Killer Cali and Morals.

My cat's name is Cali but she is usually called "Killer Cali" in my family because of her love for hunting and preying upon any animal smaller than her. She is free to go outdoors or come inside whenever she wants and her bowl is always full of cat food. However, this does not stop her from killing all sorts of birds, chipmunks, squirrels, rabbits, frogs, and any other backyard creature she can find. She has been found tossing her half dead prey in the air, letting it try to escape, and then stopping it with her paw. She does not just kill animals, she eats almost every part. I have found eyeballs, torn legs, and other random animal parts in my yard. Whenever my family sees her stalking an animal, we bring her inside and tell her that what she is doing is wrong, even though we know she does not really understand this concept. We have even tried to put collars with bells on her so the animals can be warned but she has learned to walk without making a sound and also how to remove the collar outside so we can not find it. We have attempted to keep her in to the confines of my house but she always ends up going right back outside. My instinct is to stop her from hurting and killing other animals because my morals say this is wrong, but it is in her nature to want to hunt even if she is not hungry for food. Cats are carnivores, after all.

So, should humans stop animals from preying on other species? I don't think so. At first I want to say yes because I can not morally justify the killing of animals by human beings. In the case of my cat, I would be more apt to stop her because she is provided for and there is no reason for her to kill. But, in the wild, to save an animal from its predator is to disrupt the food chain. This could jeopardize an animal's ability to provide for his or herself. Now, I wonder if animals know the difference between right and wrong. With domesticated animals, especially dogs, we teach them this. But, without being taught, I wonder if an animal is able to realize he or she is doing something wrong and has the will power / ability to stop. Human beings have morals, even if they may difference between two people, but we still have them. Humans know right from wrong in almost every situation. Even though we may not always do what is right, we are still aware of the effects our choice has on something or someone. Are animals the same way? How can we know?

My question is: Do animals have a set of their own morals and how can/have human beings even observe(d) this?

Is she really a killer or is she just following her instincts?

Response to "Pet Keeping verses Zoos."

Response #8

In Nicole's blog, she questions whether it is moral to keep pets. She mentions a song where the lyrics talk about locking pets up because they are beautiful and controllable. The song makes the listener feel like it is directed towards him or her. It makes the listener question how a dog or cat feels as the pet. If a person locked up another human, he or she would be very unhappy and this would be seen as morally wrong and in most cases illegal. However, this is what we do to animals so Nicole questions how this can be better justified. Usually, 'owners' love their pets and most households feel incomplete without them. Nicole wonders when the pets get a say as to how they live their lives. A lot of animals are treated well as pets and given some freedoms, but many are not and are often abused or abandoned. However, if an animal had the chance to run or fly away from their 'owner', then I don't really see how keeping it alright if it is against the will of the animal. Then Nicole brings up the topic of zoos. She asks, "Do you think there is any defense to be made for zoos and keeping animals in cages?"

My answer is: Not really. What Nicole mentioned about protecting endangered animals or giving them a home if they are abandoned is about the only reasons for having zoos in the first place. Zoos can also be educational because people actually get to see the animals and learn about them at the same time. It is exciting for a child and even adults to see an elephant or tiger in person. The animals kept in zoos are given substantial food and shelter; they are provided for. However, this takes away from their natural abilities to fend for themselves. Often, cages are dirty and animals should not be taken out of their natural habitats. This is a violation of their natural rights to be free (well, they should have the natural right to be free).

When I think of zoos, I think of Big Brother (the reality TV show) where cameras surround the people all day and night. They are constantly being watched, just like animals in zoos. Many of the animals may not pay any attention to the onlookers or may be used to it since it is a daily ritual, but it is still kind of creepy. I know I wouldn't want my every move observed, that's for sure. We can never fully know how animals feel behind glass/bars, but if it is anything like how humans would feel, then they must think they are in a prison. This comes back to my previous post about how much space an animal has the right to. Wild animals should not be put in cages. They should not be tamed just for human entertainment. Having pets (such as dogs and cats) is acceptable, in my opinion, as long as humans give them a lot of living space and freedoms. My cats are free to come inside or go outside and eat when they are hungry. My dog roams the back yard although he is fenced in. I do not agree with keeping birds and other caged pets like hamsters because they are so greatly contained and birds are meant to be able to fly. If a human is unable to care for the pet and has to put it in a cage half of the time, then they should not be a pet owner. No one deserves to be locked in a cage.

My question to you is: Do you think zoos will always exist or will they be done away with if more people see the ethical dilemma of keeping animals confined to certain spaces and having them on display for all the world to see?

A True Story.

I think this video speaks for itself. :)

Response to "Headaches."

