Criminals or dogs?

[Niri Te]

Our Austrailian Shepard is our "child" in that she depends upon us for food, water, shelter, and affection. In return, she gives unlimited love, and devotion. No matter what kind of day I have had, she loves me just the same, and goes crazy happy when she sees me pull onto the property, even if I have only been gone an hour. Show me an teenager that does that.
Niri Te

[Moco Loco]

Yeah, there are definitely many examples of incidences where a dog saves its owner's life.

[Niri Te]

Meri, our nantang, would lay her life on the line, to protect either Ateyo or myself in a moment, as I would for her.
Niri Te

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I tend to speak in a rather esoteric manner.

And I intend to speak in a rather direct and concise manner. I have a feeling that the posts I've written may seem rather impersonal to some here. This is because I purposely wanted to avoid any appeals to emotions in a debate. Part of me regrets jumping into this debate amongst some strongly held views but I'll continue.

I have been operating as if there were no other factors in consideration other than those listed. I suspect that people have been substituting the vague notion of a dog with a personal notion of their own personal pet whether it be named Max, Buddy, or Fido. I have not been doing this.

So I come to this specific point that was made:

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I'm guessing that you believe a person cannot act so badly that they lose their person hood?

Yes, because despite of whatever preconceived bias, strong emotions, or reservations we may hold, he or she is still a person.

Let me tie in with what I had said in the previous section: Let us remind ourselves of what could be the case. Let us imagine that: The criminal's name is Fredrick. He was born into a typical income-wage family that fell into hard times. Fred's father was an alcoholic who often beat his wife and later his son, Fredrick.His mother filed for divorce and the court awarded her custody but Fredick served as a reminder of his mother's failed relationship so she too began to mistreat Fedrick. Fedrick grew up bitter at the world. He failed school and got into fights because he could not focus and his mind too peturbed. After he dropped out of high school, he joined a street gang because they were the only ones who would "provide" for him.

If we were given that story, I'm certain a few people would switch sides. I think this shows that we cannot base judgement on merit, let alone our hastily put together preconceived notions. There is too little consistency in my opinion.

I must also add that I hold out on this issue because I seek to keep consistency across my ideas and political views. I do oppose the death penalty. If I had reason to believe that the actions of a person can strip anyone of his or her humanity or that it is possible to define a subset of humans to not be persons, I do not think I can logically maintain my opposition and I am sure quite a few folks (based off the usual demographics) reading this thread are against the death penalty.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

It does carry weight, because we are all of this Earth, and are an intricate part of a biosphere that we all put into, take from, and depend on each other (all life) to sustain. We all form an intricate web of life. I tend to take the methodology that many indigenous cultures take in that most or all lifeforms are existentially equal because of this fact (yes, things are killed and sacrifices are made, but the line is set at merit rather than species, which is where spirituality and thanking an animal after they are killed for their sacrifice comes in).

I think differently. One can actively defend the ecosystem against present danger and over encroachment by other humans because we all, whether it be us here, a country, or some idigenous tribe, depend on it for survival but the only caveat is that we should not feed people to the environment for the environment's sake. We cultivate the environment to feed people sustainably instead.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I am also guessing this is the major difference between us. I take a holistic morality while you take an anthropocentric one.

I think its a bit more fundamental; its because our notions of equality are slightly different.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Let me just as you this, though: Do you think the current status quo in most industrialized societies of the relationship of the human animal to his brethren, in it's current form, is fine or healthy? Don't you think that, at the very least, a move to a more humane treatment of the life we share the Earth with is called for?

The status quo in the world is unsustainable in my opinion and does need to be changed. We probrably agree on most minor political and environmental issues but once we start arriving at extremes, we start running into differences.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

As for aliens, if they were ever to arrive to Earth, I think humanity would be best to put them on..."probation." Make them prove their merits as a peaceful species that will not harm our planet (environmentally and our civilization), before we let them into our sphere.

