Home / I. Other uses: testing, clothing, entertainment / Part IND
"Horses like working and being ridden."
it's a convenient projection by those who benefit. Horses are prey animals, and most riding teaches them to obey through pressure, discomfort and repetition; their docility is trained, not chosen. Many suffer from bits, spurs, excessive loads and work on hot asphalt, like cart and carriage horses in cities. That an animal gets used to something doesn't mean it likes it.
Short answer
Horses are prey animals, and most riding teaches them to obey through pressure, discomfort and repetition. Seeming calm isn't consenting: it's having learned. Many suffer from bits, spurs, excessive loads and work on hot asphalt, like city cart and carriage horses. Saying they were "born for this" is attributing to the animal the purpose we gave it (C9).
For children
Horses learn to obey because they're trained, sometimes with things that bother them, like the bit in their mouth. They can get used to it, but that doesn't mean they chose it. Horses that pull carts in the streets often work in the hot sun and carry a lot of weight. Loving horses means taking good care of them, not making them work for us.
"How do you know the horse likes it, if it never had the option to refuse?"
Como pode aparecer
"Horses were born to be ridden."
"The carriage driver depends on it."
"My horse loves going out for a ride."
"Horses like to work; it's in their nature."
"Riding establishes a partnership between human and horse."
"Farm animals exist for this." (which is C9)
The strongest version
"Horses were born to be ridden. The carriage driver depends on it."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Horses were domesticated thousands of years ago for work and riding.
- P2Many horses seem calm and cooperative while working.
- P3Well-treated horses have a partnership with their carers.
- CSo horses like working, and using them isn't exploitation.
P1 is true. P2 and P3 are true in some cases. The problem lies in the conclusion: seeming calm isn't consenting, and behavior is shaped by training.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails because it reads trained obedience as preference.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument reads trained behavior as preference:
Behavior Convenient interpretation More careful interpretation The horse accepts the saddle "It likes it" It learned that resisting brings discomfort The horse obeys the bit "Partnership" Pressure in the mouth is uncomfortable The horse works all day "It's in its nature" It has no choice - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Trained obedience isn't consent.
Horse training uses pressure and release: the animal learns to yield so the discomfort stops.
2. Horses are prey animals.
They often hide signs of pain and fear. Seeming calm doesn't guarantee wellbeing.
3. There's real suffering in many uses.
Cart horses in cities work with excessive loads, on hot asphalt and without adequate rest. Several cities have banned or restricted horse-drawn carts and carriages for this reason, from Brazilian cities such as Belo Horizonte and Recife to Chicago.
4. "Born for this" is an imposed purpose.
It's the purpose we assign, not a trait of the animal (C9).
5. Economic dependence is real, and calls for a transition.
Cart drivers need alternatives, and programs replacing carts with motor vehicles already exist in some cities.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note McGreevy and McLean, *Roles of learning theory and ethology in equitation* (2007) The horse learns to yield to remove discomfort Journal of Veterinary Behavior Municipal laws on animal-drawn vehicles (in Portuguese) Several Brazilian cities have banned or restricted carts Example: Esteio (Rio Grande do Sul), 2021; Belo Horizonte, Recife and Curitiba have also passed laws - d
The strongest counter-reply: some horses seem to seek contact
The most serious version points out that some horses approach their carers spontaneously and seem to enjoy activities, and that there are more respectful forms of riding.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Liking the carer isn't liking the work.
The bond can be real without riding being wanted.
More respectful forms are the exception.
Most use of horses is commercial and intensive.
The relationship can exist without exploitation.
It's possible to live with horses without riding them or making them work.
- f
Back to the moral question
The argument attributes to the horse the desire that suits whoever uses it. The moral question is whether it's fair to use an animal who can't consent, especially when the use causes suffering and there are alternatives.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Convenient projection
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Misreading behavior
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Imposed purpose
Biases
Motivated reasoning
The benefit makes the idea that the animal likes it attractive
General literature on motivated cognition
Functional categorization
The horse is seen as a "working animal"
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if an animal obeys, it likes what it does".
If it applied to…Circus animalsTap to see
They'd like performing
Many places have banned them
If it applied to…Fighting dogsTap to see
They'd like fighting
It's a crime
If it applied to…Cart horsesTap to see
They'd like pulling loads on hot asphalt
Several cities have banned it
Contradictions
But says the horse "likes" working.
The criterion is tradition.
Which contradicts the idea of choice.
What the argument gets right
What is true
There are real bonds of affection between horses and humans, and many carers treat their animals with devotion. The economic dependence of cart drivers and ranch hands is real and must be considered with respect.
But
But affection doesn't prove consent, and obedience is learned. Loving horses can mean caring for them without requiring them to work for us.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after