Woof. Woof. Woof woof. Grrrrr. Grrrr. Woof woof woof woof. Grrrr. Wooof. Wooooooof. Woooooooooooooooo. Grrr grrr grrr grrrr. Woof. Woof. Woooooowoooooowooooo. Grrrr.

Woof. Woof. Woof woof. Grrr. Wooowooowowoo. Woof. Grrrrrr.

Grrrr.

If it could be shown that dogs were aware of their loss and mourned for their testicles (as I suspect I would) then there could be some argument for allowing them a “full” life. I don’t think there’s much proof that neutered dogs are unhappy, so their fun doesn’t really outweigh the lack of fun experienced by the puppies in the sack.

A sterilized puppy may grow up to be a service dog, a caring companion or any number of other opportunities dogs have.
Therefore, a person who drowns a puppy could possibly do more than just reduce the animal population by one (or more).

I think it’s Interesting how you pose this quandry using primarily a male dog as your example thereby denying the supposed sexual pleasure of the female dog.

“I think it’s Interesting how you pose this quandry using primarily a male dog as your example thereby denying the supposed sexual pleasure of the female dog.”

In para. 2 I I talk about “the pleasures of sex and reproduction” that are denied both males and females. Females not slighted! After that, I talk about lost testosterone as a special problem for males and (final para) lost chance to have puppies as a special problem for females.

One reason I mention testosterone as an issue for males is that I think spaying doesn’t involve the loss of ovaries, which are the main source of female testosterone. My understanding is that spaying is tubal ligation (but I could be wrong).

Testosterone does good things for both sexes, from what I understand. But maybe there’s more impact in a male when testosterone plunges, considering there was more of it to begin with. The effect is not just on sex drive, but on mood and cognition more generally.

Yes. And thank you for clarifying.
Possibly my testosterone was surging as I wrote my comment because it came out more blunt than I meant it to. Not that I have anything against being blunt, though.
(And doesn’t that statement open up a whole ‘nother can of worms?)

jk: can we please go back to bibliotherapy ?
No logic or philosophy or anything else can be used for good purposes on this subject. Either one picks up a puppy and understands everything there is to know or maybe one’s mother should have exercised her choice options.

Do we really think female dogs enjoy having puppies and that this enjoyment outweighs all the disadvantages?

rtk–sorry, it’s a miserable topic.

pj–It would be strange if the activities most pivotal to survival of a species were unpleasant. I should think female dogs do enjoy having puppies. Male dogs certainly seem to enjoy doing the things that lead to puppies. Plus, testosterone seems to be generally mood-enhancing, or at least we know it is in people (don’t we?). It seems like sterilizing animals does lower their quality of life. Maybe we give this too little attention in our decision-making about animals.

Is it necessary to drown the puppies or could they be eliminated, for example, with some kind of painless drug? That changes the way I for one look at the issue. In any case, I vote for eliminating puppies and letting those males (or female) dogs which survive live a flourishing and polymorphously perverse existence.

Would it be too costly to have a vasectomy performed on a male dog instead? I think this would solve at least the male dog half of the problem, since they get to keep their testosterone.

I’ve always heard the sex drives of animals described as a kind of annoying master…. If a dog can’t have sex, and becomes sexually frustrated for whatever reason (because there is no female dog around, or vice versa) then it can be quite unhappy….

But if we assume that the dog is going to have access to a member of the opposite sex….

Couldn’t we just spay the females? Then the male dog gets to have his jollies, the female dog gets to enjoy sex (do female dogs enjoy sex? It would appear to me that many females of the animal kingdom don’t enjoy sex….. would it be rape?).

As for enjoying raising puppies….I’m at a loss on that one…. If we imagine dogs being a little closer to humans in the temperment department, (and I don’t think this is an unreasonable assumption) some humans don’t like having children…. and some love that baby smell…. Maybe dogs too?

Hang on here… I feel a little duped by the shock value of the thought experiment and the false dilemma we’re being placed in here… As a consequentialist, I wouldn’t necessarily say that we have to kill the puppies. As a consequentialist I could say spay and neuter, because the act of killing puppies horrifies so many people.

Moreover, a genuine consequentialist would do what is right in the particular circumstance. If I had a litter of puppies that I couldn’t care for, I would try to get them homes…. If I couldn’t do that, then perhaps I would euthanize them humanely, not drowning them.

