Surely not, Fester.

>>Pericles, my objection to slavery is that, by definition, it entails human beings owning other human beings. What purpose they are used for is irrelevant.<<

You consider that keeping them for the purpose of providing entertainment, is no more reprehensible than putting them to work? That's an odd slice of morality. To me it is, anyway.

>>Yet you find the exploitation of animals for their utility as acceptable, even though such exploitation was the basis of most slavery.<<

Not really. That suggests that all employment is a form of slavery. Which is a valid view, one that Karl Marx wrote about extensively in Das Kapital, but not one that I share.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/you-might-be-a-marxist-if-you-want-to-end-the-exploitation-of-workers/

"What distinguishes the various economic formations of society—the distinction between for example a society based on slave-labour and a society based on wage-labour—is the form in which this surplus labour is in each case extorted from the immediate producer, the worker."

In my opinion, using animals for a clear working purpose, one for which they are rewarded, is substantially more ethical than breeding dogs that fit into Paris Hilton's handbag, and is not, prima facie, a form of slavery.

But if you are unable to discern a difference in the two purposes, then I guess the point will be lost on you.

>>...had Huxley been alive to see the third world exploitation of today, he would have realised that the creation of willing slaves would entail nothing so sophisticated, yet be no less diabolical.<<

Huxley addressed this exact situation, albeit allegorically. So he was appalled then, and would be appalled now.

But that still doesn't excuse the keeping pets purely for their amusement value. Which, significantly, is a practice far less prevalent in your "third world".

In fact pet-ownership could almost be identified in itself, as a marker of civilization's journey to decadence, don't you think?

[Deleted for abuse.]

You have obviously been laughing so hard that you forgot to listen, jayb.

>>...what are we to do with all the pets that are now owned<<

My suggestion is that we need to do absolutely nothing about existing ownership, as I pointed out earlier

"Jewely is right, it's not about suddenly freeing all the pets to live in the wild - that would be stupid, and counter-productive. Instead, if you make the future acquisition of a domestic pet illegal, except for those with a 'productive use' license, the habit will die out within a generation. Our current preoccupation with them will quickly move to the realms of 'you did what, grandpa?'"

We'd have to prevent the existing ones from breeding, of course. But that's a once-off, and not exactly an uncommon practice even now.

So your snide sign-off is singularly irrelevant.

>>Goodness you have created a huge problem for "someone else" to solve, haven't you. I'll leave you with that. ;-)<<

But it is typical that you choose not to discuss the issue itself.

I can deduce without much difficulty that you are defensive of pet-ownership. But you don't - or cannot, it's difficult to tell - offer any rationale for it.

It wasn't that remark about dogs that fit into handbags, was it, that upset you? A little too close to home?

>>My dog knew what was going to happen, he came & lay beside me & licked my face then turned around & lay down facing away from me. Yes, I cried like a baby for days<<

As you would.

Those chihuahuas are so-o-o-o-o cute, aren't they.

>>My dog knew what was going to happen, he came & lay beside me & licked my face then turned around & lay down facing away from me. Yes, I cried like a baby for days<<

It was a Staffy, Cattle Cross, extremely dumb but loveable. It wasn't my dog even though he thought he was.

I really don't care if you own a pet or not. If you do, you have a responsibility to look after it. If it gets too sick then euthanasia is the proper thing to do.
I don't like people who are going on holidays & get the dog put down because it's too expensive to put in a kennel.
Dogs larger than 1/2 way up your leg belong on 5 Acres. Dogs up to your ankle in city blocks. None in appartments. Cats,any discription, in a bag & in the river.

Pericles: if you make the future acquisition of a domestic pet illegal, except for those with a 'productive use' license, the habit will die out within a generation.

Agreed. I have no problem with that. At least you proffer a solution to this problem. Somthing that is unusual amoungst some of the people who post here.

<In my opinion, using animals for a clear working purpose, one for which they are rewarded, is substantially more ethical than breeding dogs that fit into Paris Hilton's handbag, and is not, prima facie, a form of slavery.>

If you were referring to humans, there is no question that both constitute slavery. But we are discussing non-human animals, and non-human animals cannot be slaves.

And isn't entertaining people work? Is watching a play purely for enjoyment unethical? I think it very likely that future people will continue to value entertainment.

Also, what constitutes valuable work? A dog in a nursing home may do no more than amuse the residents, yet this will allow the staff to be more productive. So it contradicts your stance of an animal kept purely for amusement being of no value.

But far more important than your or my opinion is what do the animals concerned think about their situation? Does a working animal feel better for doing useful work? Does Paris Hilton's pooch feel ashamed for living an unproductive life in a handbag. If you could answer this question you might have a case for Paris Hilton being unethical. Perhaps in the future people will be able to answer these questions. But will they see this as a reason to ban types of animal ownership, or will they simply continue civilisations' trend of breeding animals suited for their use?

<But that still doesn't excuse the keeping pets purely for their amusement value. Which, significantly, is a practice far less prevalent in your "third world".>

Brave New World provides no insight on the ethics of pet ownership. You need to advance valid reasons why it is unethical to keep animals for their entertainment value.

<In fact pet-ownership could almost be identified in itself, as a marker of civilization's journey to decadence, don't you think?>

No. You seem to ascribe little value to things used purely for amusement. Dont you think our lives are better for the amusement we experience?

That's a bit bizarre, Fester.

I suggested that "using animals for a clear working purpose, one for which they are rewarded, is substantially more ethical than breeding dogs that fit into Paris Hilton's handbag, and is not, prima facie, a form of slavery"

You replied that "If you were referring to humans, there is no question that both constitute slavery"

Not in my book it isn't. Where I come from, "using humans for a clear working purpose, one for which they are rewarded" is called "employment". Working for a living.

It is true that Karl Marx called it slavery, but I'm not a Marxist.

>>Is watching a play purely for enjoyment unethical?<<

The animal equivalent would be circus animals. You wouldn't need to be a genius to divine my attitude towards that form of entertainment.

>>A dog in a nursing home may do no more than amuse the residents, yet this will allow the staff to be more productive. So it contradicts your stance of an animal kept purely for amusement being of no value.<<

I'd consider their work to be on a par with guide dogs. No contradiction at all.

>>what do the animals concerned think about their situation?<<

They might not be as impressed as you think. When I asked my next-door neighbour's dog how he felt he was being treated, he quite distinctly said "Rough".

Silly questions deserve silly answers.

>>You need to advance valid reasons why it is unethical to keep animals for their entertainment value.<<

Listen pal, my position is quite simply that future generations will look back on the practice of keeping pet animals in handbags as being barbaric. I think you are well on the way to proving my point for me.

>>You seem to ascribe little value to things used purely for amusement<<

Not things. Animals.

>>Dont you think our lives are better for the amusement we experience?<<

I'm sure the audience at the Colosseum were vastly amused when Secutor ran Retiarius through the guts with his spatha.

Didn't make the sport less barbaric.