire not to locked up is another good reason to take good care of your pets.

It's a sad reflection on some peoples lack of morality that we even need laws to protect animals from abuse.

Not only caring for them, but also keeping them out of your neighbor's hair so to speak. IMO (sorry, this cat situation is on-going and it drives me nuts)
 
Another spin off thread. Some argue that animals are property, nothing more. You owe no duty to your property to care for it. If I have a car, I don't have a moral obligation to keep it running. So is it the same with animals? What do you think? Do you have a duty (morally, ethically, etc.) to care for your pet?

Working on a poll.

Being property does not negate the obligation. They are property, but living property and as such there is an obligation.
 
Not only caring for them, but also keeping them out of your neighbor's hair so to speak. IMO (sorry, this cat situation is on-going and it drives me nuts)




100% Correct.

Anyone who has pets is obligated to take care of them on their own property and make a decent effort to keep them from irritating neighbors.
 
Absolutely. Once the animal is under your care, you are obligated to take care of it or to find the animal another home.
 
Ohhhhh, don't get me started. A couple houses down from me, there is a family that likes cats apparently. These are outdoor cats. These are outdoor cats that are feral. These are feral cats that get into my garbage all the time. These are feral cats that take naps and poop in my yard all the time. Now, apparently cats are "free-spirits" and there is not a damn thing I can do about it.

Here's what you do. Put a live trap out to catch whatever's getting into your garbage. If you catch a cat, call the local animal control place and tell them you caught a stray cat while you were trying to catch the raccoons getting into your trash and have them come get it. If the neighbors ask, just play dumb and tell them you haven't seen the thing.
 
Another spin off thread. Some argue that animals are property, nothing more. You owe no duty to your property to care for it. If I have a car, I don't have a moral obligation to keep it running. So is it the same with animals? What do you think? Do you have a duty (morally, ethically, etc.) to care for your pet?

Working on a poll.

I do believe there is a moral obligation to care for your pets. Not as much of one as there would be to care for your kid for example, but it's there. While animals may be property, they are also living creatures who suffer if mistreated. And there are generally organizations who will step in and take care of your pets if you no longer want to or are no longer able to care for them. So there's no excuse for not caring for a pet.
 
Yes? I don't see how anyone could say no. Children aren't property and pets aren't either.

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.
 
No one has duty or obligation to their owned property. What one does with his or her property is their business.

In this case, if my property were to dig under our mutual fence, **** on your lawn, bark incessantly at 5 am, etc, then it becomes your business, because my mismanagement of my owned property has lead to a violation of your rights.

I love my dog, I take good care of my dog; I do this because I want to, not because of any social norm or any law. I'm not obliged to do so. At no point am I confused with the nature of the paradigm, he's not an entity with rights, he is my property, and as such I am held responsible for his actions. People get very emotional and irrational when it comes to this topic, I find.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. Once the animal is under your care, you are obligated to take care of it or to find the animal another home.

We should extend that policy to children. How crazy would it be to simply allow those that claim poverty to get handed tax money to buy pet food and pay for veterinary care?

To be "fair" and compassionate, the more pets that you acquire then the more gov't help that you should get to help care for them. No wait - that only happens with children now - our society hates puppies, kittens, dogs and cats. ;)
 
Another spin off thread. Some argue that animals are property, nothing more. You owe no duty to your property to care for it. If I have a car, I don't have a moral obligation to keep it running. So is it the same with animals? What do you think? Do you have a duty (morally, ethically, etc.) to care for your pet?

Working on a poll.

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.
 
We should extend that policy to children. How crazy would it be to simply allow those that claim poverty to get handed tax money to buy pet food and pay for veterinary care?

To be "fair" and compassionate, the more pets that you acquire then the more gov't help that you should get to help care for them. No wait - that only happens with children now - our society hates puppies, kittens, dogs and cats. ;)

While I know you're half kidding here, the analogy doesn't hold. It costs me less than ten bucks a week to care for my dog, she can take care of herself when I'm away all day, and she was fully grown and trained when she was one year old. Kids are exponentially more expensive and challenging. I'm fine with safety nets when it comes to struggling parents.
 