Finally, I think there might be a middle ground…. After a couple of litters of puppies, then sterilize the dogs, or just one if you really want to maximize utility….. So that you no longer have to drown puppies, and the dogs have had at least part of their life the plesures of their biology.

“As a consequentialist I could say spay and neuter, because the act of killing puppies horrifies so many people.”

It’s a problem the way people’s emotions might enter into this and other issues. On similar grounds, a consequentialist might have to oppose gay marriage…because it horrifies so many people. Through “moral education” you can change people’s reactions, so maybe they ought to be left out of the equation.

Re: whether dogs like sex, having babies, etc…isn’t it just a bias that makes us not take their “sexuality” seriously? It reminds me of old attitudes about people with mental retardation, who used to be assumed asexual and (sometimes) involuntarily sterilized. I’d think if anything animals enjoy sex even more than people, because they have no moral and cultural hang-ups about it.

Your middle ground has something to be said for it!

Jean, by your reasoning we’d have to downplay the trauma of sexual violence against female animals in order to emphasise animal sexuality as a positive thing.

Well, it’s anecdote rather than data, but our dog was neutered (before we became his owners), but he still goes through the motions of sex when he gets the chance, so I’m not convinced that he’s totally lost out on all the fun…

Still, for sensitive owners who obsess over the fact that their dog ain’t got no balls, there’s always Neuticles(R) - http://www.neuticles.com. Frankly, I think they say more about the owners than about the dogs…

As an owner of four show Cardigan Welsh Corgis (bear in mind show dogs cannot be spayed or neutered until retired), two males, two females, one bitch spayed, one dog neutered, I offer the following observations:

Anyone seeing a bitch in heat understands this is not a pleasant experience for her. She is generally high-strung, miserable and constantly fleeing the males’ advances. It’s not a matter of frustrated desire. Bitches want to be left alone by the males and acquiesce only at the very end of their cycle after being constantly tormented and fighting off earlier advances.

As for the males, they are more than miserable throughout the female’s heat, constantly crying, trying to mate with anything in sight and often attempting what can only be called rape on any female.

Who can say whether or not puppies are an enjoyable experience for the females? It’s all instinct at this point. They have no choice in the matter. The females seem to enjoy the first few weeks but that also entails extreme posessiveness and defensive vigilance and viciousness over any interloping dog or other bitch where her pups are concerned. After several weeks the females are completely “done” with their offspring and rebuff them, often violently. They want nothing more to do with them and often do not seem to recognize them should they encounter them again later.

Even if none of the above were true, dogs do not appear to retain memory of estrus, birth or parenting. When it’s over both sexes immediately return to being asexual buddies. This is by no means human sexuality.

There is no need to drown puppies just to satisfy canine sexual impulses. If we were concerned that they live-out their instincts (mating, hunting, rending & tearing animals for food, fighting for dominance,) we wouldn’t own them. That they seem happy to live with us, care for us and be cared for by us, and that they were so easily domesticated early on in our history tells us something.

I think there may be more anthropomorphism in certain aspects of this question than at first meets the eye. Nevertheless, drowining puppies or ending their lives in any manner simply to give pets “fulfilmentl” of their instincts is unnecessary and cruel.

Neutering and spaying not only remove organs but desire. One does not miss what one does no longer wants. As for testosterone being pleasurable, I think that’s up for debate. I believe it’s often a source of torment and a certain level of violence even in human society. Perhaps it even plays its part in war.

Hell, I’ve even considered how pleasant it might be to be neutered and able to obsess about something else every twenty minutes of every day.

OK, all very interesting, but I’d have a hard time believing that, all things considered, for a dog sexuality is mostly misery, while for human beings it’s something of so much value. Could it really be that culture, higher cognition, self-control, etc., are needed to turn crude sexuality into a plus?

I’m suspicious partly because it’s so very convenient to think spaying/neutering are good for the animal. Truth is, a “fixed” dog or cat is much easier for us humans to have around. What does make sense to me it the trade-off Brian talks about. Dogs and cats have evolved to enjoy human companionship. Most of us (unless we live in the country, like the French guy) can’t have animals around and let them enjoy all of their instincts. I have neutered male cats…there’s no way I’d have adopted them if they were going to be spraying all over the house. But I do think they’re probably missing out.

