I think the more interesting way to go about this is to go with what YOUR most obvious definition of "own" is, define it, then answer the questions. That would shed a big light on how we perceive ownership and it many different possible nuances.

Plus it keeps us from navel gazing

For instance:

Ownership = That which you hold exclusive rights to with the ability to control and or determine the various elements of its existence.

1. Yes, unless it's a cat.
2. Depending on what era/location you live in yes.

Personally, though, I dont think I would consider 2 being a possibility for me because of my Christian world view. If I was alive, christian, and rich in 200AD I think I would be conventionally seen as "owning" slaves. I would maybe buy them from the market and use them in my home for the various household work/management. But I would hope to think that I wouldn't use them in some of the more horrific ways seen in shows such as Roma or Spartacus manly because I have a respect for humans in a way that is much different from animals mainly because of our shared identity with God. I would hope that I would treat with dignity much in the way that St. Paul describes.

Today though, I could never own a person in that slave kind of sense mainly because Im a western middle-class person.

And I see two main differences in animals, one because of what I mentioned above and two because we've bread them in large part to accept our ownership of them.

I find it rare that a person can claim to own a wild animal unless it's caged up on their property. I guess with my definition they do own the animal by controlling where it can go and determining if it lives or dies. But then by that perspective, if I was a Jail Warden I would own the prisoners in my cells too.

Well it obviously depends on what own means, but in general yes to both questions.

If own is a legal term, then you are essentially asking if slavery still exists. According to wiki it is outlawed in all countries, but an estimated 30 million slaves still exist. Which could work out as either a yes or no answer.

If by own you mean implied ownership due to circumstances then its a clear yes. Plenty of people parings A and B, where A can do anything to B without reprisal and b pretty much has to do what A says. However there is a sense of monetary vale in the concept of own, so I guess the AB pairing would be a better example if A could in some sense sell B to someone. Well plenty of daughters get sold every day so that is probably a good example.

Of course there are a lot of other concepts of 'own' where the answer would be no, however I am not sure I like such definitions. If someone is in a position to sell another human, its difficult to argue that there is no ownership involved.

exactly what I was about to post. it strongly depends on what you mean with "owning". having limitless rights to do anything with/to your owned property only limited by law is the correct meaning.

you can't own a human human, that's not legal and everyone's against it. although you can own an animal and often times you should own it, because it lets you contribute to society (cows for milk, pigs for pork etc.).

Lol thread full circle.

Do you think humans are entitled to controlling and owning animals?

I'm not asking to be snide. The bible tells us that god gave humans dominion over animals (or well... a fair portion of them), which I think will make it easier for Christians to accept how we, well, happen to be.

For an atheist such as myself (but not all atheists) animals rights is one of the "big" and difficult philosophical questions. I don't say that because I think Christians mistreat animals, but because in Abrahamic religious beliefs humans have an exalted status in creation. Since I don't see it that way, I have to put my "intuitive" views up for examination... and I'm not certain I can make them fit together properly just yet.

Entitled? Whatever happens happens irrespective of whatever entitled means here.

People use the word own as relating to animals all the time. To say a human can't 'own' an animal would be to use an obscure definition of 'own' that is far from the norm.

It was a question. Chill. I'm not accusing, blaming, making conclusions or pointing fingers.

Only as entitled as your boss is towards you at work.

What I mean is, In the beginning God gave Adam management control over Eden. I believe the line about being given dominion is a continuation of that previous responsibility. I read that verse as giving us more of a controlling responsibility/regency and less of an ultimate domination (I don't agree with Wealth of Nations at all). I don't get the impression that that responsibility ended after we got kicked out.

We dont have to necessarily use that power all the time either. There are also a lot of bits in the Bible that talk of being mindful of your animals. Like not punishing your mill oxen for eating the bits that fall on the floor as they work and other or Proverbs 11 with: "Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel. " There is even Balum's donkey who God allows to speak about how much he's been abused.

Yes, God does require innocent animal sacrifices in the OT and does tell on a number of occasions to kill every living thing, including animals and livestock. But these dont seem to be portrayed as the norm for how we should act towards them. I get the idea that we are to treat them with mindful respect but that there is a definite difference between the levels required for them and for our fellow humans.

I kinda get the idea God is telling us "Don't be a douche, especially to your fellow man."

That seems fair enough. Summarized maybe one could something like "Humans are in an elevated position, but they have to treat animals reasonably as long as the situation allows it". I would say this is the leading view of most people in our "western" countries, and I see nothing wrong with it. I'm more interested in how we attain it and how we reason regarding it.

One last question: If I shoot my neighbor's dog intentionally and without just cause, do you think it most appropriate if I get tried for "assault" or "damaging property?" (let's disregard violations of firearm laws for now).

Btw - I'm not asking what the courts think, I'm asking what you think.

Hmmm really good question. I know that 80% of Americans see their pets as family members, some even so far as to claim them like children. But I think that's a bit wonky. I mean, a dog's a dog. I love her and all but something doesn't sit right about it.

I really don't know as I start to think of it. Im feeling like this isn't necessarily b/w but that it is always one or the other is a bit too far. Is there something in the middle I can choose? lol

Surely there's an option to be charge the person who shot the dog with animal cruelty which is going to be different from assault or trespass but what's then interesting is how you sentence it.

Here, let me help you out. Two scenarios: in one you slowly rip a dog in half, in the other you slowly rip a table in half (with mechanical help, I guess).

(Attacking the dog is assault [or at the very least: much, much closer to assault than vandalism]. What makes assault assault is that you threaten physical harm and injury and have the means to enact it.)

Add: I'm sure this came up further above, but even if we accept that you can own an animal, that is still a different owning than, say, owning a computer. You don't have a responsibility to keep your computer well-electrified, but you do have a responsibility to keep your animals fed. If you don't they get taken from you, owned or not.

Well, there is always a middle way. And both humans and animals that are in our household also represent economic value/investment. My question isn't intended as a dichotomy, it's more of a "if you had to choose".

Other than, I think you have answered very well. Your opinions seem very consistent (which you should consider as huge praise).

There are also immaterial items that come with requiremens for ownership, but I think your point is a good one as this is very rarely vested in a notion of "cruelty" (be it legally or culturally).

It will be interesting to see how legislation develops when computers become intelligent.