I wouldn't dispute this as being a sensible policy but this is besides the point.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Closely examine the behavior and body motions of a cat or dog that has done something wrong. For example, my mother was once bitten by her dog (it had cataracts and she spooked him). Almost immediately the dog put it's tail between it's legs and it's head down, in a sense of shame. It is very well possible, IMO, that a dog understands it is doing wrong.
And according to that article I posted, they may also understand cause-and-effect (the mother cat, for example, knew that if it alerted the human, she could get help for her kittens).

Even if an animal does not make social bonds doesn't mean it might not possess complex consciousness. And even if not a high level of consciousness, I fall back onto the argument that because all Earth life forms a web of life that we all depend on, all complex lifeforms (which are shown to have consciousness, it's just a matter of degree of how much they deviate from instinct, but the freedom of mental movement is there) deserve to have a certain set of basic rights (yes, I'm an animal rights buff. ).

Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by knowing right and wrong . In general, I think of four specific criteria. The first is called moral sensitivity, "the ability to see an ethical dilemma, and how our actions will affect others." The second is moral judgment, "the ability to reason correctly about what 'ought' to be done in a specific situation." The third is moral motivation, "a personal commitment to moral action, accepting responsibility for the outcome." The last is moral character, "courageous persistence in spite of fatigue or temptations to take the easy way out.

I think the majoriy of animals fail all four. Our pets and some social animals fulfill the last criteria and to a much lesser degree the first. The dog maybe felt remorse for biting you but it could never hope to reason in advance not to bite when scared. Instinct is still a primary drive in the dog and cat'as actions (though I confess that the cat's scenario you listed is quite exceptional and perhaps your strongest point). I discuss a little more about instinct vs teaching in my last point in this reply.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

How do we know that a dog does not understand the benefits of it's actions?

We look at its behavior and judge whether it signifies knowledge or understanding. If you can prove that a dog can exhibit all four of the qualities mentioned, we might have some basis for saving the dog but we still have to sort through all the other issues such as merit, personal background, etc.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

So keeping someone alive who is no benefit to themselves, society, or nature as a whole is preferable to saving the life of a non-human creature that is benefiting society and nature, and very well could have an understanding of this (and thus is benefiting itself), simply for principle?

The underlying principle is that we take care of all our fellow human's basic needs lest providing for our own needs be called into question by other people if we fall into the same situation. Being in a state of no benefit to themselves, society, or nature as a whole is irrelevant in my opinion. An ederly person in a nursing home or hospital bed cannot work, go out and meet other people, etc, yet we still take care or him or her regardless of utility.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

What if the criminal was not to be killed, but simply banished to a barren land or prison colony? They'd still be alive. So in this case: Would you kill the dog to allow the criminal to remain in our social sphere, or would you let the dog live, but the criminal is banished forever (not dead, though, at least not by our hand, they could still die by the elements)?

I'd let the dog live unless the human in question would obviously be killed soon as a direct result of being banished.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

This is all my personal worldview. (Let's leave it at that, we went down the debate about relativistic morality rabbit hole once before and I do not wish to do it again).

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Having a dog is no different than having a child, because they both need to be taught how to behave and fit in this world. If you have children, they need both love and boundaries, and same goes for animals.

Not what I had in mind. I was thinking of something more extreme. When I say "there is a certain danger in overpersonifying them" I phrase it as an ethical imperative because one not need to look further than this animal planet tv series:

Fatal Attractions

In their channel, they don't show whole episodes but you can geuss with great certainty how each scenario plays out:

Fatal Attractions - YouTube

Many of the people in those videos tried to teach or train the animals but to no avail; it does not change the physical nature of the animals and the fact that they are primarily dominated by instincts. I know many people who work with and greatly care for animals personally but even they acknowledge the differences between persons and other creatures.

[Banefull]

And I will add this. After some thinking, I shall ask these two questions:

Does having responsibility to a particular animal or individual affect the decision?

If we were forced to choose between killing a random stranger and killing your best friend whom you've promised to protect, what would you do?

We might have plausible grounds for saving the dog if it was your pet or an esteemed member of your respective society, but I'd have to think over this more.

