dogs in a city is to kill them. That solution had been proposed in Bucharest, Romania, where
the problem of stray dogs was acute. But it had not been implemented because of an outcry
by animal rights activists. The following article appeared shortly thereafter in newspapers:
242 COMPLEX ARGUMENTS
At least three dozen dogs are being killed in Tehran every day in an effort to rid
Iran's capital city of canines. The Qods daily reported that at least 1,000 dogs,
which are regarded as impure in the Islam belief system, have been killed in the
last month alone. The figure is a 50 percent increase over the previous month.
There are no animal shelters in the country and roving canines are frequently seen
going through sidewalk garbage cans looking for scraps. While many affluent city
residents secretly keep dogs as pets, the animals are regularly denounced by the
country's ruling clergy.
In discussions in the Advanced Reasoning Forum, I suggested that it was a sin to kill dogs.
This is the exchange that ensued and was published in the journal of ARF.
15. On why killing dogs is morally acceptable
I don't mean to step on anybody's paws, but. . . if the dogs are digging scraps in
garbage cans, they probably aren't enjoying life very much. While dogs are keen
olfactors, and can remember signs of pleasant and painful stimuli, and can thus
anticipate the very near future, I am unaware of evidence that suggests they form hopes
for the far future. If that is so, they don't dread or grieve loss of life, and they don't have
plans beyond the next meal or mounting that will be frustrated by early demise. On the
other hand, as we know first hand, when not cared for as pets, they can be dangerous to
people, who can suffer anxiety about this possible source of danger to themselves and
their children over long periods of time. On balance, therefore, it seems morally
acceptable to end the lives of dogs that are not being cared for as pets, especially in cities
where humans are numerous and food is scarce. (There is, of course, no argument for
doing this in any fashion other than the most painless available. Nor for clerics to
indulge in insults or condemnations of Doghood as such, or of individuals that have
formed particular human attachments.)
William S. Robinson, August 7, 2000
Very interesting argument indeed, except at least one premise is dubious. Ever see a dog
waiting for his master at the door, or at a gate, hours after the master left through it?
Mine waits for me at the gate, (apparently) hoping I'll come home and play with him
when I'm away for a whole day in Albuquerque. I'm not claiming that this means he's
planning ahead, but it gives us good reason to doubt your premise that he doesn't plan.
Richard L. Epstein, August 8, 2000
I have enjoyed the ethical exchange between [Epstein] and [Robinson] on dogs and
Doghood. But I have a question about [Robinson's] argument, and the response. Is that
argument using a premise like "Animals, human or non-human, are only to be protected
if they cause no substantial harm to the well-being of humans, and they plan for the
future."? Or is it, as I suspect, assuming a more complex premise about the nature and
scope of the plans (and, to avoid the obvious reply that young infants are implicated,
something about at least having the potential for such planning)?
I suspect that the line:
[Dogs don't] form hopes for the far future. If that is so, they don't dread or grieve
loss of life .. .
is more important to the argument than the line:
Complex Arguments for Analysis 243
They don't have plans beyond the next meal or mounting that will be frustrated by
early demise.
Anyway, this kind of uncertainty about the structure and content of the argument is
something we are all familiar with, except we tend to forget it when we do analysis of
arguments with students (at least my tutors do).
Analysing arguments is an art. Fred Kroon, August 14, 2000
16. William Robinson expanding on why killing dogs is morally acceptable
may pine for the return of [Epstein]. (I think this is actually included under remembering
signs of pleasant and painful stimuli, but I should have made that explicit, and the time
frame is longer than I implied.) I'm also convinced that they respond to signals in play
in a way that must be considered symbolic. (Where did I learn this? Allen & Bekoff,
Species of Mind: The Philosophy and Biology of Cognitive Ethology. I recommend the
book, for those who are interested in abilities of nonhuman animals. (If you aren't
already, you might become so by reading this book.)
However, I don't think these omissions undercut the essential point of the argument
I was making. "And what was that argument?" asks Fred.—Two preliminaries: (a) As
Fred can be taken to suggest, I don't think I was appealing to the first of the possible
premises he mentions, (b) I agree that the absence of dread and grief is more important
than the absence of plans. Plans become relevant in at least two (possible) ways: (i) One
might dread failure of one's plans by premature interruption (which, of course, doesn't
arise if one doesn't have plans). And (ii) There's a value that might be called
"aesthetic," but which might be a value even for plans that aren't yours and that you
don't like. Suppose someone is writing a book that you're sure defends a false view.
