The subject of dogs and a convicted dog-killer set off a firestorm over there, with lots of differing opinions and plenty of anger. LocoPunk, TruePunk, Instapunk, and Country Punk all wrote in -- no points for guessing where they came down. But with the 'best commenters on the internet' seeming to have some conflicting points of view, the topic is prime for battle on the Kort. So:
Where do you come down on the Vick situation? Did he pay his dues? Should he play? Should he still be in jail? Does he deserve to live?
Much was said about some Ethics 101 ridiculous hypothetical situations: how much more valuable is the life of a dog than the life of a human? A human child? A hundred dogs vs. a rapist? Is this type of debate even worth having? Why or why not?
Some cultures kill and eat dogs for food. Is our culture morally superior to theirs? If a culture had pigs purely as companions and did not kill or eat them, would they be morally superior to us? (Eduardo, Apotheosis, you're expected to weigh in on this one given your recent discussion about the genesis of morality).
What is it that makes dogs different from all the other species? Feel free to make it personal...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My thoughts:
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to look at a dog playing, or hanging its head in contrition, or lazing in a sunbeam without seeing some of ourselves in its behavior. Dogs are different from other species because they're just enough like us, without being too much like us.
There might be species closer to us in both genetics and behavior - the great apes, for example - but they're so close to us that it's an uncomfortable reminder of how little divorced from our animal forebears we are, and it makes the remaining differences even more unsettling. Dogs are a good screen upon which to project our imaginings about ourselves; apes are more like a mirror.
Some cultures kill and eat dogs for food. Is our culture morally superior to theirs?
Well, some cultures kill and eat humans for food. Is our culture morally superior to theirs?
Our culture seems to think so. Certainly, the vast majority of other cultures seem to agree. Given that near-consensus, and based on my previous boneheaded conjectures about "morality" being a function of mass agreement on the propriety of a given behavior, I'd have to say eating people is bad.
Having brought it up, though, I'm not sure how this applies to eating dogs. We as a culture look down on it because we don't think of dogs as food. Dogs help us get food, and dogs eat the stuff left over when we're done with our food, but they aren't food themselves.
(Aside: come to think of it, we don't really get into eating any predatory animal, even those we've killed for other purposes - defense of ourselves or our flocks, fur, trophies, whatever.)
And really, even within those cultures which DO consume dogs, you can find examples of dogs bred and kept as pets and companions, so it's not an either/or proposition.
So do we look at dogs as pets rather than food only because we have the luxury of doing so?
I don’t think that Vick needs to be put to death, but I don’t think he’s paid his dues, either. People like him don’t care about what they did, so the only thing you can really do is punish them. This has not been punishment for him. There are probably a lot of people that would voluntarily go to jail for 2 years if they could become millionaires the day they walked out. At the very least he should not be allowed to play in the NFL anymore. Imagine if you were having a job interview and had to explain that you spent two years in jail for running a violent dog fighting ring. You would get, “Oooookay…we’ll keep your resume on file.” You would not have Tony Dungy popping out of nowhere and speaking up for you. I liked Bill’s suggestion that if you’re a criminal then you’re banned from the sport for life, period. Not that it will ever happen.
ReplyDeleteOther than what Vick did, the thing that pisses me off about this is the media and establishment hypocrisy. Pete Rose and Belichik have already been mentioned Over There, but let’s also remember Don Imus. To this day Sportscenter anchors narrow their eyes and put on their, “Now I’m being angry and serious,” voice when speaking of Don Imus, whom they sometimes go out of their way to mention. Always it is with intense loathing and a vivid reminder of all the evils he visited on the Rutgers women’s basketball team. Not that I am excusing any of these three people, but is a little bit of consistency too much to ask? Don Imus is pond scum the rest of his life but Steve Young bounces around in his chair with excitement talking about Mike Vick signing with the Eagles? WTF?? I feel like these assholes are constantly pissing on our legs and telling us that it’s raining and I’m sick of it. If they are losing sleep at night about Don Imus they should be 100 times more outraged about Vick. Are they? Not even close.
And just in case you don’t believe what I said in another comment about these people assuming you are stupid, go to ESPN.com and watch a clip from Friday’s PTI (it’s not letting me put the link in here). Kornheiser wasn’t on it (thank God) but Mike Wilbon states incredulously that 70% of the country is behind Mike Vick and Eagles fans still are upset. That’s right, it’s the Eagles fans that are the problem. The entire country is behind Mike Vick, so what’s wrong with those idiots in Philly? But don’t worry, once he starts scoring touchdowns in the Wildcat formation (are Wildcat plays the only reason the Eagles signed him, btw? I’ve heard that about five times now) everybody will love him.
Apotheosis and I may have worn out this topic on the last post, but this is the perfect illustration of why I think there are universal moral laws. I don’t care if every dingleberry like Kornheiser and even the entire rest of the planet were on the Mike Vick comeback bandwagon. What he did would still be wrong and it would be wrong no matter how many years pass, no matter what our society and culture turn into, no matter what laws are passed and revoked, and no matter what popular opinion is. Like LocoPunk said:
ReplyDeleteCruelty to the innocent is cruelty absolute.
That is it. I think that was true 10,000 years ago, I think it’s true now and I think it will be true in another 10,000 years no matter what. That’s not something you can compromise on, no matter what society at large thinks.
I’m not really interested in situational ethics debates. It’s those kinds of things that usually try to take common sense off the rails. You know: “So if a group of mobsters kidnapped you, your dog, and your kids, and they gave you a gun and said you had to kill one of them, which one would you kill? The dog? Ohhhhh, so it’s okay for you to kill dogs but not Mike Vick?” It’s the same reason I don’t enjoy the Saw series of movies. They are pretending to be something more than they are, which in the case of the Saw movies is just revolting and not entertaining.
I know other cultures eat dogs, but I don’t think part of the way they prepare them is to torture and brutally murder them. Also, food is scarce and poverty high in many countries where dogs are still eaten and I think it’s done out of necessity. As long as they aren’t getting the Vick treatment, I wouldn’t say that someone should be expected to starve to death rather than eat a dog. I don’t think pigs make very good pets and a culture that favored pigs as pets would probably not very sanitary. But anyway, I don’t think that deciding you want to keep an animal as a pet gives you some type of moral high ground. Otherwise vegetarians would be the most moral people on the planet (except for the fact that they kill plants to eat).
I think dogs are special because they have an intelligence and loyalty that seems to be lacking in other animals. My parents have a dog and a cat. The dog loves to be around people, is excited when someone comes over and loves to play with kids. The cat couldn’t care less about anybody but itself. It acts put out when other people are around and runs away in disgust if anyone gets near. Dogs seem to be bigger parts of families than fish, birds, turtles, rabbits, etc. My mom was allergic to dogs when I was growing up so we couldn’t have one, but I did have a hamster for a while. I got pretty bored with it. Yeah it’s cute and smart and all that, but when you take it out, it either tries to get away or pees on your hand. Plus it runs around in its damn wheel all night. There is not much more going on with a hamster than that. You get a lot more out of having a dog for a pet.
To answer my own questions,
ReplyDeleteMany people I've talked to are disgusted with what Vick did (of course), but use the 'paid his dues' line, as if justice was served. To me, the punishments set out by courts are incredibly arbitrary, lawyer-spun, and do not reflect justice in any particular way. Two people, same crime, different lawyers or judges can equal different sentences? So no, Vick has not paid his dues, and I don't think he should play, ever.
I, too, have no interest in rigged ethics hyptotheticals -- they're a distraction from what has really happened, a topic worth discussing without trying to boil out some black and white morality in a kid vs. dog situation. I brought it up to point out a diversionary tactic that some people I've talked to try to use (and of course, it came up Over There in the comments).
Eduardo, I've heard pigs make amazing pets -- very smart, can be kept clean, etc. Not my taste, but hey, they're out there.
Another animal that seems close to the dog is the horse. Again, other cultures eat them, and they've certainly been more 'used' throughout history. I don't have a lot of personal experience with horses, but I know horse owners and dog owners have a lot in common in their love for their animals.
