Re keeping cats indoors: I believe that all animals deserve to be free, and more specifically, that I, as the cat guardian, do not have the moral right to them confined*. I would be interested to hear your counter-arguments, if you would like to share.
* (Unless absolutely required for their own safety/well-being; I would keep a cat indoors only if I lived near a busy road, for example. Though in that case, I would strongly reconsider getting a cat in the first place, or make sure that the cat is an older one, that does not need to venture out as much to maintain their mental well-being).
Re keeping cats indoors: I believe that all animals deserve to be free, and more specifically, that I, as the cat guardian, do not have the moral right to them confined*. I would be interested to hear your counter-arguments, if you would like to share.
My main (maybe virtually sole) concern here is the suffering cats caused. It’s way more than the cat’s suffering being confined.
A few other comments in this post suggests that we can limit a cat’s ability to hunt and kill with certain gadgets, maybe with their use we can still let cats outside without them causing too much suffering. I am not sure.
I would strongly reconsider getting a cat in the first place
I think this is what all cat owners in the world should have done, regarding the overal suffering owning cats causes—Cats cause a lot of suffering.
I think this is what all cat owners in the world should have done, regarding the overal suffering owning cats causes—Cats cause a lot of suffering.
Do you estimate that in most of the world, cats are bought? Meaning, that more adopted cats mean more cats are bred to supply that demand? Otherwise, it shouldn’t make a difference. Quite to the contrary: a house cat that also goes outside does hunt significantly less than a stray cat (though the strays to have much shorter life spans...).
In Israel, where I live, it is definitely not—but I know it is not the case for all places. The vast majority of house cats here are stray cats that were adopted, some of them when they were found as deserted newborn (now there’s an EA dilemma: is it indeed an altruistic act to then adopt the newborn, and spend the vast resources to raise them into a then-hunting cat? ;)).
I know that in Berlin, for example, cats are normally bought and paid for, and also pure-bred (which in Israel would be considered a very immoral thing to do).
In which case you should absolutely not cause an extra pet cat to be created, given that if they are allowed to run free they will kill more small animals than they can eat.
However, I absolutely agree that cats should be spayed or neutered, as there are plenty of rescues that need a home. This is especially true where I live, where there are perhaps 10 stray cats on each house cat (in case you were worried my cat going outdoors is damaging some fragile equilibrium).
That is a bold statement, which I believe is also false. Do you have any support for that? As far as I can tell by observation (as well as common knowledge), cats do eat the vast majority of their prey (and in cases where they don’t, there is likely to be some illness with the prey, which also means a swifter death is better for it).
Re keeping cats indoors: I believe that all animals deserve to be free, and more specifically, that I, as the cat guardian, do not have the moral right to them confined*. I would be interested to hear your counter-arguments, if you would like to share.
* (Unless absolutely required for their own safety/well-being; I would keep a cat indoors only if I lived near a busy road, for example. Though in that case, I would strongly reconsider getting a cat in the first place, or make sure that the cat is an older one, that does not need to venture out as much to maintain their mental well-being).
My main (maybe virtually sole) concern here is the suffering cats caused. It’s way more than the cat’s suffering being confined.
A few other comments in this post suggests that we can limit a cat’s ability to hunt and kill with certain gadgets, maybe with their use we can still let cats outside without them causing too much suffering. I am not sure.
I think this is what all cat owners in the world should have done, regarding the overal suffering owning cats causes—Cats cause a lot of suffering.
Do you estimate that in most of the world, cats are bought? Meaning, that more adopted cats mean more cats are bred to supply that demand? Otherwise, it shouldn’t make a difference. Quite to the contrary: a house cat that also goes outside does hunt significantly less than a stray cat (though the strays to have much shorter life spans...).
In Israel, where I live, it is definitely not—but I know it is not the case for all places. The vast majority of house cats here are stray cats that were adopted, some of them when they were found as deserted newborn (now there’s an EA dilemma: is it indeed an altruistic act to then adopt the newborn, and spend the vast resources to raise them into a then-hunting cat? ;)).
I know that in Berlin, for example, cats are normally bought and paid for, and also pure-bred (which in Israel would be considered a very immoral thing to do).
What is it like where you live?
In which case you should absolutely not cause an extra pet cat to be created, given that if they are allowed to run free they will kill more small animals than they can eat.
However, I absolutely agree that cats should be spayed or neutered, as there are plenty of rescues that need a home. This is especially true where I live, where there are perhaps 10 stray cats on each house cat (in case you were worried my cat going outdoors is damaging some fragile equilibrium).
That is a bold statement, which I believe is also false. Do you have any support for that? As far as I can tell by observation (as well as common knowledge), cats do eat the vast majority of their prey (and in cases where they don’t, there is likely to be some illness with the prey, which also means a swifter death is better for it).