While I know you're half kidding here, the analogy doesn't hold. It costs me less than ten bucks a week to care for my dog, she can take care of herself when I'm away all day, and she was fully grown and trained when she was one year old. Kids are exponentially more expensive and challenging. I'm fine with safety nets when it comes to struggling parents.

With me it depends upon why they are struggling. Whether it is children or pets one can question the morality of a person choosing to take on more responsibility than they can handle. It is one thing to have an education and a job, and then have a child, and later lose the ability to support yourself and child due to some circumstance largely beyond your control; quite another thing to drop out of HS and have a child with no way to support either yourself or that child and then "qualify" for help.
 
Another spin off thread. Some argue that animals are property, nothing more. You owe no duty to your property to care for it. If I have a car, I don't have a moral obligation to keep it running. So is it the same with animals? What do you think? Do you have a duty (morally, ethically, etc.) to care for your pet?

Working on a poll.

You already know my answer. Yes.

If my dog bites somebody? Guess whose fault that is? I say it's mine every time. A well-trained dog won't bite unless injured or, unless there's real danger. And, unfortunately, when it comes to interpreting danger, he'd better not make a mistake. That's me. I cannot and will not own a 125# dog that I can't trust. So I protect him . . . sometimes and often from himself.

As for taking care of him? No question about it. I feel so BAD for animals that end up in households where they're mere possessions. And so bad for animals that vets now charge an arm and leg for necessary procedures -- to make them more comfortable or keep them alive.

In our area, even putting a dog to sleep is a major expense. $350. Many families just can't afford that. Natural death of a sick anything isn't often pretty. But many animals are left to curl up and die under the bed. Soooo sad.

I could no more make an economic decision not to treat my dog than I could if I had a sick child.
 
With me it depends upon why they are struggling. Whether it is children or pets one can question the morality of a person choosing to take on more responsibility than they can handle. It is one thing to have an education and a job, and then have a child, and later lose the ability to support yourself and child due to some circumstance largely beyond your control; quite another thing to drop out of HS and have a child with no way to support either yourself or that child and then "qualify" for help.

the solution for that one is simple : make birth control opt out instead of opt in. why have kids before you want them? the parents who will riot in the streets because their kid isn't going to screw and big bad government can't tell them what to do can just opt out and let their kid get pregnant. the rest will just go on birth control automatically at puberty.
 
the solution for that one is simple : make birth control opt out instead of opt in. why have kids before you want them? the parents who will riot in the streets because their kid isn't going to screw and big bad government can't tell them what to do can just opt out and let their kid get pregnant. the rest will just go on birth control automatically at puberty.

Taking the huge nanny state up to the level to be able to "mandate" birth control until you "qualifiy" for a birth permit is a strange solution. Far easier to simply require, being at least 20 years old, a U.S. citizen, having at least a HS education and at least two years of solid work experience (earning at least the FPL) to get any social "safety net" help.
 
Last edited:
Taking the huge nanny state up to the level to be able to "mandate" birth control until you "qualifiy" for a birth permit is a strange solution. Far easier to simply require, being at least 20 years old, having a HS education and at least two years of solid work experience (earning at least the FPL) to get any social "safety net" help.

not really, because then you're still going to have teens getting knocked up with no help available. that creates crime.
 
not really, because then you're still going to have teens getting knocked up with no help available. that creates crime.

:lol: :doh We have that now. Show me any statistical proof that "welfare" is reducing crime. :roll:

We know that out of wedlock childbirth increases the likelhood of crime and that "welfare" now subsidizes that very behavior.
 
:lol: :doh We have that now. Show me any statistical proof that "welfare" is reducing crime. :roll:

We know that out of wedlock childbirth increases the likelhood of crime and that "welfare" now subsidizes that very behavior.

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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom