Are animals really not equal?

[Helpmehelptheworld]

IVHL- intrinsic value of human life.

and no, moral agency doesn't come into play in the factor of if killing an animal or an alien species is immoral. However, with rational thinking comes the idea that just because it isn't immoral to kill them doesn't mean you should do it. Just like slaughtering an animal for fun isnt immoral but doesn't mean you should do it. Morality means if something is right or wrong from an objective and logical point of view. If an adult male slaughtered their dog it is not immoral. But it wasn't necessary and it's rather injust to the animal (as a society not as an objective observer) because we have empathy and emotions.
If you followed one laid down the blanket statement of objective morality, the second sentence laid the grounds for relative morality.

it's impractical to try and blanket term morality with all that is 'good' and all that is 'bad' from an extrinsic point of view.

decartes is dead and so are his theories. Personhood excludes those who do not feel emotion and is based on negative and positive sensations which are subjective. Blah. More non objective bullcrap imo.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

I see you didn't really mean that.

A human is superior because its a human. You must do better then that.

yeah it's 'just' a human right? Hence why other species are as technologically advanced as us. Also that's just to lay a ground work for objective black and white morality. Dwell deeper and you have relative morality, nonderivative intrinsic value, derivative intrinsic value, final value, and extrinsic value. Just because the ground work, a very basic concept, is so black and white doesnt mean that all that stems from it is. You start with intrinsic value of human life and then you base other things off of that value. A human is superior to all else simply by being human. That is, a pretty fucking basic, fact. Try and find me a philosopher which argues, coherently and with a strong basis to follow, against that concept and I can find you anything from plato, decartes, aristotle, moore, korsgaard which argues with human life being inherently valued above all. You need a universal indicator tobase your morals of or different people can argue different good and bad with a relative indicator and thus morality becomes fuck all. I now believe its moral to slaughter sll humans - in effect as of now /s

 

[drug_mentor]

IVHL- intrinsic value of human life.

and no, moral agency doesn't come into play in the factor of if killing an animal or an alien species is immoral. However, with rational thinking comes the idea that just because it isn't immoral to kill them doesn't mean you should do it. Just like slaughtering an animal for fun isnt immoral but doesn't mean you should do it. Morality means if something is right or wrong from an objective and logical point of view. If an adult male slaughtered their dog it is not immoral. But it wasn't necessary and it's rather injust to the animal (as a society not as an objective observer) because we have empathy and emotions.
If you followed one laid down the blanket statement of objective morality, the second sentence laid the grounds for relative morality.

According to the passage I highlighted in bold, morality is objective, and it is not immoral for a man to kill his dog. But, based on previous posts you have made, it would be immoral for another dog to kill his dog. This is relativism, it is not objective. Objectivity states that the dog either has a right to life or it does not.

Can you explain, without just repeating your argument, why it is not a contradiction to state that objective morality is species relative? I am not going to bother responding to you if you can't.

decartes is dead and so are his theories. Personhood excludes those who do not feel emotion and is based on negative and positive sensations which are subjective. Blah. More non objective bullcrap imo.

LOL Study some philosophy of mind and tell me Descartes' theories are dead...

I don't know where you get the idea that theories of personhood are Cartesian, his view dates back to when it was thought animals didn't have minds. If we adopted his criteria then most living things would be persons. As I explained, there are a number of different views on the relevant criteria for being a person. Some have more drawbacks than others. It is much less arbitrary to select specific set of criteria which have a bearing on the objective quality of a beings life to determine whether it has rights than it is to select a single biological criterion like species membership to determine this.

Personhood theories necessarily entail that not all humans are persons, this seems quite logical to me. Why should a brain dead human on life support have more rights than an animal which has desires and can feel pain? A good personhood theory encompasses most of humanity whilst excluding those who we ordinarily regard as not having an explicit right to life, for example foetuses and humans who are brain dead. If we go by the IVHL theory, then abortion is immoral and so is pulling the plug on people who have no quality of life whatsoever.

Genuine question, have you ever taken ethics? You sort of implied that you had, but at this point I am seriously starting to doubt it...

 

[swilow]

Despite having little to no formal input for this topic, I am enjoying reading the discussion between drug_mentor and helpmehelptheworld. Both arguing points very well.

I think drug_mentor may be winning though....