[Niri Te]

That story about Fredrick" is SOOO full of bleeding heart, PSYCHOBABBLE, it almost makes me PUKE!! NOW, let ME give you a story. A child in born in 1950, the child is born with BOTH sets of external Genitalia, and being 1950, it's biological progenitors, (it takes FAR more than simple biology to EARN the title "father" or "mother"), are given the CHOICE of what they want. This is the first born child to the couple, ant it's male progenitor is a U.S. Navy Carrier Attack Pilot, so there is ZERO discussion, is it to "be" a boy. As the child grows up, it is small in stature, and has a very thin build, a FEMALE skeleton, so to speak. The child also does not like to fight, but uses its verbal skills for conflict resolution,
(Oh, gee whiz, a FEMALE trait), in it's interactions. As a result, it is beaten to the point of unconsciousness on a regular basis starting at age FIVE by a man who looked like the character "Ice Man" in the volleyball match in the movie "Top Gun", not because he was drunk, he was STONE SOBER. The reason that the child was beaten mercilessly while being called ******, QUEER, LOSER, and BUM.
The child was later beaten up for getting beaten up by the local bullies on the School Bus when it got home.
Starting at twelve years of age, the child was told routinely that it would NEVER be a pilot, "because QUEERS were not allowed to become pilots". A year later, when Vietnam was just starting to heat up, the male progenitor would tell the child a number, then throw it on the ground, and try to get the number out of the child, "in case that the Army got so hard up for fresh meat that they started taking in FAGS" the child wouldn't give up any information. This child at age fourteen had the same "Rope Tricks" pulled on it for hours, that the pilots in the "Hanoi Hilton done to them.
The childs male progenitor gets killed in Nam when the child was 15, and the child's female progenitor picks up where the male left off, trying to have it thrown into a "Children's Home", but failing miserably.
At eighteen, this child who has KNOWN since it was FIVE, that it was actually FEMALE got a draft letter, Went to the local recruiter's office, and enlisted into the Army with a class date to Warrant Officer Flight School, seeing as the child started flying lessons while it's male progenitor was in Vietnam for the last time, and got it's Pilot's License on it's sixteenth birthday. (So much for being too stupid to fly).
So now the young adult in in Basic Training, does not have a SINGLE hair on it's face, and is marching with 50 other apparent males, Singing
I want to be an Airborne Ranger
I want to go to Viet--Nam
I want to live a life of danger
I want to kill some Charlie Cong.
All of the trainees except one sing that song as either a Bass, Baritone, or Tenor, this particular young adult was a SOPRANO!! Care to guess what THIS trainee went through in Basic Training?
It went like that until it was discovered in the second week of training, that this trainee could field strip ANY weapon blindfolded faster tan the D.I.'s and could out shoot ANYONE in the Basic Training Company, including the Cadre.
To make a long story sort, this person went on to be a decorated Military Flight Officer in the Army, was on several Division level National Match Rifle Teams, and had a SPOTLESS Military Record!!
When this individual was 28 ears old, a routine ultrasound for kidney stones, found a pair of partially formed OVARIES!!! Well WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT!!
The person had the offending genitals removed, and went through the rest of the program as well.
THE POINT OF THIS STORY???
That person did NOT become a drunk, or drug addict, or thief, or rapist, or murderer, THAT person had moral fiber and was not some worthless VRRTEP.
THAT PERSON IS ME!!!!
They should take out the trash that tries to cry on some SHRINKS shoulder, line them all up against a wall AND SHOOT THEM!!!
Niri TE

[Banefull]

I think you misinterpret what I was saying. I only proposed it as an extremely brief thought experiment, not to write some long drawn out story to empathize with. That said:

It is good, even admirable that you possess such strength of character. In the face of great adversity, there many who persevere. I have many examples of characters in my own life I can look up to but there are still those who fail. I also suspect we have different types of people in mind when the term "criminal" is used. I was taught to always hold out for reform of the guilty no matter how seemingly hopeless, to forgive even the greatest misdeeds. A single person willing to reform his life and make amends was worth any amount of patience. I didn't pick my side in this debate easily. But regardless:

Let us just say that our differences in thought on this matter stem from very deep convictions in worldview, belief, and outlook. Let us call this debate over. Enough on the topic has been said.