this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
56 points (96.7% liked)
Asklemmy
52805 readers
231 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yours is a fascinating perspective that I haven't considered before.
My "shooting from the hip" response is to consider the life of an animal in a 2x2 grid. The first column is pets, the second column is non-pets (i.e. Animals living in the wild). The first row is animals with sufficient access to food, shelter, and overall wellbeing. The second row is animals without those needs being met (i.e. Suffering under the hands of either humans or nature).
In my opinion, based on my personal life experience, and only if you consider the animals that are not typically used for food (that's an entirely different, but also important discussion), the number of animals in the top left quadrant are second only to the number of animals in the bottom right. Because of this, I believe that the concept of pet ownership is an overall net positive.
That still absolutely does rob the pet of the free will to decide their own destiny, and that is still absolutely a moral quandary.