“Neuticles”…can this be for real??? Are there really dog owners who want the convenience of a neutered dog, but the look of a manly dog? Wow.

Brian, you may be right about testosterone, but crying and trying to mate with lots of things does not equate to be being miserable, for all that it might make the owner miserable. But what I wanted to add was a wonder why it is cruel to kill puppies? Every animal has to die, and they die at our convenience, like farm animals or wild pests. If they live they eat dog food, which is either meat, and so involves other animals suffering far more, or else is not at all meat, which would make them miserable, for all that a dog can survive on a veggie diet - and in either case that is food that could be better used (I am presuming that the puppies in question would not grow up to be guide dogs or such if not killed).

You write, “pj–It would be strange if the activities most pivotal to survival of a species were unpleasant. ”

Apparently you’ve never given birth.

A plus to sterilizing an animal that I don’t see mentioned here is that when fixed, a dog’s risk for certain forms of cancer is eliminated.

Er, I have given birth…but I see what you’re saying. Generally, I think feelings are partly an evolutionary trick to get animals to do what’s good for their genes. On that basis, I’m inclined to think at least male dogs enjoy sex, but I’m guessing female dogs do as well. They don’t treat all advances the same way–some seem to be welcome, some not. Once a dog’s pregnant, they’re no reason for giving birth to be enjoyable, but taking care of puppies better be, or they’re not going to get fed. On the other hand–I’ve witnessed my own dog giving birth (when I was a kid), and it didn’t seem miserable.

Neuticals are not just for the appearance of a “manly” dog. They originated to be used (illegally) to show a dog lacking them. No male dog may be shown without both testicles and its one of the first things a judge checks for in the ring.

Yes, dogs can survive on a meatless diet just as we can survive on bread and water. Nevertheless, according to the structure of their intestinal tracts, they are carnivores.

I still maintain it is misery for a dog who in the wild would have his way with them to be separated from the females and constantly frustrated by humans who throw him off their leg the bothersome last week of a three week cycle. It is not a misery for humans, merely an annoyance. And any breeder will tell you that male dogs are big babies on many levels all their lives. The crying is not a mating call, I assure you.

A good point is brought up regarding the differentiation between food animals and pets and the ethics of killing either. As a vegetarian my bias is obvious. I leave those arguments to the omnivores here. I am not an evangelistic vegetarian however and my dogs eat meat, so perhaps that makes me a hypocrite in meeting their needs?

Do I think dogs receive pleasure via orgasm? Of course. Do I think Jean is anthropomorphizing where their “sexuality” is concerned? Yes. Are we also to assume that the killing and eating of prey by other animals provides a form of culinary pleasure?

The health benefits for a neutered bitch are many. In an older female who suddenly sickens the first thing a vet looks for is uterine infection which often becomes quickly life-threatening.

I would also reiterate that dogs do not miss what they no longer desire.

As for still going through the motions of mating in neutered/spayed canines, this is most often a dominance behaviour having little, if anything, to do with canine “sexuality”. Even puppies engage in the behaviour when establishing litter hierarchy as do adult females and males on same sex companions.

touche!
And I did write that with a touch of humor, but thank you for seeing my point, too.

Brian, In your scenario males and females are being kept from each other by breeders who have their own ideas about who “does it” with whom. Isn’t that the source of misery more than their couplings themselves? The French guy’s dogs are freewheeling country dogs–very different!

When it comes to guessing about animal feelings, all sorts of things can interfere, only one of which is anthropomorphism. For example, people very much like to think animals don’t really feel pain like we do, because it makes it easier to justify all sorts of self-serving activities. I’m wary of that kind of denial, as much as I’m wary of anthropomorphizing.

Re: animals hunting and eating. Is that fun? Boy, I’d think so! Why is that anthropomorphizing rather than just common sense?

I don’t really go in for the idea that things that aren’t missed don’t matter. Missing adds an additional “ouch” but a person/animal can have a very impoverished life without subjectively missing anything.

Anthropomorphizing is far from a four letter word. It’s just taking empathy a bit over the line. I certainly did the *A* word with my dogs and cats, but they did that with me, too. We simply connected a little extra and I read into their behavior to a silly degree, but I swear they treated me like one of the dogs.

