Did you hear about the study that taught dogs to voluntarily participate in research using MRIs ? The work was done by Gregory Berns, a PhD and physician who studies, in his words, “the neurobiological basis for individual preferences and how neurobiology places constraints on the decisions people make.” After working exclusively with humans for years, he decided to branch out and start looking more closely at the brains of our canine compatriots. What is especially exciting about his work is that he and his colleagues have used positive reinforcement to train dogs to willingly have MRIs in order to study their neurological responses to different stimuli. This might not seem particularly impressive, unless you’ve had an MRI yourself. I’ve had two, and the good news is that the one I had relatively recently was a completely different experience than the first one, which was, no exaggeration, a nightmare. MRIs are noisy. Really noisy. (Here’s an explanation of why.) The first time I had one I was inserted into a tiny black tube so tightly I couldn’t move, and subjected to noises aversive and loud enough that I would’ve sold out my own mother if that would have made them stop. The technician put a button in my hand before sliding me in, and said to squeeze it if I began to panic and they’d get me out, claustraphobic responses being a common problem. I did begin to panic, I did squeeze the button, and nothing happened. The person evaluating the MRI, standing next to the technician in a booth above the main room, forgot to turn off the microphone, so I heard her telling the technician to ignore me and continue the tests because they were busy that day. (He eventually overrode her and came to my rescue.) I’m happy to say that the one I had more recently wasn’t that bad at all: it was much less claustrophobic, I had a wonderful technician and headphones to dampen the worst of the noise.
But still: The tests continue to be somewhat noisy, the noises are ridiculously aversive, you have to wear headphones, and you have to remain absolutely motionless. Those factors have led to a belief that MRIs couldn’t be done on dogs, but when I talked to Greg last week he said that it wasn’t as hard as he thought it would be. He worked with positive reinforcement trainer Mark Spivak and so far they have taught twelve dogs who they call “certified MRI dogs.” Too cool. An equal number are in training now. I’ll talk about the results he’s gotten in a minute, but I was as interested in the process as I was in the results, and Dr. Berns was kind enough to relay some of the details and challenges. (He describes it at length in his new book, How Dogs Love Us: A Neuroscientist and His Adopted Dog Decode the Canine Brain). He reports about a 75% success rate with dogs, which I would argue is pretty impressive. About half of the dogs are former CCI dogs, (lab/golden crosses) who for some reason didn’t graduate, but were nonetheless bred for stable personalities and the kind of calm demeanor required of service dogs. No surprise then, that they did so well in training. The biggest problem Berns reports is that the dogs have a hard time stopping their tails from wagging, and the trainers have to spend time teaching the dogs to stay still from the tip of their nose to the tip of their tail. Can’t you just see the dogs? Perfectly motionless, except, uh…. that tail just seems to have a mind of its own? You can see an illustration of this on a video that illustrates parts of the training process.
Needless to say they’ve learned a lot as they continue the work, and have gotten better at selecting potential dogs before serious training begins. Super sound sensitive dogs are obviously out (Willie would be the first one eliminated), and so MRI-like sounds are played over a speaker during the auditions. Once the dogs is selected, the trainers use shaping to teach the dogs to wear headphones, to hold still and to insert their heads into an MRI tube. They only have to hold still for 30 seconds at a time (I think I had to stay still for as much as 3 to 4 minutes… that would be a stretch for a dog) but the procedure itself takes about 10 minutes.
As of now there are three experiments either completed or in the works. The first showed that an area of the dog’s brain, the caudate nucleus, lights up in response to a hand signal that indicates food is coming. This parallels the response in the caudate of humans when they are anticipating something they love, like a great meal or someone they love. In the second experiment, not yet published, they found that the dog’s caudate was stimulated by the scent of familiar people (for example, the scent of the spouse of the dog’s primary owner and handler during the MRI) but not that of familiar dogs who live in the same household. I suspect that is explained by the fact that familiar people provide petting and food, while familiar dogs never open up a can of pork or lamb for another dog in the house. In addition, although relationships between dogs and people vary greatly, I would argue that they vary even more so between dogs. Willie and Tootsie tolerate each other, but primarily see each other competition for attention, not as “friends” or providers of anything good. But of course, I’m just speculating.
The third experiment, in progress, circles back to hand signals, and asks if the response is different if the signaler is familiar, unfamiliar or a computer generated one. What’s truly ground breaking about these studies is that Berns has shown the world that one can indeed look inside the brain of a dog, without using force or sedatives. This is rare, but it has been done in other species. For example, one of my advisors, Charles Snowdon, paired with Craig Ferris and others, and taught Cotton top tamarins to stay still for an MRI study on scent and mating, but they did use what they called “light sedation.”
Note, however, that the article in the New York Times was not so much a report of a scientific discovery, as an argument that the results support the concept of giving “personhood” to dogs. Berns argues: “But now, by using the M.R.I. to push away the limitations of behaviorism, we can no longer hide from the evidence. Dogs, and probably many other animals (especially our closest primate relatives), seem to have emotions just like us.” He goes on to argue that we should consider giving dogs “personhood,” and that doing so would significantly improve their lives. There’s a lot going on in those few words, and although I agree with much of what he says, I do have a problem with some of his arguments. He implies in his article that until his MRI work, the world was still bound by the most radical claims of behaviorists in the 40’s, that it was irrelevant whether animals had emotions or not, and the arguments of others that only humans have emotions at all. However, decades of work on cognition and emotions in a variety of species have made it clear that we can study the internal processes of animals, and that there is a great deal going on inside the minds of animals beyond a stimulus-response chain. Berg and I talked by phone and email over the last few days, and I asked if perhaps the field of neurobiology was particularly resistant to the concept of emotions in non-human animals. As I wrote to him, “[people who doubt emotions in animals] . . . are becoming fewer and fewer, and are almost non-existent in zoology, ethology, wildlife ecology, psychology and most philosophers.” It sounds from his answer that most neuroscientists are not on board, so his arguments make more sense if given within the bonds of one discipline.
Nor am I convinced that giving “personhood” to dogs is the right conclusion to make from his studies. For one, having the same segment of the brain light up in response to the anticipation of something good happening in people and dogs is not the equivalent of proving that canine and human emotions are the same. (Do note, however, that I am on record as saying that comparing emotions and people and dogs is a glass half full, or a glass half empty, depending on your perspective. As a matter of fact, I wrote an entire book about it, For the Love of a Dog, in which I argue that the emotions of dogs are more like ours than they are not.) However, I am not convinced that granting dogs “personhood” is a constructive thing to do. Treating them as sentient, feeling beings who deserve respect and compassionate treatment, yes. But “personhood?” I’m not there yet. But I do love that Berns and his colleagues are treating their subjects with kindness and respect, and am thrilled about the kind of information that will no doubt come to us in the future because of their efforts. If you’d like to read more about this issue, see Harold Herzog’s blog for a criticism of Berg’s suggestion of personhood for dogs, and Mark Bekoff’s post in support of it.
What about you? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
MEANWHILE, back on the farm: A glorious fall weekend, and lots of time at a Fun Day on Saturday and Fun Trial on Sunday, with good people working our sheep dogs in a lovely and casual setting. We had a great time, although Willie had to miss his second run at the trial because I didn’t like how he was using his shoulder (the one that had surgery) and had been a bit gimpy on his back hind leg on Saturday night. Ah, the challenges of an inherently unsound dog trying to be a star athlete. Sigh. But still, we managed it just fine, and Willie and I had a great time. He didn’t do particularly well on Sunday during his trial run, but he didn’t do badly either. It is tough to evaluate his performance, because there was a glitch in setting the sheep out (a very difficult task for anyone) and they began taking off long before Willie got anywhere near them. Things were a tad chaotic with Willie and another dog both working the sheep at the same time (and on opposite sides), so the sheep were a tad riled up once we finally got thing sorted out. But after that Willie did well, although there was one cue that he totally ignored (a flanking cue when he had finally gathered up the sheep and was bringing them to me). I understand exactly what caused it: the same thing that causes me to say “Just a minute… I can’t listen right now I’m concentrating on________”. Granted, he should have listened, but he is so biddable that I am understanding now what is happening the few times he doesn’t.
I couldn’t do a second run, even though every fiber of my being wanted to, because I was afraid he’d end up lame, but I did let him do two lovely outruns and easy drives to “exhaust” the sheep after someone else’s run. It was perfect: he got to end on a good note, he did a perfect job and he didn’t compromise his health. Here’s a video that I took on Saturday while working Willie on outruns and short drives with a friend. (Thanks Donna and Shea for spotting for us!) I had to stop once the sheep got close because I had to put the camera away and work my dog!
HFR says
Just watched the training video. Effing amazing. This, right after the recall post, has succeeded in making me feel like the worst trainer in the world. I’m in awe…I agree that dogs are not persons, I wouldn’t insult them that way. 😉
Trisha says
HFR: I remember the first time I went to a sheep dog trial as a spectator and watched a handler let his dogs out at the motel the night before. He thought nothing of letting his dogs out loose beside the motel. No fence, no nothing but his connection with his dogs. Every dog stayed close, every dog came when called. I will never forget thinking that I had no idea what I one could expect from a dog until I saw that. BUT… you are NOT the worst trainer in the world, you are human and are clearly committed to learning. Besides, I didn’t tape the run in which things didn’t look so smooth, I was to busy trying to handle it all!
Lynn U. says
I have to say I was very surprised to see a scientist inserting the whole “personhood” argument into the otherwise interesting fMRI study. There’s a long distance between sharing emotions with people and being a person with the rights that go with that status. For instance, how would a dog be able to grant or deny consent? A human soldier can agree to go on a dangerous mission, choosing to put their life in danger for the sake of others. I doubt that a dog has the intellectual capacity to weigh such a decision, and doesn’t have the ability to convey their choice even if they did, so would having dogs sniff out explosive devices in war be a violation of their rights as “persons” or not? I think we would be much better off paying attention to the ethics of the human side of the equation and asking what we as humans owe to the animals who share our lives and our planet.
Susan Fishbein says
I think it’s easy for those of us who have lived in the world of rescue and sheltering to reflexively anthropomorphize and gravitate toward “personhood” for our pets, especially when research comes along that validates much of what we already knew — that pets have feelings and emotions and, therefore, that they often suffer at the hands of abusers, the neglect of hoarders, and the deprivation of most shelter environments.
However, “personhood” under the law has a whole host of ramifications that I don’t think most of us are prepared to accept — it carries with it the obligation to be held responsible for your actions, and incarcerated for failure to abide by the law. We could end up with our dogs being jailed for stealing the neighbor’s steaks or shoes, for example. It gives them certain rights to control their reproductive status — we could no longer decide to spay or neuter a dog or cat without their informed consent. We would lose the right to protect our dogs (or cats) by pointing out that dogs (or cats) naturally behave or react a certain way, because a person is held to a standard of controlling their behavior. Examples of things that our dogs would no longer be permitted to do without being subject to arrest or lawsuit:
1. public urination
2. public defecation
3. public nudity
4. crotch sniffing (criminal assault and/or tortious battery)
5. touching another “person,” which may even be another dog, in an offensive manner
And the list goes on and on ….
LisaW says
I’m so glad you wrote about this. I had linked to Berg’s NYT article a few blogs ago. A friend who is not particularly a fan of the canine species sent it to me. I’m sure he was thinking good grief, what are those dog people going to do next!
My take away from the Times article, aside from my fascination with the parallels of how the caudate lights up in response to certain stimuli, was Berg’s idea of granting “personhood” to dogs as a possible counterbalance to laws that list dogs as property.
Berg writes: “DOGS have long been considered property. Though the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and state laws raised the bar for the treatment of animals, they solidified the view that animals are things — objects that can be disposed of as long as reasonable care is taken to minimize their suffering.”
His studies make a good argument for — if not personhood — some designation for strengthening the laws protecting the treatment of dogs and removing the “thing” or “object” category.
As I said before, I would much rather see dogs being granted “personhood” than corporations.
LisaW says
In my excitement, I hit submit too soon, again! I wanted to say how wonderful it is to see you and Willie out doing what you both love so much. You’ve both worked so hard at getting him to some semblance of sound, it must be indescribable when it goes well. As someone with an unsound dog, who is not even trying to be a star athlete, I feel your joy.
My urge to do a second posting also made me think about how much work this blog is to you and your staff. I truly appreciate this forum and how graciously you all handle the ins and outs of a weekly post, the participants, and the trials and tribulations (and how many of us hit send too soon). Thank you very much.
Donna B. says
“In the second experiment, not yet published, they found that the dog’s caudate was stimulated by the scent of familiar people (for example, the scent of the spouse of the dog’s primary owner and handler during the MRI) but not that of familiar dogs who live in the same household. I suspect that is explained by the fact that familiar people provide petting and food, while familiar dogs never open up a can of pork or lamb for another dog in the house. In addition, although relationships between dogs and people vary greatly, I would argue that they vary even more so between dogs. Willie and Tootsie tolerate each other, but primarily see each other competition for attention, not as “friends” or providers of anything good. But of course, I’m just speculating – See more at: https://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theotherendoftheleash/mris-and-dogs#sthash.zFnYLL42.dpuf”
This reminds me of the studies of wolf behavior, based on the behavior of captive packs of “thrown together” unrelated wolves, rather than looking at family groups of wolves in the wild. We have seen what enormous errors this has produced.
My Irish Wolfhounds are all related, they are offspring, parents, aunts, uncles, siblings, and at furthest remove, cousins. All have complex, layered, and very salient to each, relationships with one another. Those relationships are as important to them as are their relationships with me. It would surprise me very much if their caudates were not stimulated by the scents of one another, despite the fact that none open cans of dog food for one another. If these researchers do not include dog “families” in their sample (and it sounds to me as if they lack the sophistication to do so),, their results will certainly not reflect the complexity of the canine social group, including those who have strong relationships with their owners. There are many breeders who keep dogs as families, but I will wager their sample only reflects people who “adopt” unrelated dogs, often of different breeds or mixes. My dogs are extremely attached to me, most have titles, including AKC Obedience titles, but their familial relationships are also very important to them, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Unfortunately, we breeders who keep dogs this way are a tiny minority. I fear though that the conclusions reached are going to based upon an impoverished sample, which will then be incorrectly generalized to a more general population, without consideration of the richer behavioral repoirtaire of dogs.
Kat says
Trisha, You realize don’t you that you’re a book pusher. I’m already addicted to reading and you just keep finding more and more fascinating things for me to read. 😉
On the question of personhood, I have to say that if my choices are person or property I’ll choose person. However, it seems to me that dogs don’t really fit the status of person. There needs to be a third designation, one that recognizes that dogs are much much more than property but not fully human. They need a status more like that of a young child. That seems to me where the most similarities can be found but where young children grow into people with all attendant right and responsibilities dog won’t they will always be unable to function in society as an adult.
Sheri Cassens says
Always love your blogs. I agree that “person status” is a bit much for me as well though dogs deserve good care and humane training because humans brought them into the world. Hopefully these studies will give more people a reason to treat their dogs with compassion.
Ben says
Yeah I don’t get the personhood thing. Emotions with a lot of similarities to humans? Yeah, 100% behind that. But I would not try to make dogs and humans equivalent in any way. J
Trisha, yeah thats such a tricky thing with Wilie. I play beer league hockey, but I always want to perform as best as I can, no matter what. I recently hurt my foot pretty bad from a puck, and it is so (mentally) painful to play hockey knowing you can play better. Its hard to not push yourself, to think of the future, to not be competitive. For a dog, it must be 1000 times worse. Just sucks.
Laceyh says
Amen, Kat! Dogs, like small children, need protection in our world.
Beth with the Corgis says
So fun to see Willie working sheep! I do love to watch a dog herd. Whenever you share his lengthy list of issues, though (and I hope this isn’t too harsh) I always hope that his breeders did not repeat that particular cross. Poor guy (and poor you) have had to deal with more than your share of both physical and emotional issues.
When I read about the dogs’ caudate not lighting up in response to another dog, I was instantly taken back to a long-ago conversation here about whether or not dogs have “friends.’ It would be interesting to see the dogs’ response to, say, a favorite play partner. It would hint to us whether the play partner held some significant meaning to the dog, or if the play partnership was just a matter of having compatible play styles (and therefore a matter of convenience).
It would also be interesting to see the response of animals that have very strong social bonds (elephants, horses, dolphins), and compare that to the MRI activity of dogs and people. I seem to recall being in the minority that argued it was hard to say dogs have friends, since they come from an ancestor (wolves) that live in groups of more or less mated pairs with not-quite-mature offspring and therefore aren’t genetically programmed to form larger groups that maintain bonds (except mating bonds) over long periods of time, the way elephants and gorillas and dolphins do. It would be interesting to see if a wolf’s brain lit up in response to a mate, or to young adult offspring.
It’s interesting to note that the dogs’ brains light up in response to a familiar person. Is it just the association with food and safety? Perhaps. It’s also true, though, that dogs have for hundreds of generations been selectively bred based on their ability to bond tightly with people, but for the most part have not been selected based on their ability to form strong bonds with other dogs. More research might answer some questions about how dogs are viewing their own world. If for instance the brain lights up for a household member that never feeds the dog, but not for a researcher who has fed the dog every day for a week, that might imply that there is more to the relationship than anticipation of needs being met. If the brain lights up for favorite play partner dogs but not dogs that live in the same house, it may be that the dog makes choices regarding “friends.” If it lights up for other people in the house, but never for another dog (no matter how much the owner thought he saw affection between the two), that might tell us about the dogs’ bonding experiences.
As far as granting dogs personhood, that makes an awful lot of large leaps in reasoning. First of all, personhood and the rights of personhood are a relatively new concept, even for people. With a few exceptions in history, until modern times the group was seen as more essential than the individual, and in most societies only a relative few individuals had very many rights at all. The idea of personhood involves a certain sense of a desire for self-actualization, and the idea of the self as being important in the world in a bigger way than animals seem to exhibit. I could be wrong, but I would imagine that bees have a part of the brain that lights up in response to the smell of certain flowers. Bees deserve our respect, but they don’t graduate to some status of “personhood” because of it.
Others have made better arguments than I can of the legal and ethical implications of thinking of dogs as having some sort of status equivalent to our own. I know it has become so unpopular in certain circles to think of pets as being “owned” that many dog books won’t even use the term, since it’s so controversial. The fact is, though, that legally the ARE owned. We buy them, sell the, decide who they mate with, what they eat, when they exercise, what vet they see. We decide when they die. In every legal sense, we own them and if we did not, then what would their status in society be? We can pass laws regarding their fair treatment and still view them legally as property. Without the framework of “property”, the whole idea of selective breeding becomes heinous. It’s a path we don’t want to go too far down….
Dr. M says
I just wrote a blog about this yesterday, and mentioned you actually! I read the first part of the article with interest, but when the author began talking about guardianship and dogs as small humans, it got my hackles up.
http://mmendingwall.blogspot.com/2013/10/cats-are-not-small-dogs-but-dogs-are.html
Nic1 says
Trisha – I love that you have picked up on this article! I saw a link to this last week in the NY Times and was immediately amazed at how the heck Gregory Burns managed to get his dog to stick out an MRI for 30 seconds! Impressive training and patience indeed. I too have had a couple of MRI scans and got told off during one for coughing and moving….it’s not an easy process for a person, never mind a dog. So to be able to positively reinforce a dog to endure this tedious and possibly downright terrifying procedure is amazing in itself.
I also think that the social discussion arising from the initial results is both intellectually fascinating yet controversial. Because dogs aren’t people. My immediate concern is that granting them ‘personhood’ status will ultimately subject them to even more unrealsitic expectations heaped upon them. Despite all the fantastic research and work on cognition and behaviour over the last couple of decades, there are still an awful lot of people who don’t possess an understanding of what dogs ARE capable of and most importantly, what they ARE NOT capable of (sorry for the capitals but can’t underline and important to emphasise that point). Dogs are amoral; irrational and simply do not have the brain physiology required to be able to think, learn and act like a person. However, they feel emotions – intensely. They form relationships with people and are capable of providing love for people who may find it hard to bond with other humans. They work for us. They can learn to do jobs that can help people function better in society. Their relationship with us, is one of the greatest things mankind has achieved IMHO. I feel what they do require frum us in return for all the amazing gifts they offer us is more protection and more empathy than they currently have. If this work can help to argue a case against irresponsible breeding practices – such as puppy farming – and to further cement the importance of teaching and training with an understanding of behaviour and cognition, then happy days. There is an awful lot of needless emotional suffering (dogs and humans) at hand due to bad practices in this regard.
I do think of myself as a dog guardian and protector as opposed to an owner though….
Nic1 says
@Dr.M
‘Considering animals on a level with humans or at least more than “property” will mean that euthanasia will no longer be an option to end animal suffering. Animals with painful, terminal illnesses will have to suffer, just as humans with terminal illness do. The difference is humans can understand what is happening to them, but animals cannot.’
I hope you don’t mind me quoting that from your blog post on here, but that is such an important and emotive point. IMHO our companion animals are privileged in that they do not have to suffer unnecessarily in this regard. Even though (some!) human beings self awareness and intelligence can allow them to make rational and sensible decisions about the direction of their own life, in some societies we don’t seem to be able to extend this mentality in allowing us the choice to choose to die with dignity. The physical and emotional pain suffered by a person with a terminal disease or in a ‘locked in syndrome’ may well be akin to a living hell (not to mention their loved ones’ pain witnessing this suffering too).
Laura says
Tricia,
Thanks for writing about this. I too, have had two MRIs and though one was not fun, a full tube MRI which was enclosed, the second one was just an MRI on my knee and the tube only went over that part of my body. Both took a long time to complete however and I remember thinking that I would love to have my dog with me while they were doing my second MRI. He couldn’t be inside the room with me however and had to wait outside with my mother. I giggled when you said that most of the dogs were lab/golden crosses and that the trainers had to get the dogs to stop wagging their tails. It reminded me so much of my Seamus, who wags his tail all the time. In fact, it’s how I usually tell when a family member has entered the room, the thump-thump of his tail lets me know someone we both know is here and the more vigarous the wagging, the more we know that person. His tail will give a few wags if it’s my mother, but if it’s my sister or my fiancé, especially him, I can feel the breeze from that tail. It always makes me smile.
As to personhood for dogs, no. Like others, I believe we should be good care-givers and guardians for our animals. Like children, we are obligated to protect them, but unlike children, they aren’t developing into a fully grown adult with all that intails. Dogs have emotions, and I firmly believe that, but dogs, just like other animals, are not people and I appreciate that you Tricia, understand that and can back it up through scientific observation. the last thing I’ll say on this subject is, and I know this is an extreme example, but it’s out there, is when we have professors at universities who are putting forth the idea that parents should be able to end the life of their toddler if they choose too, and also the idea that a monkey has more rights to life than a developmentally disabled child, and we can’t figure out what personhood means for humans, let’s not further complicate things by bringing dogs into the mix until we’ve sorted out all the rest. I don’t want to decend into a rabbit hole, but that particular aspect is extremely important to me as a person with a disability and questions of personhood and what makes a person are very close to my heart.
I’ll end with congratulations to Willie. I love watching him do something he loves and I’m glad he’s having fun, even though he didn’t get to work as much as either of you would’ve liked. It makes my heart sing to see happy, relaxed dogs after a session of work. Have a great day everybody. 🙂
Robin Jackson says
To add to Susan Fishbein’s list, I would think the most complex area if dogs were granted personhood would be reproductive rights. Humans would no longer be allowed to spay/neuter dogs for what is essentially our convenience, which in itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Forced breeding, which is to say pretty much all AKC type programs where the human chooses the partners would also be disallowed. So that brings us to the question of healthy intact adult dogs at least one of whom wants to mate. How do we distinguish between rape and consent? What about consensual incest? Who takes care of all the puppies?
Dogs are not children. Or autistic adults. They require “guardians” only so that we can fit them into our society and have them live by our rules. As the Carolina Dogs we’ve been discussing recently have shown, the generic dog is a fully functioning adult with an ability to survive and raise their own children. They have a desire to mate and a willingness to harm. What they don’t have is a human reproductive cycle and the consequent need to develop a morality around it.
Star Trek and other science fiction works addressed many of these issues long ago. Biology does in part shape morality. When two different species encounter each other, it is not a matter of deciding whether A can be accepted into B’s society. Instead, it is a question of determining if there is an intersection where both groups can agree on a common code of behaviour without interfering with the separate areas.
Dogs are not humans. To decide they qualify for “personhood” on the basis of some of our similarities is to overlook the value and integrity of our differences. And, as with the issue of reproductive rights, it sets dogs up to be abysmal failures as persons, rather than acknowledging their marvelous successes as dogs.
It is more practical, and more ethical, to raise the standards by which humans live to see that dogs are better treated.