You might still regard it as a bad thing if the work never comes to completion because
the author dies in a crash—that is, you'd think it was awful in a way that is something
additional to the regret at losing the author. Calling this kind of value "aesthetic" may
risk making it sound like something not too serious, but I don't take it too lightly.—But
yes, the dread and the grief weigh more.
So, what's the argument? As I was aiming for brevity, I spoke as a utilitarian. But I
don't really premise that utilitarianism is true. I know about justice and rights issues
against utilitarianism, and I'll return a bit to them. But the main drift is that those
problems for utilitarianism don't overturn a utilitarian view in this case. The main drift,
that is, is that (a) Canine abilities (to plan) and susceptibilities (to dread, grieve) are quite
limited, (b) They're not having much pleasure, while (c) Human fears about attack are
substantial and (d) There are actual pains due to actual attacks. The disvalues on the
human side seem to me to far outweigh the values on the canine side—not because
canines are a different species, but just because of the contingent facts about the
capabilities and conditions of each species.
If I thought that word would get around among the dogs, and they'd be living in fear
of their lives, my view would be different. As it is, I think conspiracy theories are
beyond their imagination. I think there would be some "Where's Fido got to?" thoughts
(well, actually, images of Fido accompanied by vague unease), but when it comes to
244 COMPLEX ARGUMENTS
"imagin(ing) the possibilities," I suppose the dogs are going to be quite limited.
But don't they have a right to life? This question opens a large topic; where do
rights come from anyway? No, you're not going to get a treatise! At most a plausibility
consideration. Namely, if they had such a right, then it would be unjust for us to violate
it. On many views that would imply that (at least) it would be unfair to violate it. But
putting the matter this way returns us to the kinds of factors already mentioned. For now
we can ask: Wouldn't it be unfair to us to demand that we go out of our way to preserve
the lives of dogs, given that there are the differences in abilities and susceptibilities
already noted? It can't be fair to demand equal treatment for dogs and humans when
they are so unequal in relevant respects. (I haven't argued that the respects are relevant,
but I expect that view to recommend itself to you without argument.)
Now, this shows at most a reduced right to life (compared with humans), and so
there'll be a question about how much the reduction is. But I think the argument will
proceed along the lines above, i.e., the same factors I've identified will be the ones
agreed to be relevant, and the large disparity will have the effect of reducing the right to
life claim to a very small weight.
No one is going to let me off the hook without my saying something about infants.
Imagine a species that's just like infants, except they never progress. Such a species
would have less ability than dogs, and less claim on our consideration. So, yes, infants
don't make it into a class we ought to protect by virtue of their actual abilities. But I
don't see any attraction in the idea that we have to bring about potentialities, so I don't
think it is mere potentiality that can justify protection for infants. I think the connection
goes through parental love and correlative parental fear. Most parents want strong laws
of protection for their children (to put it mildly). Of course, they expect them to grow
up. Attitudes toward children would be quite different if people thought of them as
never growing up. But it's the attitudes and fears, and not the mere potentiality, that
justify the protection.
This view leads to the question of what to say about cases where a parent doesn 't
care about his or her infant. Well, it's not possible to maintain respect for law while
making an exception of an infant's own parent. But, morally speaking, I don't see
infanticide as so awful, IF (it's a big if) it's not going to result in a terrible sense of loss
to one of the parents. (This would usually mean that it's the parents, or at least one
parent, who did the infanticide.)
This may sound a little stark at first sight, but I think it's actually close to most
people's sensibilities. Not many years ago there were two cases of infanticide within
about a year of each other, both in East Coast states of the US. These were cases in
which no one (except the father, in one of the cases) knew that the mothers were
pregnant. (Amazing, but true.) One of them delivered alone in a campground, then
abandoned the baby. The other went to a motel with her boyfriend (the father) and the
two cooperated in disposing of the body in a dumpster. Of course, they were identified,
prosecuted, and convicted. (I can't say on exactly what charge—it could have been
manslaughter instead of murder, and murder in most US states comes in several
degrees.) The point here is that the sentences were on the order of two or three years.
I take this to reflect a kind of official judgment that infanticide is a considerably less
Complex Arguments for Analysis 245
serious offense than other murders. (There were also many expressions of pity for the
perpetrators, who must have been wildly estranged from most social goods.)
The point of these cases is, of course, not to argue that the courts' judgments were
right. I only mean to deflect an objection to the effect that my ruminations lead to a
stance that severely diverges from everybody's actual moral sensibilities.
