Discussion Title: Is the principle of pet ownership vegan?

1. The principle of pet ownership is vegan.
1.1. Con: Keeping pets forms a [mild system of inter-species oppression](https://medium.com/\@laila.kassam/animal-rights-social-justice-and-the-five-faces-of-oppression-part-2-961b0c0b6a4) \(speciesism\).
1.1.1. Pro: The idea of pet-keeping is inherently immoral. With exceptions considering dogs, cats, etc, we are forcing animals into confinement solely for our own pleasure.
1.1.1.1. Pro: Pets are often kept in inappropriate environments for their nature.
1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Birds are often kept in small cages, fish are kept in bowls or small tanks and large dogs are kept in small flats.
1.1.2. Pro: The animal often has no option to leave, and is forced to comply with rules it cannot consent to.
1.1.2.1. Pro: Pets have fewer rights than humans do, so they cannot have the equivalent quality-of-life as humans do due to this alone.
1.1.2.1.1. Pro: Humans should have a pet, because they cannot understand and relate to not having as many rights as they currently have. So humans might push pets into uncomfortable situations where they can get hurt \(even accidentally\), because they do not have rights and humans do not think twice about it, because they do.
1.1.2.1.2. Con: Just because one has fewer rights doesn't mean that they are inherently treated worse.
1.1.2.1.3. Con: Humans are affectionate to their pets so saying that they have an inherently worse quality-of-life is untrue.
1.1.2.2. Con: In a lot of households pets can escape and never return without much trouble.
1.1.2.3. Pro: Popular pets, like dogs, are kept on leashes, taking their freedom away.
1.1.3. Pro: Keeping a pet places bias on protecting one species over another.
1.1.3.1. Pro: Unless the pet is herbivore or [fed with vegan brands](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/may/24/vegetarianism-pets-national-vegetarian-week-cats-dogs), their food comes from the slaughter of other animals.
1.1.3.1.1. Pro: [Research found](http://www.vegepets.info/resources/Publications/By-products-Halpin-et-al-1999.pdf) that the typical level of meat by-products in cat foods is 35-50% compared to a range of 25-40% in dog foods.
1.1.3.2. Con: Pets are not the only animals protected. Livestock and some wildlife are also protected from danger.
1.1.3.2.1. Pro: Humans protect animals of other species in different ways, such as conservation and sanctuaries.
1.1.3.3. Pro: Pets threaten wildlife.
1.1.3.3.1. Pro: Exotic pets, when taken out of their native habitat, are especially deleterious to wildlife populations.
1.1.3.3.1.1. Con: This debate is not about whether people should keep wild endangered animals as pets. It's about whether keeping pets in general is justified or wrong.
1.1.3.3.1.2. Pro: They become invasive when released into an environment that is non-native to them.
1.1.3.3.1.2.1. Pro: The [burmese python in Florida](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/us/the-burmese-python-snake-thats-eating-florida.html) is such a problem, that people have to [switch careers](https://www.wtsp.com/article/tech/science/environment/floridas-crocodile-dundee-turned-a-firefighting-career-into-a-passion-for-pythons/67-63d715aa-42fe-4aa8-8ed5-f4b5328f2033) just to kill them all.
1.1.3.3.1.2.1.1. Pro: The introduced species needs to be killed too. None of this is worth having a pet \(the pet can't have a decent life and neither do anyone else, especially wildlife\).
1.1.3.3.1.2.2. Pro: Not only is this an issue but the abandonment causes problems when they become invasive species in nature \(such as the [lionfish](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/lionfish.html) and [ferrets](http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/invasive-species/invasive-animals/invasive-mammals/ferrets)\).
1.1.3.3.1.3. Pro: One of the examples is the [clownfish, due to the media popularity of 'Finding Nemo'](https://undiscoveredcreatures.wordpress.com/tag/pangolin-as-pet/), where the movie's popularity caused the decline of native clownfish populations.
1.1.3.3.1.4. Con: This is only true for exotic pets, not domesticated. Therefore this is no reason why someone shouldn't get a pet but for someone not to captivate endangered and exotic species.
1.1.3.3.1.4.1. Pro: Domesticated animals are incredibly successful in terms of evolutionary survival, while their more capable relatives are more scarce as a result of climate change.
1.1.3.3.1.4.2. Con: Domesticated animals get affected by being endangered as well through evolutionary survival.
1.1.3.3.1.4.2.1. Pro: Taking domesticated animals out of the wild decreased the species that the domesticated animal was taken from.
1.1.3.3.1.4.2.2. Pro: The reason is that domesticated animals are not surviving through evolution, but instead through adaptation and artificial selection. In the wild \(due to no one owning a pet anymore\), their species may not survive.