On a personal level, these discussions on the nature of dogs is hitting me squarely these days. My son is about to turn two, and we have another on the way, due in November. We have two dogs, one nearing the end of her life who keeps to herself these days. The other, though, is a wonderful, friendly, and enthusiastic dog. He's good with my son, but we don't let them mix too often because there's a problem. The dog is one of five 'primitive breeds' left in the world, a Japanese dog, cousin to the Akita. They are great dogs, but a 'switch' can get flipped in their brains based on certain triggers where they see red and will turn on anyone and anything. This makes the strong-willed breed notoriously difficult to train, but they are very smart. My dog's trigger is 'found food' -- my son could feed him dog food with no problems whatsoever, but if the dog finds a tossed chicken bone or a half-eaten burger out on the street during a walk, he turns, even on me, with death in his eyes. A minute later, he's fine, back to normal, licking my hand with eyes that seem to sadly ask, "What just happened?"
I'm convinced that we can keep the dog and the kids separate when we need to, but my wife is insisting on caution, so we are looking to place the dog in a new home. We're being particular, though, so there have been few leads, none perfect. So it's a trying time in our house, as neither of us want to do this. We didn't know about the switch when we adopted him, and we weren't thinking about having kids at the time, 8 years ago.
So, in light of all this, with the thought of having to be separated from a dog that I love so much, I have to hear about this sociopath laughing as he drowns dogs. My clenched teeth are starting to hurt...
Eduardo, I've heard pigs make amazing pets -- very smart, can be kept clean, etc.
ReplyDeleteDid not know that, but that's interesting. Come to think of it, didn't one of the characters on Green Acres have a pet pig? Anyway, as I said, I don't think that deciding to keep a certain type of animal as a pet gives you a moral superiority because in the end you are going to have to kill something to eat. I've asked vegetarians in the past what the difference is between killing plants and animals for food and they roll their eyes, scoff, and don't bother responding. I wish that would work for me when they ask me what the difference is between killing humans and cows for food.
Sorry about what is going on with your dog, btw. My parents dog, a chocolate lab, has not been in very good shape lately, either. She has a benign tumor on her leg that has been operated on several times. The doctors have had to do two skin grafts because they don't seem to take for whatever reason. She has to take pain medication and wear one of those huge cones on her head so she can't bite at her stitches and all of that makes her miserable. She has been slinking off to a dark closet to just sit by herself. There was one point where my parents thought she was dying because she had been in the closet all day long and wouldn't even eat, but late at night she jumped up and was acting almost normal again. She's been day to day but is still kicking right now.
Their cat, meanwhile, couldn't care less.
Look at the Dog Whisperer. He excels at solving exactly these kinds of problems. There are times when YOU have to be the big dog. He teaches you how.
ReplyDeleteFailing that, look for a bred-specific (Shiba-Inu?) rescue organization on the Internet, not to friends and acquaintances. Lots of people think they get along with all dogs. No one does. They're as various as we are. I didn't begin to UNDERSTAND dogs until I realized there were dogs I didn't like and never would. They DIFFER.
See IP's post Dog Love: There's a dark side as well as a bright side.
http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=1733
I think you can still fix the problem. But I'm frequently wrong too.
Don't worry, I would never entrust care of this fine dog to someone uninitiated. We're in close contact with the breeder, and we interviewed someone last night who has raised both Akitas and Shiba Inus (yes, you were right).
ReplyDeleteAfter that interview, though, we had a family discussion and are back to keeping him, to remaining the alphas. We do listen to Cesar, and respect him. Our hearts break to think that we might not be able to give this dog what he needs, as our time will be divided between the kids and the 24/7 nature of my career.
But we will find a way. Thank you for the encouragement.
"Much was said about some Ethics 101 ridiculous hypothetical situations: how much more valuable is the life of a dog than the life of a human? A human child? A hundred dogs vs. a rapist? Is this type of debate even worth having? Why or why not?"
ReplyDeleteThis is why:
Comments at HotAir:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/17/poll-should-vick-play-in-the-nfl-again/comment-page-1/#comments
I couldn't get through the first page of the comments.
ReplyDeleteI could unload a few paragraphs of of verbal diarrhea about why, but really it'd just boil down to disgust. Disgust at the sports industry, at the players, at the fans, at an entire infrastructure of apologists and enablers, built around the amusement or monetary value of watching a bunch of costumed street thugs drag a ball up and down a field.
I have no use for any of those people.
Served his time means his acts have been atoned for in the eyes of the law, not that he's a changed man who deserves an immediate return to status quo ante. And any iggles fanboi who doesn't understand the difference is invited to pick a random name off their local sexual predator list for a babysitter.