By the way, the law in the US and the UK is already doing this in some interesting ways. A number of divorce courts are now willing to consider the “best interests of the dog” when assigning custody, something which puts the dog in an entirely different class than simple property, yet is not a conferral of personhood.
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/dduspetcustodyindivorce.htm
At some point, it is possible that we will be visited by another technologically advanced species with a different biology. To tell them “You’re good enough to be human” would be an insult. To assume emotional similarity is a necessity for respectful treatment would be illogical. To define a legal right to fair judicial treatment as “personhood” would be condescending as well as undiplomatic.
Our ability to acknowledge and respect differences is challenged by our modern relationships with dogs. That’s a good thing. But conferring personhood would introduce as many problems as it solved, as it is likely that nearly all dogs would declared a criminal or incompetent if judged by human standards. Better to consider how best to respect dogs as dogs, and what our expectations of ourselves as humans are when dealing with those that we have power over.
Trisha says
Thanks first for the comments about Willie working sheep. He looked sound (relatively!) yesterday, so I am encouraged that we will be able to attend the clinic we’re signed up for with Patrick Shannahan. We worked with him last year and loved getting his guidance. I’ll just have to be cautious about how long Willie works, but as long as we can do a bit of something together, I know I’ll learn a lot.
And thank you all so far for your comment about personhood. I am in agreement with those of you who argue that it is not necessarily a path to follow for our dogs. As is mentioned, it brings up an entire range of issues that I don’t think most of us are willing to deal with, including, at least theoretically, no euthanasia, no spay/neuter, and dogs being held accountable in a court of law for their actions. (Which did happen in Europe centuries ago, by the way, when one could, and did, try a pig for murder for upsetting a wagon when it escaped from its pen.)
I also agree that there needs to be a category between “property” and “personhood.” If someone stole one of my dogs, I would consider it kidnapping, not the theft of an object. Society is always trying to catch up with itself, I wonder how long it will take us to sort this one out? Until then, I still call myself “Willie’s owner”. I know some people don’t like the word owner and use the word “guardian,” but I’m not even comfortable with that. I’m not “filling in” for someone else… Willie is mine, thank you very much. Yes, you do indeed detect some resource guarding here. Willie is MY dog. I’m quite sure I’d be capable of an impressive tooth display if it was warranted. I feel quite possessive of him, but I also believe that we have an ethical obligation to treat any sentient animal with as much care and benevolence as possible.
Trisha says
Good post Dr M, thanks for adding the veterinary perspective!
Frances says
It is an interesting and difficult point – Sophy and Poppy are MY dogs, and as far as they are concerned, I am THEIR human – there is a two way flow of affection and responsibility. Perhaps what is needed is less a recognition of canine personhood, and more a recognition of our responsibilities to other sentient beings. I found Temple Grandin’s work fascinating when considering the issues raised by thinking this through.
EmilySHS says
Cool stuff! As for personhood… I’d sure like to see human beans get over the hump of “human is more valuable than non-human,” so for us to give animals more value we have to grant them honorary “personhood.” That may be filled with good intentions, but for me it backfires into exactly the problem. How about dogs and cats and all other critters are valuable, and valued, exactly because and for being dogs and cats and all other breathtakingly wonderful beings in their own right? I always worry when folks feel like they have to look for reasons to justify being kind and compassionate… we can just be kind and compassionate, can’t we? Even if they’re not human, just cuz. At least, I like to think… 🙂
em says
Another fascinating topic! I’m with the majority again, it seems. I’m thrilled to hear that Willie had a chance to do what he loves, intrigued by the study, and seriously skeptical about dubbing dogs “persons”. The person thing is just odd. Surely Dr. Berns does not believe that the emotional responses he observed are limited to dogs? If dogs are persons on that basis, then shouldn’t almost all mammals, at least, likely be considered persons? Second, what in the world does “person” even mean? Clearly it indicates a sentient being, but it has traditionally referred only to humans (outside science fiction, that is). If ‘person’ does not mean ‘human’, how exactly ARE we defining it? I find I rather dislike it when scientists use familiar words in an unfamiliar ways. If the status of dogs should be differentiated from property like inanimate objects (and it already is, in many ways) why not create a new word to reflect that status rather than muddying the waters by parsing out ‘person’ in a new way?
I’m also interested in the lack of excited response to dogs from the same household. It’s been my casual observation that dogs who live together seldom seem very excited to see or smell one another unless they have been separated for a significant amount of time. In contrast, just today, Otis went charging ahead along the path, hot on the scent trail of his best friend, obviously eagerly anticipating their reunion. I know I think of my dogs as having a sibling-like relationship. They are obviously fond of one another (I wish I had a picture of them from this morning, cuddled together, Sandy’s chin resting on Otis’ chest, his paw curled around her). But I don’t know if either would be thrilled by the scent of the other- just as kids just aren’t as thrilled about seeing their siblings as they are their friends. Sample bias might be at play too. If most of these dogs were CCI flunkouts, it stands to reason that they would show a pronounced tendency to form strong bonds with humans and low interest in other dogs, since service dog candidates are bred and selected for these tendencies. .
D.C. says
I think the use of the term personhood is absolute marketing genius. This study is being discussed everywhere. I think it is enough that dogs were trained to accept being in an MRI machine, personally I need a heavy dose of tranquilizers to accomplish the same thing. Add a little controversy and the study is getting the publicity it deserved. Brilliant.
Laura says
At M,
Couldn’t agree more. As someone who took linguistics courses in college, I not only loved the classes, but I came to realize that words mean many different things, but oh, how they change culturally over time to either maintain their original meaning in a vary narrow sense, or they lose that meaning entirely. I completely agree that we should find a different word to use when describing our dogs or any domestic animal we keep as a pet. In thinking about this idea of dogs as persons more, I’ve thought that perhaps the scientists want to label them as persons because of our relationship with them. Most people seem to care for their dogs as if they were children, and as it was brought up in a previous thread here, regarding dogs as family, most people view their dogs as child-like in the way we care for them. I believe the same nurturing instinct comes in to play as it does when we care for our own kids and so that’s maybe why this scientist wants to give them the title of persons? I’m just speculating though. As for dogs responding, or not, to other dogs, I’d like to see what the dog’s brain would do if it’s mother were to be let into the room during an MRI. I’ve heard that puppies lose a sense of their mother over time and I’d like to see just what their brain does when they see their mom. I know when seamus saw his mother, pettle, on our graduation day, they sniffed and wagged like strangers, though someone got a great picture of them. Such a tiny golden retriever, Seamus was so much bigger than her. 🙂
JJ says
It once took 4 people to hold down my Great Dane for an x-ray. He just got very scared when put up on this metal table and then pushed to his side. He kept thrashing around. It was terrible.
So, I decided to teach him a trick: “pancake” which means that he would lie on his side. Well, something about the movement from laying down up-right to going down on his side doesn’t feel safe. I can see it in his eyes even when he is in my living room. Maybe because sometimes I screw up and going on his side means that he rolls into/hits something?
I can, with multiple prompting, get my dog to do “pancake” in my living room. He will even do it for the dental hygienist who comes to my house to clean Duke’s teeth. But in the vet’s office? Not so much. I’m sure I could try harder, but it’s not like he needs an x-ray all that often. I focused my efforts on more useful behaviors.
Bottom line: I sure do see the value of training for useful behaviors in a lab. Wish I got that far myself.
Margaret McLaughlin says
Between this & the ‘dogs driving cars’ video from New Zealand–my mind boggles. Really, the limits of what you can teach just keep being pushed out further & further. I’m starting to think the only limits are what you can’t do without opposable thumbs.
I also favor a 3rd category between ‘person’ & ‘property’ for dogs. Don’t think we’re ready to deal with the whole can of worms that ‘person’ would open up when we can’t sort some of these same issues for our own species.
Please forgive the personal example, but my older flat-coat, Lia, was diagnosed with osteosarcoma 2 weeks ago, & I am very glad that I not liable to prosecution for not going the amputation/chemo/radiation route that has almost no chance of a successful outcome. We’re doing pain management until that doesn’t work, & then euthanasia. I work in human healthcare, & am glad I will be able to spare my dog (MY dog!) a slow & painful death.
JJ says
I’m going to be in the serious minority on the “personhood” argument.
Dogs are far more deserving of the title than corporations. This personhood business is a legal fiction in order to provide rights and protections. Certainly our dogs fit the description better than say Halliburton or Wells Fargo. In fact, all main animals, not just dogs, are sentient enough to deserve both rights and protections. (Does anyone really think that dogs are more sentient than pigs?)
Are baby humans persons? Our children do get the protection of personhood status–at least to a degree. The point is that human animals under a certain age require limited rights and special protections even though they are considered people. Our laws recognize this. For example, baby humans do not get to decide major medical decisions (like circumcision) for themselves. How is this significantly different than deciding to neuter a dog? To say that we couldn’t neuter a dog because they have a special personhood status holds no water with me.
Even the euthanasia argument holds no water with me. I live in a State where doctor-assisted euthanasia is legal. And I know I’m not alone in believing that similar laws should be expanded for suffering humans and applied everywhere (not just a State or two). So, allowing adult humans to make life and death decisions on behalf of our suffering pets is not a problem in logic or ethics when it comes to applying personhood status for non-human animals.
Bottom line: our laws already have a category between property and what I consider full personhood – that category is for human children. While dogs, cats, cows, chickens, etc. are not identical to baby humans in what would be appropriate rights and protections, it would be a small leap to set up our laws to work for non-human animals. And ethically, given what we *know* about animals, there is nothing else we can do.
Of course, I know it will not happen any time soon. As long as people want to eat say pigs, they can’t acknowledge the sentience of say dogs. Because there is no scientific or moral basis for making a distinction between it being OK to torture and eat one but not the other.
Beth with the Corgis says
“As long as people want to eat say pigs, they can’t acknowledge the sentience of say dogs. Because there is no scientific or moral basis for making a distinction between it being OK to torture and eat one but not the other. ”
JJ, without going into the entire argument about vegetarianism, one can acknowledge the sentience of animals and still think it’s morally acceptable to eat them.