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

I am beyond salty right now. I wrote a whole response and accidentally hit the log out button at the bottom of the mobile site. Will update later


>

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Because those within your species are the only ones who could truly ever relate to you. I don't get what part of that makes you stumble. It's species relative due to the fact that your species shares your gene pool, your future, and your identity. It's as a species you need to progress. It's as a species you need to transcend and get ahead. It's the one thing that you can 100% relate as. Human to Human. Dog to Dog. I can't ever pretend to know what a dog feels because I AM NOT A DOG. It's species relative because of laws of nature. A lion eats a gazelle. Is that immoral? No. A lion kills another lion cub to only have his own offspring succeed? Morally wrong? Yes. But the lion doesn't understand that. Oh Imma wife this bitch and then kill her offspring because they carry someone elses genes. No. That's wrong. Because killing your own species is wrong.

I was only making a jab with the decartes theory. Next time I'll have to sharpen the knife. And he was the basis of that direction of thinking atleast. Just like Plato could be argued for mine /shrug.

As for the point of letting a brain dead person die. That's morally right. Why? because if you do NOTHING the person will die. Doing a neutral act. Or suspending from acting is not immoral. To act is to be above morals and onto emotional virtues (another great subject honestly). As for abortion, no it's not wrong to abort because the life within the woman could not sustain itself. Lets take it from my point of view in philosophy. Okay, this woman doesn't want something IN HER OWN BODY. Okay that's fine. Take it out and let it be on it's own. Would it survive? No. It's a human life when it can self sustain at least to a basic degree. like you know, a developed stomach and some sort of lungs or ya know... having a circulatory system or something that can self sustain.

Either something is ALWAYS moral or it's never moral. There are people dying RIGHT this second of cancer, that if a first world nation got a hold of this information, they could technically save their life. Is it morally wrong of them not to do so? No, because the person will die without intervention. They didn't CAUSE the cancer. (Relative morality again within a species) His own genetics and body did that. The complexity of the argument would increase if you add an outside source who did cause it but then the blame would land on them and the deaths on them not the individual etc etc.

But to have the argument of relative morality you need to first establish a baseline of what is the indicator. Personhood is a horrible indicator. It's subjective, it pushes out people who cannot feel emotions, sado-masochists are then immoral (Pain is bad but a masochist feels joy or positive experiences from it do they not) Back and forth - Back and forth - Back and forth. That's how the idea of personhood would go.

Back to the pulling the plug point again

SO no, pulling the plug is not wrong. The life would not live without help.

IVHL also has an umbrella portion to it that would then decide whether something is immoral or not due to the resources it spends to save that one life. It's like a giant balance. If we want to stay in theory and pretend space and resources are infinite then yes. Pulling the plug on the brain dead person is wrong. Because it doesn't devalue anything else. But one could argue that those resources would be better spent else where. But once again. You would need to first state that ALL humans are equal assuming all basic physiological human abilities are met.


*It is much less arbitrary to select specific set of criteria which have a bearing on the objective quality of a beings life to determine whether it has rights than it is to select a single biological criterion like species membership to determine this.*

This is just the basis. You're literally arguing my entire philosophy based on the FIRST bulletpoint and excluding anything else past it. This is the basis for an objective morality. Then comes the relativism within that specific group...


Reitirate pls *another dog to kill his dog* how does a dog determine it's ownership? I don't understand.

 

[drug_mentor]

Because those within your species are the only ones who could truly ever relate to you. I don't get what part of that makes you stumble. It's species relative due to the fact that your species shares your gene pool, your future, and your identity. It's as a species you need to progress. It's as a species you need to transcend and get ahead. It's the one thing that you can 100% relate as. Human to Human. Dog to Dog. I can't ever pretend to know what a dog feels because I AM NOT A DOG. It's species relative because of laws of nature. A lion eats a gazelle. Is that immoral? No. A lion kills another lion cub to only have his own offspring succeed? Morally wrong? Yes. But the lion doesn't understand that. Oh Imma wife this bitch and then kill her offspring because they carry someone elses genes. No. That's wrong. Because killing your own species is wrong.

The part that makes me stumble is the part where you claim that your relativist moral outlook is somehow objective.

The following is a definition for objective: 'not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.' You have explicitly stated the only species that matters is your own because it is the only species you can relate to. This is at odds with the definition of objective. You are strongly contradicting yourself when you claim that your outlook is objective morality.