Well, this is more than I said before, but obviously not enough! What would be
enough? At least a book! Probably two or three. But (as you may be glad to hear) this
is all I'm going to write about it today. William S, Robinson, August 16, 2000
17. Newcomer stunned at local prices
Letter to the editor:
I read an article recently in your paper regarding the apparent shortage of local tax
dollars and just had to write.
Being a newcomer to your area and coming from one of the most expensive areas in
the state, I was appalled at the price of some of the goods and services in this communi-
ty. One does not need to be a brain surgeon to figure out that as long as some of these
merchants continue to gouge people that come into their stores and/or request their ser-
vices, tax dollars will probably continue to decline. I expect that you will see another
decline in the coming year.
Trying to get folks to feel guilt about spending their hard earned money wherever
they choose, is not going to correct the problem. Plus, I have the right to choose. This is
still a free country. Why doesn't the author of the article address the real issue here and
that is the overpricing of goods and services by some of the more greedy merchants? I
will continue to drive 90 miles round trip to buy my groceries, and my beer, and my
other items that I spend money on and not feel one tinge of guilt. I would love to be able
to support some of the local merchants and will continue to buy at those stores that do
not gouge me every time I walk in their door but the rest of them can and will do without
my dollar in their pockets.
This is a very poor area and I feel sorry for those that cannot get away from the
greed of some of our "outstanding" merchants. I am grateful that I can, at least, travel
outside this area and get a little more value for my dollar and will continue to go outside
this area to shop for any item that I need and or will need until the greedy merchants
come down on their prices and start providing some service instead of just lip service.
New Mexico leads the nation in the number of hungry. Isn't that a great claim to
fame? And our legislators continue to tax us on medicine and food, but that is another
letter. E. T. Moss, El Defensor Chieftain, December 4, 1999
18. It's time to protect our farms and ranches, not government-fed wolves
Just as predicted, the cattle-killing has spread from Arizona to New Mexico with a
"grisly" attack (by a Mexican gray wolf) on a pregnant cow belonging to a family
rancher. How much do the citizens of New Mexico and Arizona have to endure with
246 COMPLEX ARGUMENTS
this failed federal program? Forcing predators into an incompatible ecosystem is a
certain recipe for disaster.
The latest attack, by the pen-raised government wolves, occurred on the Cross Y
ranch and was witnessed by a U.S. Forest Service employee and a deputy sheriff. They
stated that the wolves showed no fear of humans and plied their carnivorous traits on a
defenseless animal with a sickening pack attack. This is why the people who came
before us were so intent on eliminating this threat.
The disingenuous Defenders of Wildlife organization offers to reimburse ranchers
for their killed cattle. We are very concerned that it's only a matter of time until a
person is attacked by these misplace
d predators. What then?
Let's look at the track record of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in regard to this
troublesome wolf program. It spent millions for a decade "studying" the possibility of
putting these wolves in our backyards despite total opposition to the program by local
communities. There were immediate conflicts with people and livestock. Wolves died
and were shot for varmints.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, and their apologists in the radical environmental
movement, immediately—without any proof—blamed local ranchers. Armed federal
agents raided a legitimate business in Reserve, N.M. Menacing letters were sent to elk
hunters who were in the area of the killed wolves. No one has been charged with any
crime.
Now the radical environmentalists are clamoring for their stooges in Fish and
Wildlife to dump a bunch of wolves in the Gila National Forest. Based on the current
record, expanding this program is the ultimate folly.
Are these government-fed wolves worth one single life? The answer is no. Can the
Defenders of Wildlife be trusted to pay for any livestock deaths? Our experience with
them indicates that is not likely. The real forte of the group is distributing false
information, jamming our phone lines and threatening people. The cow that was killed
had much more value beyond its market price. No consideration is given to future calf-
bearing years. So the offers are meaningless hype.
Consider this quote from the animal's owner, Bud Collins: "She ran two miles from
the pasture to the line camp. They were chewing on her all the way, and she died close
to the cabin. She was looking for protection. It was pretty grisly."
I hope the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees are proud of themselves. The
sad thing is, they probably are. And where are the normally vocal people in the so-
called animal-rights movement? They are the ultimate hypocrites in their selective
silence.
Collins also stated that the deer and elk populations are almost nonexistent in his
area. When the cattle are gone, what is the next meal for the wolf? Hunters?
Household pets? Horses? Where does it end? Are backpackers, fishermen and hunters
willing to give up their rights for this boondoggle?
As the largest farm-and-ranch organization in the nation, we will continue to fight