ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

Here's a hypothetical:

I have the opportunity to rescue 20 dogs from an overcrowded shelter. I do so. However, in order for me to provide a comfortable environment, the necessary medical care, food, etc. I have to bring each dog to the school I teach at for mentally disabled children, and allow the children to interact in a therapeutic setting with the dogs. In accordance with this arrangement, the dogs will be used in this capacity three times a week, and in return I will be given just enough money to provide for all 20 dogs - no extra income above these requirements. If I do not allow the dogs to interact, etc. with the children as a means of therapy, I will have to return all but 2 of the dogs to the shelter.

Now, at any given moment the dogs express a preference (that is easily deduced) that is contrary to going to the school: A, B, C, D, and E would prefer to spend their day running and entertaining themselves in my backyard; dogs F-L would prefer to spend their day eating and sleeping in my comfortable living room; and dogs M-T are perfectly happy going, although they don't like Timmy and Ryan, two of the more obnoxious children.

This said, I still "force" my dogs to go to the school with me three times a week and play the role of "therapeutic tools."

Is this moral given the philosophy of animal rights?

Alex wrote:Here's a hypothetical:

I have the opportunity to rescue 20 dogs from an overcrowded shelter. I do so. However, in order for me to provide a comfortable environment, the necessary medical care, food, etc. I have to bring each dog to the school I teach at for mentally disabled children, and allow the children to interact in a therapeutic setting with the dogs. In accordance with this arrangement, the dogs will be used in this capacity three times a week, and in return I will be given just enough money to provide for all 20 dogs - no extra income above these requirements. If I do not allow the dogs to interact, etc. with the children as a means of therapy, I will have to return all but 2 of the dogs to the shelter.

Now, at any given moment the dogs express a preference (that is easily deduced) that is contrary to going to the school: A, B, C, D, and E would prefer to spend their day running and entertaining themselves in my backyard; dogs F-L would prefer to spend their day eating and sleeping in my comfortable living room; and dogs M-T are perfectly happy going, although they don't like Timmy and Ryan, two of the more obnoxious children.

This said, I still "force" my dogs to go to the school with me three times a week and play the role of "therapeutic tools."

Is this moral given the philosophy of animal rights?

As a general matter, I imagine the 20 dogs will be replaced in a week or two in an overcrowded sanctuary.

To rather ignore your hypothetical, I would arrange for the dogs to be "stolen" by persons unknown and taken where they do not have to work for their existence or freedom from imprisonment in the shelter.

Does that answer? Or are you wanting to pay it by the rules?

rags.

Play by the rules Although your idea works, I suppose.

I am suggesting that an appeal to Consequentialist reasoning is appropriate given certain realities.

I don't know that there's much difference between consequentialist & deontological-as-much-as-possible reasoning in such cases. Obviously we employ this same reasoning every day that we adopt from shelters. It's an interesting twist to shift it from a "limitation on liberty" as in usual adoption, to a "requirement to work." It makes it closer to a human situation. Less of a patronizing view - I think a lot of people view dogs, especially, as infantile beings who will never progress past a babbling drooling toddler stage.

At first glance it seems to give the dogs more respect to expect a level of financial responsibility from them. And serving in the capacity of therapy worker is certainly quite noble. Of course if they don't see it that way, and feel that they are being fawned over and objectified, that's not so good. One thing about the preference indications - they may indicate those preferences at the time you present them with a choice, but perhaps if they could choose when to go to work, they would prefer to work sometimes than to play all the time.

As I indicated elsewhere, your actions can't be seen as exploitative, since you get no ostensible benefit from "putting them to work." You get no financial profit; only the satisfaction of making a better life possible. And I do think it would be a better life, but of course that's just my take on things, and the individual dogs may feel differently.

That's a big problem with human-nonhuman relations at the moment; even if we want to respect their decisions, we don't know how.

Absolutely!

I believe that as the impetus for using them as therapy workers is to receive the necessary financial support to provide each of them with a home, as opposed to personal financial gain, the action is difficult to label "immoral." Denying the realities of the world in which we must operate is necessary, lest you be appropriately labeled a mere ideologue.

panthera wrote:I don't know that there's much difference between consequentialist & deontological-as-much-as-possible reasoning in such cases.

I think you are very right here.
This was a good hypothetical, Alex. You got me thinking for a while. And so, I had to think about the good old "human analogy" as to check my speciesism.
"What if I had the opportunity to save 20 children from a possible death... yet still use them for some light work, in order to provide enough money to maintain them?" Would I do it?

Deontologically it is problematic, but I think I would do it. It won´t be a 100% satisfactory choice, that´s for sure.

So, after testing my speciesism, I would use those dogs in therapy.

I read an interesting example in Tom Regan's book.

Just say, your 2-year old son watches pigeons take off from your roof, and wants to follow them. He knows flying will give him great joy, but doesn't know that he cannot fly. So, he inches closer and closer to the edge.

As a concerned parent, would you stop him or not? Of course you would. It'd be a paternalistic thing to do since the child is denied satisfaction of his 'preference' (sounds crazy, doesnt it?), but it cannot be conceivably claimed to be immoral.

In a similar way, you could let your dogs exercise their 'preferences' - lazing around, or sleeping, or playing in your backyard. But, the outcome is not likely to be good for them. You will, in all likelihood, find yourself having to give them away to a shelter, and then who knows? Either your own dogs will suffer at the shelter, and if not, some other dogs that might have otherwise taken your dogs' place at the shelter will continue to suffer on the roads or in an abusive environment. So, by making your dogs work, you are imposing a paternalistic choice on them, but it cannot be called "immoral".

This is what I think.

KP