Response #7

In Mary Marcil's bog, she talks about the discussion we had in class pertaining to human and animal pain/suffering. If we experience a headache, we are in pain which turns into suffering. That suffering still exists even if we are too distracted to notice. The question was whether animals experience the same thing. Can they be aware of themselves but get distracted from their awareness? Mary finds this believable, especially when the memory spans of an animal are taken into consideration. She says, "It is ompletely reasonable that they might forget they are aware in order to focus on something important like escaping a predator or feeding their young." If an animal has a short memory span, it is possible that they were aware, at one point, of their pain even if it does not last very long. Mary asks, "Are there times when we can absolutely tell if an animal is self-aware?"

Like in the video we watched in class, we know animals are self-aware if they look into a mirror and realize the image is of themselves. Dolphins, apes, and elephants are certainly self-aware but it is hard to tell if other animals are as well. When an animal grooms itself, it is aware of itself been groomed. Also, when one animal wants to prove to another its affection, most of the time, if it is a mammal or a bird, it shows this by by grooming that animal. Sometimes, when animals are feeling stress, they take it out in themselves, much like humans do. Parrots pluck their feathers and dogs chase and chew their tails. These are signs of self-punishments that can only be seen in beings with a developed sense of the self. Self awareness is proven through animal behaviors such as status, pride, self esteem, territoriality, self punishment, self love, supremacy, and submission. It is complicated to know for sure which animals are self aware, but by simple observations, sometimes we just know they are more aware than they let on.

My question to you is: What makes some animals seem more self aware than others and in what ways does the intelligence level of an animal relate to self awareness?

Animal Confinement and Consciousness.

Today, when I was walking back to my townhouse, I saw a student come out of her car with a goldfish and a small bowl to keep it in. I wanted to ask her if she would like to live in such a small space but I refrained from doing so. Instead, I came back to my laptop to blog about it. Many people are uninformed as to what animals (especially fish) need in order to live comfortably and contently. Sure, some people would say that it does not matter because fish are not conscious of themselves or their surroundings. However, I do not think we could ever know what a fish is really thinking so I am just going to assume no one would want to live in a half gallon bowl. I am not against owning fish. I actually have a two year old beta who resides in my townhouse with me. Unless the world population organizes a revolt against breeding fish, then there is nothing we can really do besides give them a home and what they need. People just need to know how to care for their pets.

Animals and humans are different, but both deserve freedom and respect. Throughout history, there has never been an animal species that gave other animals so little space as humans do today. By confining animals to a specific designated space, they are not able to express their natural behavior. Some people do think, for obvious reasons, that putting a fence around a pasture to make sure the animals do not escape into the road is a reasonable action. Also, humans have a right not to be 'bothered' by animals that live next door or down the street. People expect others will keep their pets under control, their dogs on a leash, their fish in a tank, their cows in selected pastures, etc. In this sense, freedom is bound by borders but these borders are needed for legal reasons. But where is the limit as to how confined an animal/pet should be? If animals are truly conscious of themselves and can experience happiness, then they should have the right to their own property and space. After all, it is not in a dog's nature to be locked in a cage all day while his or her owner is at work. It needs to get exercise just like humans. The same goes for all animals. Humans do not like to be confined to only a certain space, so I raise the question as to whether animals should be confined and, if so, how much space is enough for them to experience and enjoy their lives?

My question to you is: Do you think human beings should have the right to confine animals? If so, how much space does an animal have the right to occupy?

Response to "Animals and Emotions."

Response #6

I initially was going to respond to Jenna's question, which is, "Do you think our pets can or do love us in the same way we love them? Can animals love at all?" However, Hallie does a wonderful job of answering this question in her blog. At first, I wanted to state that yes, pets do love us! Although, like Hallie said, we can never enter the mind of an animal so it is impossible to infer how animals feel and what they are thinking. I would like to think that my pets love me. For example, my cat Buttons purrs nonstop around me. He sleeps next to my head at night, kneads my arms, touches noses with me, puts his arms around my neck, and follows me around nonstop. I could guess that he does love me but he may just be doing this for attention or because he knows I'm the only one that gives him treats and wet cat food. I will never know the truth. Hallie asks the question, "Do you think domesticated cats differ from dogs on the subject of pet/human relationships based on behavioral cues?"

In general and stereotypically, dogs are more affectionate and human-like. This is because they depend on people more greatly than cats do. Dogs need their owners to take them outside, feed them, walk them, groom them, and so on. Dogs don't do well on their own because they are so greatly domesticated and have been twice as long as cats (about 14,000 years). Dogs are more excited, hyper, and loyal compared to cats because cats are independent animals and do not require very much attention. My cat, Cali, basically lives outdoors. Everyday, I find her with a different animal in her mouth. No matter how often I tell her that killing animals is 'bad', she still does it because it is in her nature and what is right to her. She is highly capable of preying on her own food and finding her own shelter. She can also groom herself. The reason why she stays with me is because such a domestic lifestyle is easy. Why choose to sleep outside when she can have a warm bed?

