In response to Israel's question "Is it "animal nature" to be used as pets?"

First I just wanted to say some people use dogs and cats as "slaves"...think about the people who breed these animals, think about puppy mills. Some people abuse cats and dogs by beating them and not feeding them. When they get caught they come up with something like they don't have money to buy food. My question to them is then why do you have so many, why not just one??

Ponder about this. ( Please comment on this if you have any thoughts)

Now to comment on the question.

Originally I don't believe it was a part of "animal nature" to be used as pets because until we domesticated them they were wild animals. And I suppose in some places they still are to some degree. For example when I went to Hawaii there where tons of cats walking all over the place outside around the hotel and I am 99.9% positive they didn't "belong" to anyone.

I also believe in the case of house pets such as cats and dogs because we domesticated them we have kind of made it part of their "animal nature" to possibly be pets. There are some pets who if they were put out into the wild they could still survive. But there are also the house pets who would not becasue of how they have become so use to being handed everything. Let me clarify...not because they don't know how (there are somethings like survival that animals just like humans don't forget) but because they choose not too (for a lack of better words)...meaning they would rather be in a home. Let me help clear up what I am trying to say with an example of one of my cats...First off he is huge, big paws, at first you would think a hunter but in realitity he is just a big fluff ball. He will sit at the window and sniff at the air outside and he will go towards a door as if he wants to go outside but whenever we actually try to bring him outdoors he is scared to death. At the site and the sound of a car or a dog he darts off to hide under the deck. (And it is the biggest pain to get him out...so we don't bring him outside).

Anyways to sum up my thoughts I think it has only become a part of "animal nature" to be used as pets because we have made it their nature.

Question:

Is it a part of human nature to domesticate animals??

In response to Samantha question, "If consuming animal flesh is morally wrong, is it also wrong to consume animal byproducts such as milk? "

I believe this is another very debatable question...it all depends on your beliefs.

Many people are vegetarian because they feel it is morally wrong to consume animal flesh but they still consume and use animal byproducts. Although I am not a vegetarian I think one of the reasons for this might be because it's (for lack of a better word) apparent as eating meat is that it's something from an animal. Another argument might be that a byproduct such as milk doesn't require killing the animal and if done properly shouldn't hurt the animal their. In fact if cows that are raised as milking cows don't get milked when they are suppose to that can actually hurt them.

Then there are the people who don't eat animal flesh or use any of their byproducts becuase they do think that it is morally wrong. There are also people who choose to do so because of health reasons. And of course there are the people who do eat animal flesh and use their byproducts. Like I said no matter what you do I think it depends on your beliefs.

Question:

Based off of Samantha's original question...If is morally wrong to consume animal byproducts such as milk wouldn't that bring up debate on wheather or not it's morally wrong to feed a human child a mother's breast milk??

In response to Kim's question, "Should aspects of biological similarity and similarity in consciousness be filed under the same category of human nature or are they to distinct to be discussed as two parts of one whole?"

Due to the fact that they are BIOLOGICAL similarities although they could definately be considered their own topic of dicussion (just like anything else in philosophy...you could probably talk about it forever) I also feel because they are biological similarities they also fall under human nature. I believe it is our biological aspects that contribute to our human nature. If we weren't able to do something then it wouldn't be in our nature...

Even something simple like walking. We all have to learn how to walk...we are born walking. Although all of us are not able to walk it is biologically built into our human nature. For those of us who can't walk usually it isn't because we aren't able to learn how per say but because of some other underlying cause. An example would be a baby born with only one leg or with a muscle defiency or and accident or something else along those lines. But because it is in our human nature to walk we have come up with ways for those in the examples above to walk. Such as crutches, canes, and walkers,etc. My point is even if we all can't do it initially we all had the ability and or the want/desire to learn how to walk.

Question:

Do you believe that our biological make-up contributes to what we are and are not capable of doing in our human nature?