I would argue that the reason animals killing other animals is not immoral is because they are not moral agents, so morality does not apply to them. Personhood does not just entail the benefit of rights, it also entails moral responsibilities.

As for the point of letting a brain dead person die. That's morally right. Why? because if you do NOTHING the person will die. Doing a neutral act. Or suspending from acting is not immoral. To act is to be above morals and onto emotional virtues (another great subject honestly). As for abortion, no it's not wrong to abort because the life within the woman could not sustain itself. Lets take it from my point of view in philosophy. Okay, this woman doesn't want something IN HER OWN BODY. Okay that's fine. Take it out and let it be on it's own. Would it survive? No. It's a human life when it can self sustain at least to a basic degree. like you know, a developed stomach and some sort of lungs or ya know... having a circulatory system or something that can self sustain.

You should probably familiarise yourself with current abortion procedures, they kill the foetus. They don't simply remove the foetus and allow it to die naturally, they intentionally end its life. This is not something which happens incidental to its removal, it is a central and intended part of the process. According to the 'intrinsic value of human life', this is wrong.

It is nonsensical to claim that if something can't self sustain to a basic degree then it is not human, being human simply means that you belong to the species homo sapiens. Since the only morally relevant criteria on your theory is species membership, you can't deny that the life of a foetus at any stage has intrinsic value. You might take note here that theories of personhood are quite useful for avoiding hurdles like this.

Also, pulling the plug on a braindead human is performing an action. Not hooking them up to the machines in the first place is omission, but once they have been hooked up, to turn off the machine is an act of commission, not omission. It is not a neutral act.

Either something is ALWAYS moral or it's never moral.

Your whole theory is based on the idea that whether it is right to kill a creature or not depends on whether you belong to the same species as that creature. This fails to meet the 'always or never' moral criteria that you are pigeonholing yourself in to. How you don't see this is a mystery to me.

But to have the argument of relative morality you need to first establish a baseline of what is the indicator. Personhood is a horrible indicator. It's subjective, it pushes out people who cannot feel emotions, sado-masochists are then immoral (Pain is bad but a masochist feels joy or positive experiences from it do they not) Back and forth - Back and forth - Back and forth. That's how the idea of personhood would go.

You are ignoring my repeated mention of the fact there are a number of personhood theories. In any case, sado-masochists feel emotion. The only people who don't feel emotions that I am aware of are psychopaths, and while I wouldn't necessarily make an argument that psychopaths shouldn't count as persons, I can't say it is of great concern to me that they might not be.

This is just the basis. You're literally arguing my entire philosophy based on the FIRST bulletpoint and excluding anything else past it. This is the basis for an objective morality. Then comes the relativism within that specific group...

I am not excluding anything, your theory is broadly incoherent and I have addressed multiple faults: contradictory, relativist, employs reasoning analogous to that of racists, assigns a right to life to humans who we don't ordinarily regard as having rights to life, etc. Another weakness which I did not previously mention is that it confers moral responsibility on to animals who do not have it.

You might not like my criticisms of your "philosophy", but they have been far from one dimensional.

Reitirate pls *another dog to kill his dog* how does a dog determine it's ownership? I don't understand.

The intended antecedent for the pronoun "his" was the dog owner who I previously referenced as being able to kill his dog morally.

The example was intended to illustrate how backwards your ethical view is. You think it is immoral for another dog to come along and kill someones pet dog, because they belong to the same species, but it is moral for the pet owner to kill his pet dog. My view is that it is not immoral for one dog to kill another, because dogs aren't persons/moral agents, therefore morality does not apply to them. It is immoral for a person to kill a dog (unless it is medically necessary, or in order to secure a meal) because the person is a moral agent.

I think my view on this issue would be the commonly held view, certainly more commonly held than your view any way. Notice that personhood theories can explain this intuition perfectly, where the IVHL theory entails a moral outlook which I would describe as absurd.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

You should probably familiarise yourself with current abortion procedures, they kill the foetus. They don't simply remove the foetus and allow it to die naturally, they intentionally end its life. This is not something which happens incidental to its removal, it is a central and intended part of the process. According to the 'intrinsic value of human life', this is wrong.