So I’m anthropomorphizing to think my basset hounds had a deep, abiding, monogamous partnership and even shared some of the puppy chores. So what? We were all the richer for it.

My cats were not neutered or kept indoors. One, Victor, whom I was especially proud of, terrorized the feline neighborhood, but was still popular, wooed and fed by would-be abductors. He always returned to us and the basset hounds, his nuclear family.

Is there much evidence for female animals having orgasms during regular coitus?

Jean: Brian, In your scenario males and females are being kept from each other by breeders who have their own ideas about who “does it” with whom.

Brian: Really more about who doesn’t do it at all.

Jean: Isn’t that the source of misery more than their couplings themselves? The French guy’s dogs are freewheeling country dogs–very different!

Me: I’m not sure I understand the “more than their coupling themselves” since I’m not saying coupling is a source of misery, but I think I understand you enough to proceed.

Yes, the freewheeling dog is enjoying himself for a week. Females are only receptive one week out of three and this will hold as true for open air bitches as it does for confined bitches since females stimulate estrus in each other so that all “ripen” and become receptive at about the same time when living in the same general vicinity - including the open countryside.

I’ll grant that some sex is better than none, but in a week’s time there’s no more thought of it. You might as well feel remorse for kenneling your dog for a week while you’re on vacation when he’d rather be with you or roam.

Referencing the country dog, perhaps we should set our dogs free since the drive to roam is also instinctive and satisfying to them? There are trade-offs of course in terms of safety, lifespan intestinal parasitic load, etc..

Jean: When it comes to guessing about animal feelings, all sorts of things can interfere, only one of which is anthropomorphism. For example, people very much like to think animals don’t really feel pain like we do, because it makes it easier to justify all sorts of self-serving activities. I’m wary of that kind of denial, as much as I’m wary of anthropomorphizing.

Brian: I am wary of those other things too but we ARE talking about anthropomorphizing here and not those other things.

My dogs are like children to me. In fact, I like them a whole lot more than most people. But to conflate canine reproduction and sex with human sexuality strikes me as preposterous having observed both rather closely.

Jean: Re: animals hunting and eating. Is that fun? Boy, I’d think so! Why is that anthropomorphizing rather than just common sense?

Brian: Because we have learned that common sense is not so common where inter-species correlations are concerned. This does no injustice to the species involved. In fact, it is more respectful IMO.

A game of catch appears fun for dogs. Fun and enjoyment are traits they obviously possess. But eating and sex appear qualitatively different than a game of catch. This is demonstrated by simple observation. A dog eats by “wolfing” down his food, he does not savor. A copulating dog is all rutting instinct without any semblance of “romance”. As for hunting, a look at hunting dogs in action belies the suggestion of fun. It looks much more like deadly, instinctive business to me. Again, I think you are anthropomorphizing unnecessarily and in a way unrelated to the enhancement of the dog-human relationship endorsed by another writer here.

Jean: I don’t really go in for the idea that things that aren’t missed don’t matter. Missing adds an additional “ouch” but a person/animal can have a very impoverished life without subjectively missing anything.

Brian: Can you be more specific here? I just don’t see the impoverishment in this case. At any rate, many humans live happily enough without sex even knowing what they are missing. A neutered dog doesn’t even know.

To deviate slightly from the foregoing, what bothers me most in this discussion is not the canine vs. human sex, pleasure, drive etc. issue but the fact that the freewheeling dog is not a wild animal but the pet of an irresponsible owner. There is simply no good reason for these unwanted puppies and the owner is completely to blame.

Brian, I’m using words loosely here. Is it “fun” for dogs to hunt and devour prey? Well, of course that’s not really the right word for it, but it seems like the default assumption is that it’s pleasurable.

You seem to assume that an experience later forgotten wasn’t pleasurable and valuable to begin with. You say sex-week for the “open air bitches” (love the phrase!) isn’t worth much, and the time a dog spends in the kennel doesn’t matter…both because there’s no later recollection. I just don’t see that at all. In fact, I would think carefully about where I put an animal for the week(s) I’m on vacation. That time is important, even if it is never thought about later. (We certainly think this way about children’s experiences that are quickly forgotten.)