I think domesticated animals take on different personalities, like humans. Human and pet relationships all depend on the human and the pet. I am much closer with my cat than my dog because I find my cat more affectionate and intelligent. My dog simply does not like me and only warms up to a select few. All of my pets have different aspects and can be categorized as different types of people. I once wrote a paper on the personalities of my pets; I don't see how a person can see all animals as the same and as inferior. All domesticated animals are unique and tend to adapt to their humans as well as their surroundings. If an animal has sufficient time with their human 'owner', that animal will start to take on the characteristics of their owners, dogs especially. In my experiences, I find my cats to be more friendly but maybe this is because my dog is an old, grouchy Pomeranian who barks nonstop. I think generally dogs have better relationships with humans but, if a person learns to respect and have patience for his or her cat, this relationship can become more equal since humans have to earn their cats appreciation and loyalty.

My question to you is: Should humans be able to keep non-domesticated or exotic animals (like snakes, serval cats, chinchillas) as pets? Why or why not?

Here is a link I found interesting that compares cats and dogs:
http://www.neatorama.com/spotlight/2010/05/14/cats-vs-dogs/

This is a serval cat. When I worked at the veterinary clinic in my hometown, a woman owned a serval cat (along with many other exotic animals) as a pet and brought it in to be neutered. Let's just say it wasn't the friendliest animal when it woke up.

Response to "The Death of an Animal."

Response #5

In Courtney's blog, she talks about how living is in the best interest of an animal and, if it is killed, we are taking away its right to live and enjoy life. Frederike Kaldewaij believes animals shouldn't be killed or harmed by human beings since this would take away their ability to have a fulfilling life. Killing for food, fur, or leather can not be justified, according to Kaldewaij. "Death is harmful because it thwarts an individual's desire to stay alive and other desires he or she may have for the future," states Kaldewaji. She believes all lives are instrumentally valued. Courtney then talks about euthanasia and how it effects animals who are suffering and even those who are not. Some animals are euthanized because they are seriously ill and others only because shelters are too crowded. She talks about her own experiences of having to put past pets to sleep and then asks, "If an animal is suffering (no matter if they are a pet or not), is euthanizing them in their best interests, even when they are young, or is it cutting a life short?"

I worked at a veterinary clinic for two years and part of my job was to assist the veterinary technician with euthanasias. I got to see the different reactions of the family members who owned the dog or cat that was being put to sleep. Most families were devastated; they only put their animals to sleep because they did not want to have their animals suffer and they didn't think there was any other way. One family in particular owned a dog named Savita who had leukemia. She was about twelve years old and they did all they could to save her. They brought her to the vets at least twice a week for treatment. I saw that dog suffer. She would not eat. She could not get up. She would just go to the bathroom in her cage because she didn't know what else to do. The family and the dog fought and fought for her life but nothing could be done. Finally, after quite a few years of the endless battle of leukemia, they put her to sleep.

I think it is in the best interest of the animal to be put out of its misery and suffering. If nothing can be done to save the animal or stop it from being in pain, then there is nothing wrong with euthanasia. It is a painless and quick way to stop an animal from suffering, if there is no foreseen end to said suffering. I think age does matter when it comes to deciding whether to put an animal to sleep or not. If it is old and sick but has lived a fulfilling life, as long as there truly is no known solution to the suffering, euthanizing the animal is the right thing to do. If the animal is young, it's much harder to make such a decision because it deserves life. But, nothing and no one should have to suffer, plain and simple.

Now, I also saw many people abandon their pets or want them to be put to sleep simply because they could no longer care for the pet. Sometimes owners would move or have children and they felt like they couldn't handle their animals any longer. If the owners asked the vet to euthanize their pet for this reason, the veterinarian would refuse but offer to take the animal into his care so he can find him or her a family that did have time and care for the pet. Under some circumstances, euthanasia is truly whats right no matter if the animal is old or young (only if it is to stop an animal from suffering) but in other instances, like if a family just does not want their pets anymore, then it should not be done. Taking a life, even if its for the most ethical reason, should be thought out and decided carefully. As long as it's painless, quick, and safe, then it is justifiable.

My question to you is: In the reading (page 62), Kaldewaij states, "There do not seem to be good reasons to assume that the harm that death causes animals that are kept for food production is much less serious than the human harm of death." Do you think many people hold this view (why or why not?) and how do you feel about it?