It is nonsensical to claim that if something can't self sustain to a basic degree then it is not human, being human simply means that you belong to the species homo sapiens. Since the only morally relevant criteria on your theory is species membership, you can't deny that the life of a foetus at any stage has intrinsic value. You might take note here that theories of personhood are quite useful for avoiding hurdles like this.

I believe abortion is wrong when a baby has a soul... And that is when a fetus can be considered capable of thinking, then abortion is wrong. If you wanna know what point a babies brain allows thought, then don't ask me. I'm not a scientist. But when a fetus is self-aware, it is a person. Before that, it's flesh.
Human beings and animals are both spiritual beings because they can think and therefore, they exist outside of matter. A human mind is not composed of any matter, neither is an animals mind. Your thoughts define your existence.
Therefore, an unconscious lump of cells is not a person.

I believe ants, sponges, and plants have no souls, because despite being alive, they are not concious like an animal or person is.

 

[drug_mentor]

I don't really grasp the relevance of your contribution PS.

This thread is about animals being equal to humans, you have stated that animals and humans are both spiritual beings, and that they both have minds. You have not expressed an opinion relating to the equality of animals and humans.

You seem to adopt a Cartesian dualist viewpoint, with the concession that animals are also thinking things. I get this impression because it appears that consciousness is a sufficient condition for you to confer a soul on to a being.

Since you haven't stated that you believe humans are superior to animals, I am forced to conclude that your pluralistic dualism entails that they are not. I presume if you disagree with this that you will retreat to a theory of personhood to explain the philosophical difference between the valuation of souls belonging to different species.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

I don't really grasp the relevance of your contribution PS.

This thread is about animals being equal to humans, you have stated that animals and humans are both spiritual beings, and that they both have minds. You have not expressed an opinion relating to the equality of animals and humans.

You seem to adopt a Cartesian dualist viewpoint, with the concession that animals are also thinking things. I get this impression because it appears that consciousness is a sufficient condition for you to confer a soul on to a being.

Since you haven't stated that you believe humans are superior to animals, I am forced to conclude that your pluralistic dualism entails that they are not. I presume if you disagree with this that you will retreat to a theory of personhood to explain the philosophical difference between the valuation of souls belonging to different species.

Actually, this thread is about whether animals are equal to each other (I know, cause I made it)
I believe animals have lesser souls. So in that sense, yes, humans are superior to animals.

But value is subjective. It's not that we're superior, but human souls are more complex. Whether or not our lives are inherently worth more is subjective.

 

[drug_mentor]

Heh, my bad. Although to be fair, I don't really see how your post had any bearing on animals being equal to each other or not, either.

Do you believe God views humans as superior to animals?

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Heh, my bad. Although to be fair, I don't really see how your post had any bearing on animals being equal to each other or not, either.

Do you believe God views humans as superior to animals?

For me... thanking God for good things is like thanking the inventor of CPR when you get saved, rather than the person who gave it to you.
But inversely, condemning God for bad things is like blaming gravity when you fall down.

Gods another story... I think God is amoral. I don't worship him, because by human standards, he'd be an asshole.
I believe god is imperfect like gnostics do. I don't believe God can understand things like sorrow and pain. However, I believe he can understand intrigue. I think he's interested in humans and likes to observe us, as he does all other species even ones who don't have souls or free will. That's sort of how I believe evolution worked. God guided the process based on what he percieved was interesting for him. Not based on ethics.
So I don't actually think God cares about us or animals. I don't think he created us either. I think he created matter, however, I believe humans souls were connected to the body by god... I don't believe god created our conciousness and individuality... otherwise, we wouldn't have free will. We'd be like a machine. Gods sock puppet basically.
So I actually believe each of our individual minds exist as immortal entities that weren't made by god.

Or alternatively, we're a part of God, as are animals. Meaning God didn't make us, he just put part of himself into his material creations. This would mean God is made up of an unlimited number of seperate entities... which are us. Think of god as an object, and man as atoms. One object is made of billions of atoms much like God would be the infinite amount of souls that exist. Meaning all of us form God, even though we're free seperate entities. However, a collective spiritual energy is formed.

Personally I prefer my first theory.

 

[pillhead69]

We really are all equal, but we get to decide because we are dominant.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

The part that makes me stumble is the part where you claim that your relativist moral outlook is somehow objective.