You dismiss doggy enjoyments on grounds that dogs “wolf” down their food, and don’t savor, and rut instead of romance. Of course they don’t enjoy life in the way we do. We can only imagine the pleasures of “wolfing” and rutting, but isn’t it obvious that they ARE pleasures….of a doggy sort? Obviously I can’t prove it, but that seems like the most reasonable assumption, in the absence of proof.

But again–I do buy the fact that pets and their owners have to live together, and that may mean putting limits on animals…including spaying and neutering. I’m just thinking it may not be morally worse to take the French guy’s approach. He may actually be letting animals have better lives, on the whole. I couldn’t drown puppies, but maybe it’s not wrong, all things considered.

Jean, I do understand what you’re driving at and, of course, I may be misinterpreting the phenomena I see.

I do not want to come across as denying the very real feelings, joys pleasures, pains and passions of the canine world. I love and respect these creatures too much to pretend I really understand them. On that point I think we are both agreed.

As always, a pleasure sharing conversation with you.

Brian

jjjkjjjjjjjjjjj

Am I missing something or has no one even noticed that you’re talking about drowning puppies? DROWNING. Is that your choice of euthanasia for yourself? The only response to this blog that has made any sense to me at all was the first one, written (so to speak) by Rover. That was the closest thing to a philosophical and logical understanding of the whole subject.

Well, it’s appalling, and I did say this is something I couldn’t possibly do. I thought Rover was eloquent too, though I wondered whether he was a puppy against drowning or an adult against sterilization.

I have a column in the current issue of TPM about what it’s like to be an animal, as writers have imagined it. In two cases (Tolstoy and Paul Auster) the writer imagines the loss suffered by a male after neutering. Tolstoy writes about a male horse in “Strider: the story of a horse” and Auster writes about a dog in Timbuktu. Maybe we minimize these losses more than we should.

I’m not seriously recommending the drowning of puppies…just thought there was something right about the French guy’s attempt to let his dogs have a full life.

I think that writing about the issues of what the act of drowning a dog implies about the human doing the drowning would take up too much room here. As for the dog…
A dog clearly experiences pain, pleasure and other emotions and experiences so to me, there is no defense of drowning a dog; because to accept that a dog has an inner life and experiences pain, fear, pleasure, happiness also implies that intentionally taking its life is an act that causes a dog profound psychological harm in its last moments.
A dog’s urge for survival is just as strong as a human’s.
Of course, this all hinges on the idea that humans should overcome any urge to cause harm to other living creatures. And what a lovely, naive thought that is.
A modern day dog’s life is such purely by the actions of humans. I think it would be best to focus not on the act of drowning a puppy to lessen the dog population but instead to focus on the roles we have given dogs in our societ and how we control them.
Humans are ultimately responsible for dogs and the state they are in, a rather god-like position, unfortunately.
The idea that I could let my aged, wheezing Sheltie loose in the world and he’d be just fine on his own denies my dog’s purpose and abilities as well as how he was raised by me and his former “owners.”

Any problems that arise in the dog world, over-population or otherwise, comes from our own actions or inactions because we have made dogs dependent on humans. In early history, there was a mutually beneficial relationship and I imagine one in which the dog had more self-reliance and was less like a spoiled child.
Our dogs reflect our society, they have no independent existence outside of us and from what I’ve seen, overall we’re not doing a good job with them.

I recently re-read The Call of the Wild. A great book that ties in nicely with this post.
Also, the role of dogs in the movie Children of Men (hope I got that correct) is a great reflection on our society.

When ethical attitudes that are appropriate to persons are projected onto dogs I am inclined to think it a mianifestation of silliness. That philosophers should so indulge themselves is not to be wondered at for are they not also prey to the fashionable outcry against speciesism. Sheep may safely graze where bellwethers like Singer lead them.

For myself, I will continue to “manifest silliness” as I am ethical enough to not want to cause harm to dogs, cats or any other animal.
To think otherwise implies a profound lack of compassion and an overabundance of ignorance.

Michael-Why is it silliness? Seems like Singer has good arguments to support his position. Yours?

[...] some perspective on a burning issue: of course you should drown puppies, says Jean Kazez, she just doesn’t [...]

Wow, what a translation! This is what I wrote:

Of course you should drown puppies if doing so will save the whole population of Paris. But should you drown puppies in order to preserve the natural enjoyments of adult dogs? One thing’s for sure, I’m not volunteering for the job. As a kid, I got to be midwife to two litters of puppies. Drown ‘em? Not gonna happen, as my kids like to say.