1.1.3.3.1.4.2.2.1. Pro: If domesticated animals were to survive through evolution, then they would need to start from when they were taken out of the wild \(as that was the last time they participated in evolution\) and go on from there.
1.1.3.3.1.4.2.3. Pro: If domesticated animals get released into the wild, they could become feral, if not invasive, which ruins the ecosystem. The damages hurts their \(and native animals'\) chances of survival within that environment.
1.1.3.3.1.4.2.3.1. Con: A trait of domesticated animals is that they are kept by humans thus the majority of them are not released into the wild to affect wildlife enough.
1.1.3.3.1.4.2.3.1.1. Con: The few that get released into the wild cause great problems, because they breed and become larger, uncontrollable populations quickly.
1.1.3.3.1.5. Pro: When exotic animals are taken out of their native habitat, the animals left in the wild could suffer from genetic diseases, which further threatens their species. This happens from a smaller gene pool.
1.1.3.3.2. Pro: This is especially true of endangered species.
1.1.3.4. Con: Keeping a pet maintains human existence \(for the pet owner and society\). So the benefit on the individual and society is greater than the costs associated with it, which makes it morally justified.
1.1.3.4.1. Pro: Every being, throughout the whole history of evolution, always uses other beings  to perpetuate and maintain its existence.
1.1.3.4.2. Con: Using a pet to be happy without allowing a pet to be free so they could be happy is a good example.
1.1.3.4.2.1. Con: Animals do not perceive freedom as we do. Happiness is sometimes more likely to occur if you provide for it rather than letting it free \(i.e. are strays happier than pets?\)
1.1.3.4.3. Con: The more pets that take out from their lives for humans, the greater the cumulative cost to the animal's lives \(i.e from commitments: time, attention, etc.\) and the harder it is to morally justify.
1.1.3.4.3.1. Con: Each life is not equal, so counting by number of lives isn't useful in determining costs vs benefits.
1.1.3.4.3.2. Con: Animals like dogs evolved and were bred for social traits, so they are likely to enjoy the company of humans more than mere freedom and possible conflicts with other members of the same or other species.
1.1.3.4.3.2.1. Con: It's due to breeding that makes companionship even harder to morally justify: because we literally breed their complacency \(in taking their life out for us\) into them.
1.1.3.4.3.3. Pro: A person who has 10 pets for example, uses 10 lives to keep themselves happy. Those 10 lives give up their own freedom and happiness for one person.
1.1.3.4.3.3.1. Con: That an animal or animals live with humans does not mean they are giving up any happiness.
1.1.3.4.3.3.2. Con: Many pets are rescued from abusive conditions and adopted into loving homes where they have more freedom and happiness than they experienced previously.
1.1.3.4.3.3.2.1. Pro: Adopting a pet from rescue shelters saves their lives. In many cases they would be put to death.
1.1.3.4.3.4. Pro: If a pet eats meat, multiple lives are sacrificed to support a person's life
1.1.3.4.3.5. Con: Having more than one pet is not an indicator of a person's life needing upkeep. There are many reasons people have more than one pet.
1.1.3.4.3.5.1. Pro: Many people have multiple pets for the happiness and well-being of their pets \(by providing them shelter and care that they otherwise would not get in their current or future situations\).
1.1.3.4.3.5.2. Pro: People might take animals in to counteract species extinction, such as [Richard Branson buying an island for endangered lemurs to boost their current population](https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/why-we-love-lemurs).
1.1.3.4.3.5.2.1. Pro: Islands are like pet cages for billionaires.
1.1.3.4.3.5.3. Pro: People might buy pets to bring about awareness of issues that could bring mass action to decrease inhumanities brought on by the pet industry.
1.1.3.4.3.5.3.1. Pro: An example is someone adopting a pet from an animal shelter for an event to talk about overbreeding issues and then it back to the animal shelter. Then the message sent to the audience would create an impact when people buy and breed less animals.
1.1.3.4.4. Pro: People sell pets for capitalistic gains.
1.1.3.5. Con: As humans, it is natural to adhere to a hierarchy of species protections.
1.1.3.5.1. Pro: As humans, we prioritize our own survival over other species. It makes sense that we then prioritize other species in a hierarchy.
1.1.3.6. Pro: This undermines saving endangered species, as the money spent on a pet could be better spent on saving animals that truly need protection from extinction.
1.1.3.7. Con: People choose pets for companionship, not to ensure survival of a species.
1.1.4. Pro: Pets own us as much as we own them.
1.1.5. Pro: Pets are [subjugated](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/subjugation) by the whim of humans.
1.1.5.1. Pro: Humans should not be in control of another species' genes. Through artificial breeding we are creating animals that should not naturally exist.