The following is a definition for objective: 'not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.' You have explicitly stated the only species that matters is your own because it is the only species you can relate to [FALSE, ITS NOT THE ONLY ONES WE CAN RELATE TO, THAT WOULD BE EMPATHY, IT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT SHARES EXACT TRAITS]. This is at odds with the definition of objective. You are strongly contradicting yourself when you claim that your outlook is objective morality[Not really though... its to establish a baseline. Intrinsic value of human life,]

I would argue that the reason animals killing other animals is not immoral is because they are not moral agents, so morality does not apply to them. Personhood does not just entail the benefit of rights, it also entails moral responsibilities.[PERSONHOOD FAILS TO MEET A UNIVERSAL INDICATOR AND IS SUBJECTIVE. OUT THE WINDOW IT GOES]



You should probably familiarise yourself with current abortion procedures, they kill the foetus. They don't simply remove the foetus and allow it to die naturally, they intentionally end its life. This is not something which happens incidental to its removal, it is a central and intended part of the process. According to the 'intrinsic value of human life', this is wrong. [False, they would need to share the same human value as other humans. And NO FUCKING SHIT THEY KILL THE FOETUS YOU STUPID FUCK, Holy shit. You need to up your reading comprehension.]

It is nonsensical to claim that if something can't self sustain to a basic degree then it is not human, being human simply means that you belong to the species homo sapiens[ AND BEING HOMO SAPIEN WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO EXHIBIT ALL THE TRAITS OF A BASIC HUMAN BEING. DID YOU KNOW THAT IN THE BEGINNING WE HAVE GILLS? DOES THAT MAKE US A FISH? NO THERE COMES A POINT WHEN YOU ARE CAPABLE OF SELF SUSTAINING OR AT LEAST SELF MAINTENCE THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED A HUMAN] . Since the only morally relevant criteria on your theory is species membership, you can't deny that the life of a foetus at any stage has intrinsic value. [Holy fuck yes I can lol. Its not a human life, Its a fucking ball of flesh until a certain point where its actually capable of using electrical impulses to BE HUMAN LOL. ALSO as IVHL they have the right over their own fucking bodies. That is what my point was. It does not hit a hurdle because IVHL states that they have control over their own human bodies] You might take note here that theories of personhood are quite useful for avoiding hurdles like this. [while hitting every other hurdle on the way out]

Also, pulling the plug on a braindead human is performing an action. Not hooking them up to the machines in the first place is omission, but once they have been hooked up, to turn off the machine is an act of commission, not omission. It is not a neutral act. [ Are you serious? So hooking them up wasnt an act of commission? REGARDLESS, The fucking point is that the whole act was never based in morality so what you do after you do an act of empathy is not lodged in logic or morality. I will repeat. Putting them on a regulator/ life system was not based on morality. No it was not. Hence why taking them off of it is not an act of morality. ok?]



Your whole theory is based on the idea that whether it is right to kill a creature or not depends on whether you belong to the same species as that creature. This fails to meet the 'always or never' moral criteria that you are pigeonholing yourself in to. How you don't see this is a mystery to me. [Because you are incapable using mental capabilties to look past that pigeonhold you have. Its not as simple as JUST BEING A PERSON. You actually have to be a person and you have to hold the intrinsic value of being a person lol. If a foetus at week 2 is taken out it is not considered a Homo sapien in its fullest. Its a fucking pile of flesh. IF WE WANT TO USE YOUR LOGIC THEN EVERY FUCKING TIME I JERK OFF I AM LITERALLY DEFYING MORALITY BECAUSE I AM KILLING ENOUGH DNA ( HOMO SAPIEN DNA) THAT IS POSSIBLE TO, WITH ENOUGH GENETIC ENGINEERING, BECOME A HUMAN BEING]



You are ignoring my repeated mention of the fact there are a number of personhood theories. In any case, sado-masochists feel emotion. The only people who don't feel emotions that I am aware of are psychopaths, and while I wouldn't necessarily make an argument that psychopaths shouldn't count as persons, I can't say it is of great concern to me that they might not be. [Great there we have it, more subjective bullshit. OH SOCIOPATHS DONT FOLLOW THIS STRICT SET OF ARBITRARY RULES I HAVE SET UP SO THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED. Get over yourself. Your living in a existentialist world with that attitude. Take in the good with the bad and learn to formulate a proper outlook, holy fuck.]