But maybe this is squeamish, and letting a vet spay or neuter just distances us from what is really the greater wrong. Maybe I should admire Mark’s friend, the frank farmer (so to speak). As you can probably tell, my opinion on the matter is changing by the minute, not even by the hour.

This is the view attributed to me:

of course you should drown puppies, says Jean Kazez, who just doesn’t want to be the one to do it …

The translator gets an F.

Michael–I’m not a sheep following Peter Singer anywhere. Peter Singer’s Utilitarian animal ethics is not the only pro-animal ethics there is.

Tree–Call of the Wild is great stuff (it’s another of the books I discuss in the column). I don’t recall dog stuff in Children of Men…evidently I’ve forgotten. Hey, it’s not silliness to take animals seriously. It’s silliness not to.

Any opinion expressed here only has validity if typed with one hand while the other one is cradling a soft warm fuzzy puppy. Otherwise you just don’t get it.
I’m reading some hollow, self-indulgent, actually frivolous nonsense tucked away among the more understanding posts.

Yes, Call of the Wild was London’s best.

I’m not sure what you mean, rtk. Your comment manages to be vague and insulting at the same time and while that makes it easy for you to dodge responsibilty, it only makes me wonder what, exactly, you mean.

By the way, I’m petting an adorable puppy as I type, here at work.

I could tell from previous posts that you had at least a virtual puppy in hand. So does jk and Brian and others. The evil-doer shall remain unnamed.

Your choice, but it’s very passive-aggressive of you.
So now I’m left to wonder on my own what you mean.
Maybe you are implying some arguments here are sentimental? I know I’m not a fan of sentimentality, and I sure don’t muse about doggie orgasms, but if you are implying that one should stare at the idea of drowning puppies with a cold, hard, philosophical eye, then I think you’re way off base.

Oh wow Oh no. You got me backwards. I am a huge fan of dogs. I have photos of my past dogs all around me. Please look at my previous notes on the subject. I anthropomorphize freely and without hesitation. I have forgotten the names of old friends but I remember their pets’ name. Seriously. I bred Bassett Hounds. I’ve also had a Welsh terrier and what I called a chocolate lab and countless cats. I now have three turtles, a reef tank, another tank and three ponds. I bicycle a lot, choosing the routes with the most pigs and cows. I could go on and on. Make no mistake about. I bond with animals instantly.

Sorry for getting things backwards. Didn’t mean to create confusion. I just assumed the “soft…puppy” comment was meant to be sarcastic and I haven’t had too much time to read old posts and comments.

I may not agree with or like all the comments here but I’ve enjoyed being able to contribute to the debate and I think all the comments have validity to them in the sense that we are all entitled to hash out issues and ideas and express opinions.

Although I would ordinarily agree with you, any arbitrary ideas about killing - especially by drowning! - pets is unacceptable to me. That’s why I suggested that any opinion should be expressed with puppy in hand. The real thing outweighs any theory.

I’m always weary when people make blanket statements that experience or actual encounters will always out weigh theory. We are falliable creatures, and we have good theories that smooth over our mistakes. Just as an example, I drive down the road on a hot summer day, and I see puddles of water up there. Now my theory tells me that those arn’t puddles of water, but that the heat is changing the density of the air, which makes it reflect light differently. But I SEE water. So I throw out my theory and get excited for a swim?

Look, puppies are cute. No doubt. I am very much an animal lover. But I can’t let my feelings get in the way of what is the right thing to do. Now often I find my sentiments in line with what I believe, with theory backing me, what the right thing to do is. But when they conflict, I really should take a step back and really think about the scenario, rather than abandon theory (or abandon my sentiments).

I don’t think many people here have given arbitrary ideas about killing, I think they’ve given justified positions for them. If you’re going to just dismiss them because you FEEL they are wrong, then thats not really developing the discourse, or being very philosophical.

I don’t believe theory is always reliable or even deserves the last word on all subjects. I know eyesight is not reliable, optical illusions and all that. On some subjects, yes, I think thoughts should not get in the way of feelings. The right thing to do with puppies - to drown or not to drown - can not, should not be deduced. You just don’t drown puppies. You don’t strangle babies. You don’t abandon old people on a mountain side. You don’t gas the infirm. Even in an over-populated world short of food.