1.1.5.2. Pro: These pets become dependent on the owners for their existence. This enables controlling tendencies in their caregivers.
1.1.5.3. Pro: Some pets are bred for fighting. We should not continue this cruel activity.
1.1.5.4. Pro: Some pet owners raise their pets for meat \(such as [dogs in China](https://books.google.com/books?id=F6UxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=pets+oppression&source=bl&ots=h1dhwN_S37&sig=-w8ev4ziTec9jboqtvFDcV0H0co&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1-uSAm5nZAhXL61MKHR4wBnAQ6AEIRzAH#v=onepage&q=pets%20oppression&f=false)\), which create even more immoralities.
1.1.5.4.1. Con: Eating meat is not inherently immoral.  All animals feed on other life forms, many of them on other animals, and humans have evolved to eat both meat and plants.  There is nothing wrong with any of this.
1.1.5.4.2. Con: Animals raised to be eaten are livestock rather than pets.  Raising livestock is no more immoral than keeping pets unless the animals are treated with unnecessary cruelty.
1.1.6. Pro: Keeping pets continues [speciesism](https://contexts.org/articles/speciesism/).
1.1.7. Pro: With so many virtual options \(such as digital aquariums\), there are no needs for real pets.
1.1.7.1. Pro: Inanimate objects \(such as [pet rocks](http://www.petrock.com/)\), [digital pets](http://www.neopets.com/), or taking care of wildlife \(such as through cleanups and establishing preserves\) are ethical alternatives to house pets.
1.1.7.1.1. Con: Taking inanimate objects out of the wild might not be ethical as it can impact wildlife \(a rock might be an animal's home\)
1.1.7.2. Con: This does not provide a solution for any animal that doesn't live in an aquarium.
1.1.7.2.1. Con: -> See 1.1.7.1.
1.1.7.3. Con: Solutions like digital aquariums are like digital fireplaces. Except from the visual effect, they hardly provide anything else.
1.1.7.3.1. Con: However, aquariums generally do not provide anything else, except for visual effect. Since digital aquariums provide that, nothing is amiss.
1.1.7.3.2. Pro: That is beneficial, because the alternative of a true pet could cause deleterious side effects \(such as [lionfish becoming an invasive species](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/stories/lionfish/welcome.html)\) that outweigh any advantages of having them as a digital display.
1.1.7.4. Con: Even the alternative of a digital aquarium is not truly ethical as it still uses resources to have one \(such as electronics and electricity\). Most ethical is no pet or alternative.
1.1.8. Pro: [Anthropomorphization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism) of pets is far too common and hazardous, as the lack of understanding of what their real needs are and of their way to communicate often lead to mishandling, resulting in problematic or aggressive behaviour and abandonment. This is an unnecessary stress factor both for people and the pets they keep.
1.1.9. Con: Pets benefit from being in human care, which does not exist in an oppressive relationship.
1.1.9.1. Con: Care is one of the benefits in oppressive relationships, as oppressed can get care, but can be oppressed while getting care. One example is when companies still pay people while preventing them from forming unions \(especially before union laws\).
1.2. Pro: We have a [responsibility](https://www.plantbasednews.org/opinion/should-vegans-have-companion-animals) to care for the effects of domestication of animals until they're able to go back to the wild.
1.2.1. Con: The effects of domestication has been caused by care. Care has caused the evolution of the animals to take a direction that was mutually beneficial for man and beast.
1.3. Pro: If they're [considered family](https://www.plantbasednews.org/opinion/should-vegans-have-companion-animals), then they aren't thought of as pets.
1.4. Pro: If animals are [rescued](https://www.plantbasednews.org/opinion/should-vegans-have-companion-animals) from situations where they wouldn't exist if they are not a pet, then it's less vegan to not rescue them.
1.4.1. Con: Rescuing pets from bad situations doesn't make the pet ownership any less vegan, especially if it's not temporary.
1.5. Pro: Owning a pet is [caring](https://www.plantbasednews.org/opinion/should-vegans-have-companion-animals) for them. So if one cares for an animal, it's not exploitation, but rather the other way around!
1.6. Pro: The human/pet relationship is symbiotic. We need them as much as they need us.
1.7. Con: Keeping pets contributes to the financial incentive for pet trading and breeding. Which leads to many animals being put down who do not find homes.
1.8. Pro: If an animal wants to be a [companion/pet and is free to leave whenever it wants to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sYrRUJNHCU), then it's vegan.
1.9. Con: Pet ownership can never be vegan as the very animals that we are trying to save will never attain the [freedom](https://www.animalhumanesociety.org/health/five-freedoms-animals) with which they are entitled to live with.