Criminals or dogs?

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Banefull

I guess I will have to go in depth to deconstruct these arguments otherwise neither of us has any chance of convincing the other. I will say that you are a good debater Tsyal Makto but with all due respect, I think that you cover many small logic errors with semantics sometimes which can add up quickly. Your choice of words tends to confuse cause-and-effect with associations. Jumping back to your first post in this thread, I will use this as an example.

No malicious intent intended, I tend to speak in a rather esoteric manner.

This is something that strikes me as simply judging things by associations i.e. appealing to common ground. While humans, dogs, cats, and chimpanzees are all considered to be animals, we have to, in logic, look at whether the causation bears any relevance to the point in question. We are animals because we share common biology. Now, does our biology factor in as determinant in basic moral treatment? I do not think so. If we take for example, an alien who is not part of the animal kingdom, not even of common chemical makeup, a silicon based life forms, this being would still be considered equal if it had the capacity to reason and understand. The difference in biology has no effect; therefore, throwing around the saying that we are all animals carries no real weight. This is called an "accidental" attribute as opposed to being a "substantial" attribute. It is therefore not part of the "essence" (essential properties) of an object deserving moral treatment.

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

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?

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.

This is the first case where I think semantics cover a small error in logic. We need to separate the concepts of acting in a manner in accordance with right and wrong and acting with understanding of right and wrong. I can train my cat not to attack other cats but regardless of how good of a cat trainer I am, I do not think I can hope to make it understand why.

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).

Be careful about another semantic error here. You seem to be conflating some animals with all animals. I feel that, throughout all your posts, you are trying to make a defense for all animals when only some animals possess these qualities. I am aware that research also supports the idea of animal grief but not all animals do grieve. A lion, for example, upon seeing its dead comrade would eat it, only pausing to sniff the carcass to make sure it’s not rotten.

Grief was only one example, I'm sure lions have many emotions that they exhibit, it's just that grief isn't one of them. At least, they do not show it in a manner we can interpret as grief.

The key here is that these specific animals you list are social animals that by their very nature form bonds and social groups. I would think of them as more deserving than other animals who do not form social bonds and therefore we should do our best not to disrupt these social groups whenever possible but I still see them as being below humans which have an even greater capacity for this and many other things (like moral understanding, full capacity for reasoning, etc.).

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. ).

I think you make this error again. Is the dog functioning as a hero? Is it acting with any inner qualities such as having moral courage, or rather is the dog simply function in manner similar to a "hero"? I think it is the latter. I've seen some police dogs myself, but I've noticed that many of them seem to think that they are simply playing when they take down or chase down a criminal.

How do we know that a dog does not understand the benefits of it's actions? I explained this above.

In certain manners, yes. If someone was known to be a murderer, we would probably restrain him to ensure he does not physically harm anyone else. But in a matter of life or death, death is not the preferable option unless it cannot be avoided by other means.

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?

It’s learning of the person-hood in one of the choices that flips this.

So I'm guessing that you believe a person cannot act so badly that they lose their person hood? Do you believe it is right or wrong for societies to banish those who have committed crimes?

Which brings up another point. 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)?

Thoughts?

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). Sorry if this isn't very easy to read, it's the best I could hobble together at 2 in the morning.