Should we shoot them in the head with a big gun?

Most of this thread has been about how much dogs do or don’t lose by being sterilized, but as I said to begin with, you could have non-consequentialist intuitions about this. In other words, you could say drowning them (shooting them?) is simply wrong, even if it would lead to greater total happiness (for all dogs, people, etc) than sterilization. There are some things you can’t do, even for the greater good. Of course, if you think that, there are lots of other things you’ll not want to see done to animals.

Do unto others etc. has a lot of merit.
Sterilization? Where’s the problem? People do it all the time.

Re: getting consequential about it. If I can’t see what’s up close and personal, how perceptive can I be about consequences way down the line? Each degree of separation from the original action just dilutes and twists the subject. First hold the puppy and let it lick your face, then think hard about holding that little head under water until its eyes bulge straight at you and it can no longer make a sound because its lungs are full of water and it goes limp. Then think about global warming or whatever, using polysyllabic words and lots of semi-colons.

“In a way, those who, without outrightly advocating torture, accept it as a legitimate topic of debate, are in a way more dangerous than those who explicitly endorse it. Morality is never just a matter of individual conscience. It only thrives if it is sustained by what Hegel called ‘objective spirit,’ the set of unwritten rules which form the background of every individual’s activity, telling us what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. For example, the sign of progress in our societies is that one does not need to argue against rape; it is ‘dogmatically’ clear to everyone rape is wrong, and we all feel that even arguing against it is too much…” Slavoj Zizek

I have a soft spot in my hear for Mr Zizek, since his name is nearly mine spelled backwards, but….

I take it the point is that drowning puppies is too obviously wrong to be discussable, but why isn’t castrating puppies also beyond the pale? If it were babies we were talking about, they’d be in the same category–both drowning and castrating just not up for discussion. So the appeal to the unspeakable doesn’t quite resolve this issue.

Control of breeding is an essential part of domestication, much of which is open to question. Clipping ears and tails, shaving and designing their fur, choosing their mates, all for our satisfaction, is not in the animal’s best interests. I find the idea of Pets Gone Wild attractive because I’m rather drawn to the caveman in myself. But Rover (real name of my Bassett) would have missed his freedom from predators and I need my iPhone. I don’t think the most fervent animal ethicist would advocate free reproduction. However, please omit the *D* word.

We can teach our teen-agers - or try to, at least - not to engage in wanton sex, but my pets’ vocabularies didn’t extend to words like monogamous, hooker, bitchizer. The concept of a meaningful relationship was rather fuzzy to them. By the way, of zero importance, I meant to say Rover was my welsh terrier’s name. The basset was Andy Gnawbone and his life partner was Rosy.

OK, controlling dogs makes them fit into our lives better, but if that’s the justification for doing X, Y, and Z, then why condemn the French guy? It fits into his life better to let his dogs have a more natural life. What’s better than a litter of puppies in your barnyard? You keep a few, drown the rest…no barbaric castrations and the like. It’s only if you countenance a moral question about how animals should be treated that you can praise the standard spay/neuter approach and condemn the drowner, or vice versa.

I’m not saying that one should not treat animals well, but the problem in this discussion appears to be that beyond some basic things (animals suffer pain, etc.),
people aren’t really sure what it means to treat animals well, since we can’t see the world from their point of view. So we just don’t know if a dog prefers a long asexual life to a short life of passion, nor do we know if dogs really have preferences in the sense that we use the word for human beings. I think that lots of empirical research on animal psychology is necessary before this type of question can be answered. Empathy plays a big role in most of our ethical decisions about how to treat other people, but from what I can see, even the brillant minds who contribute to this blog don’t have much empathy about dogs nor do I.

Why are you keeping a pet dog in the first place? Four words:
waste of natural resources.
I don’t even want to hear about not killing dogs unless you’re advocating vegetarianism - playing favourites between domesticated mammals is a nonsense.

David says: I don’t even want to hear about not killing dogs unless you’re advocating vegetarianism - playing favourites between domesticated mammals is a nonsense.
I wonder: unless you are advocating celibacy I assume you are not playing favorites between women.