I am not excluding anything, your theory is broadly incoherent and I have addressed multiple faults: contradictory, relativist, employs reasoning analogous to that of racists, assigns a right to life to humans who we don't ordinarily regard as having rights to life, etc. Another weakness which I did not previously mention is that it confers moral responsibility on to animals who do not have it. [Lol what the fuck are you smoking? how does it confer moral responsibilty on to animals that do not have it? It judges the morality of an act of another animal but it doesnt ever say that the animal itself is self aware of what is and isnt moral. HEY! THROW IN SOME MORE BUZZWORDS THERE, IM SURE ITLL GET YOUR POINT ACROSS EXCELLENTLY LMFAO, hinting towards racisism. Yawn, intellectually boring and dishonest as fuck LOL]

You might not like my criticisms of your "philosophy", but they have been far from one dimensional.



The intended antecedent for the pronoun "his" was the dog owner who I previously referenced as being able to kill his dog morally. [You literally make zero sense here, no idea where you are even attempting to go with this shit]

The example was intended to illustrate how backwards your ethical view is. You think it is immoral for another dog to come along and kill someones pet dog, because they belong to the same species, but it is moral for the pet owner to kill his pet dog. My view is that it is not immoral for one dog to kill another, because dogs aren't persons/moral agents, therefore morality does not apply to them. It is immoral for a person to kill a dog (unless it is medically necessary, or in order to secure a meal) because the person is a moral agent. [Completely irrelevant but keep going. Im sure you'll get a point going somewhere or at sometime.]

I think my view on this issue would be the commonly held view, certainly more commonly held than your view any way. Notice that personhood theories can explain this intuition perfectly, where the IVHL theory entails a moral outlook which I would describe as absurd.

thats a great set of statements you've made. I made a counter point. Did I now TEAR YOUR ARGUMENT TO SHREDS? lmfao gtfo.


what an incredibly boring and non progressive argument.

 

[un kle fukka]

check&mate

 

[Xorkoth]

No need to be inflammatory HMHTW. Please don't do that, you can reply to someone without attacking them. Why did you feel you had to do that?

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Drug mentor isn't someone I particularly enjoy talking to. He warps arguments to fit his own ideals instead of taking the argument at its face value and seeing how it could be best expressed. Instead he adheres to intellectual dishonesty and tries to convolute the argument so its nonsensical. Its boring, unfitting of an intellectual, and does nothing for understanding. He has a complete inability to view it from the point of the host. Unlike what I do with his theories.

Speaking of being intellectually dishonest, aren't you the guy whose ethical theory I tore to shreds not too long ago? Instead of responding to my objections you ran away with your tail in between your legs, and now here you are regurgitating the same empty theory. Talk about intellectual dishonesty!

lol...

 

[swilow]

To an extent, both of you are "playing the man". It never really works though. Its better to try and address the content of a post rather then the poster in question. You also have the choice to remove yourself from a conversation here, at any time.

Helpme, you have a position regarding the 'intrinsic value of human life'. It may feel objective, but from my perspective, it is your own subjective value system. It may be intrinsic to you, there may be inherent value in human life to you, but that doesn't mean it is so. Its not the trump card you appear to believe it is.

 

[Ninae]

This concept completely falls apart when people have pets, who they relate to as small children. It's not really any different because you have a sentimental connection with it. There could be aliens who don't have a sentimental connection with us.

 

[swilow]

^I'm not following you.

I actually think there is something immoral about having a pet, and I am a person who always has one. I have a little cat, and had a dog for 7 years. I love having pets, but I feel like there is something brutally callous about giving life to something simply to own it. What does that even mean? To own an animal, to have greater say in its life then it does itself... Of course, the mutual pleasaure derived is a benefit, but there is something harsh about bringing a creature to life to have it live always/only in thrall of humans. I guess that's why I respect my semi-wild cat. She just does what she wants; I am almost a side note in her life. I just happen to feed her and provide a warm spot upon which to recline. I like to remind her that I actually own her; she appears unmoved by that idea though.

I question the fairness of this arrangement, even though I am wholeheartedly embracing it. I love animals and like being near them. I try and make animals feel comfortable- at least not frightened.