I know I’ll get downvoted for this but I believe if you’re vegan you really shouldn’t have pets.
Having a pet means claiming total control over another sentient being’s existence - deciding where they live, what they eat, their medical care, whether and with whom they can breed, and even when they die.
The usual justifications (they’re happy, well-cared for, etc) still don’t resolve the power imbalance. If keeping a human locked up from birth would be fucked up even if they were happy and loved you, then having that same level of control over an animal’s life can’t be ethical either.
The fact that we bred them to be dependent doesn’t justify continuing a cycle of exploitation - it just highlights how deep the ethical problem goes.
PS. Caveat is injured wildlife that is being rehabilitated to be released back into the wild or animals that would find it literally impossible to survive on their own - ie end-of-life care or strays that will be euthanized - tho this means you should be actively dismantling the pet industry as well instead of just having pets but with an “ethical” undertone
While its not exploitation for commodity production, we could call it exploitation for entertainment value / comfort.
The power imbalance def exists, but its similar to that of parents and children, and its difficult to generalize that into “necessary and always harmful.” And of course there are plenty of house pets that have a lot of freedom and comfort, and the “entertainment / comfort” exploitation goes both ways. The main thing to me is they’re neither servants producing use values or commodities, or commodities themselves (unless its through a breeder).
I know I’ll get downvoted for this but I believe if you’re vegan you really shouldn’t have pets.
Having a pet means claiming total control over another sentient being’s existence - deciding where they live, what they eat, their medical care, whether and with whom they can breed, and even when they die.
The usual justifications (they’re happy, well-cared for, etc) still don’t resolve the power imbalance. If keeping a human locked up from birth would be fucked up even if they were happy and loved you, then having that same level of control over an animal’s life can’t be ethical either.
The fact that we bred them to be dependent doesn’t justify continuing a cycle of exploitation - it just highlights how deep the ethical problem goes.
PS. Caveat is injured wildlife that is being rehabilitated to be released back into the wild or animals that would find it literally impossible to survive on their own - ie end-of-life care or strays that will be euthanized - tho this means you should be actively dismantling the pet industry as well instead of just having pets but with an “ethical” undertone
While its not exploitation for commodity production, we could call it exploitation for entertainment value / comfort.
The power imbalance def exists, but its similar to that of parents and children, and its difficult to generalize that into “necessary and always harmful.” And of course there are plenty of house pets that have a lot of freedom and comfort, and the “entertainment / comfort” exploitation goes both ways. The main thing to me is they’re neither servants producing use values or commodities, or commodities themselves (unless its through a breeder).