Re: the French guy and doing the *d* word to puppies.
Different places, different times, different sensibilities. My mother pointed to the striped hen in the cage; the butcher grabbed it by the neck, went through the curtained door to the back of the shop and slit its throat before feathering it. (by the way, we used the feet for soup). While in school in France I was invited to dinner at the country home of a fellow student. Mid-afternoon, the grandmother (!) went to the backyard, grabbed a plump rabbit from its enclosure and wrung its neck. So we can’t blame it on being French.

The janitor of the building I once lived in regularly drowned the kittens produced by the cat which was essential for killing the rats in the building. Because he was concerned that the cat go sexually unfulfilled? Ummm, spaying cost too much. In a previous post I mentioned abandoning old people on the side of a mountain. I didn’t make that up. So it’s not only animals that we treat casually.

Then we have stakes and guillotines and injections and ropes. Are there two or more sides to those customs?

rtk says: unless you are advocating celibacy I assume you are not playing favorites between women.

Singling out one species of domestic animal for a higher standard of treatment based purely on sentiment is rather ridiculous; why is it worse to kill puppies than lambs?

Actually I could advocate polygamy and promiscuity and avoid having favourites between women - but that is favouring an individual rather than a particular species, and I don’t think the woman I love deserves more rights than anyone else.

I’m beginning to enjoy this.
david says: I don’t think the woman I love deserves more rights than anyone else
I say: Don’t tell her that.

In my ideal world, lambs would play nicely with their siblings and extended family, keep their lovely coats, have promiscuous sex lives, live to see their great grandchildren, and eventually fall over dead. That’s where I come in. I marinate those tough old muscles in an old scotch or armagnac and smoke the shish kebabs, to be served with couscous and multiple mezedes. Baklave for dessert of course, with Turkish coffee.

In this world, it’s a bit different, but that doesn’t give me license to water board anyone, puppies or my worst enemies.

rtk says: Don’t tell her that.
I wont - I maybe a heartless supporter of canine infanticide but I’m no fool.

rtk:
In this world, it’s a bit different, but that doesn’t give me license to water board anyone, puppies or my worst enemies.

Is it the puppy death in general or the drowning in particular you disagree with?
If so, what alternative method would you suggest?

Hit em with a rock say I.

Good recipe suggestion though; how about this, is it more moral to eat mutton than lamb?
Not that you can find mutton to buy anyway.

I think mutton is a somewhat better choice and tastes better, too. However, I think the whole nature system of everybody eating everybody else is proof that the Designer is not only not Intelligent, but is actually Evil. But that’s the system and I get hungry and I eat the unforbidden, preferably wild animal. I used to hunt. Not with a rock.

If you consider sterilization to be a curtailing of the living dogs’ “full life” potential, then it would seem logical to consider killing puppies an even more severe curtailing of “full life” potential. Sterilization seems to be the kinder move.

Just going off on a tangent, but keeping to dogs; is it wrong to split puppies from parents? To break up the pack so to speak.

Those that say drowning puppies is always wrong have to answer why it’s fine to split up a family pack of animals. It’s my understanding that in the wild they would usually (or the majority) stay together.

It’s equal to taking teenagers away from their parents, most probably forever. (I accept this could sound quite desirable at times!)

[...] some perspective on a burning issue: of course you should drown puppies, says Jean Kazez, who just doesn’t [...]

Or you could locate them to the wild maybe a nice shelter to start with and let nature takeover. And you could just get the females tubes cut and then everybody still has their hormones and can have sex, without getting pregnant. Tube tying or “tubal ligation” is actually an easier surgery to perform than the spaying ( or gutting is what it is more like, they take it all out).

How imbecile all of you. First of all, of course that neutering and spaying is better than taking lives. Next, these procedures DO NOT AFFECT THE DOG/CAT! The dog doesn’t even know what happened when he/she wakes up. Neutering is the removal of testicles, and spaying is the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and fallopian tubes (not ligating!). You say we should let nature take its course, that sterilizing is altering nature, but humans altered nature long ago by domesticating dogs/cats, and therefore, we are responsible for this new species we created! Nature didn’t fail with dogs/cats. We did! Nature is always in perfect balance until WE BUTT IN! If you think it’s nicer to drown a creature, than have him/her be put under surgery with anesthetics and pain killers, you should be drowned yourself!