Beth with the Corgis says
Margaret, I’m so sorry to hear about Lia. Flat-coats are such lovely dogs. I had a similar thought to you regarding personhood and our dog with a health issue. Our Maddie is not quite nine and started having seizures. We elected not to do an MRI, under the idea that it would be $1500 or $2000 spent (plus the risks of anesthesia) with no change in treatment, so why bother? I refuse to consider brain surgery on a dog.
But if she had some legal status of “personhood”, how could we ethically deny diagnosis and treatment when technically we can afford it? I would bankrupt my self (not that I should have to) to provide any reasonable medical treatment for my husband or my mother. Much as I say my dogs are family, and as fiercely as I love them, when it comes right down to it I would never undergo medical procedures that would cause me to lose my house to save a dog. I’m not saying that the MRI would bankrupt us— far from it. But the chasm between what I would do (or would be expected to do) for my pets vs the people in my family is huge.
I probably spend more— more money, more time, more emotional investment— in my pets than quite a lot of people (but less than some). But no, I don’t at all think of them as people.
And when I really think about it, I see at least as many people put their dogs through stress and unhappiness by treating them like little people as I see dogs stressed through neglect.
Robin Jackson says
@JJ,
Reproductive rights are a separate issue of law from medical treatment or even circumcision.
The United Nations now holds that parents do NOT have the right to sterilise a child except in very limited circumstances.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/10/sterilization-women-and-girls-disabilities
The US used to quite regularly recommend sterilisation of children with disabilities including, for example, Down’s Syndrome, but that changed about 60 years ago. Laws vary by state in the US, but it is a complex area.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/104/2/337.full
In Australia, parents do have this right currently, but it is a subject of policy debate since the UN decision in 2011.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/17/senators-ban-sterilising-disabled-children
Euthanasia is complex in a different way, as in the US states that allow it, or in the Netherlands, no child can be euthanised as legally they lack the capacity to grant consent. The same is true for most people with mental challenges.
So human children are, at least in the US and as recommended under UN policy, generally exempted under law from both sterilisation and euthanasia, as it is felt mature informed consent should be part of the equation. So giving dogs a “minor person” legal status wouldn’t address most of the arguments so far raised in this thread.
The “corporations are people” legal position in the US applies only to a few specific rights, most notably those applying to contract law and free speech. It does NOT grant them all the rights of individual humans. They can’t vote, marry, adopt, run for office, etc. In legal writings this is usually referred to as “metaphysical personhood,” meaning without bodies.
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/24/141663195/what-is-the-basis-for-corporate-personhood
But of course it is all the issues of creatures WITH bodies that most apply to dogs.
Respectfully,
Robin J.
Kat says
@JJ, If humans embrace their animal nature the idea of killing and eating another animal falls into the same realm as a cat killing and eating a mouse. It’s the quality of the life of the prey being raised specifically as prey that is at issue. The mouse gets to live a natural mouse life right up until the cat kills it. I have raised and eaten animals I knew personally and each one had a good life right up until the day the butcher came out and shot it so I could eat. It’s the factory farmed meat animals that disturb me.
Beth with the Corgis says
Kat, exactly.
Laura says
At Beth,
I’m so sorry to hear about your Maddie, and I think your intuitive distinction of dogs as beings but not people is spot on. I think nearly all of the commenters on the post regarding dogs as family said something similar to this and we all recognize it. We even recognize it through science. There is simply something different and particular about humans as opposed to other animals, even mamals and we all recognize it. That’s why the laws regarding personhood are different and I would say, set apart for humans. The law is simply recognizing something we all know intuitively, there’s something different about us.Now, do I think it’s great on it’s face that we give rights of personhood to corporations? No, but that’s an opinion which comes from knowing very little as to why that was done and so I’ll say no more about it. I’ll still maintain however, that we need to get the term personhood sorted out for people first before we apply it to other things.
Ben says
I agree with Kat. Vegetarianism is a very new event in the scope of human evolution. You could argue that humans are meant to eat meat. Death does not bother me so much. Everyone has to die. Torture is another matter, and I do buy my meat from a farm who treats their animals well. So not everyone does not care about the quality of life of farm animals.
That being said, I think you can distinguish between pigs and dogs, just as you can distinguish between people and dogs. Perhaps things such as the strength of the pig-human relationship influence why one would eat pigs but not dogs. Or maybe on a less generic level, things such as the strength of the pig-Ben relationship and the strength of the dog-Ben relationship.
Dogs have evolved/bred into creatures that trust and love us. Part of that is our doing, we should take responsibility. We have not bred pigs to trust and love us.
LisaW says
I’m so sorry to hear about both Maddie and Lia. It is the wrenching part of living with animals.
As far as predator/prey, vegetarianism/meat eating, that all seems to be a rabbit hole to me (pun intended). We should be familiar with what we eat, whether it’s our own meat or our own vegetables or supporting local food growers, we have grown too distant from our food sources.
I, too, have grown and eaten my own meat. We named them, we fed them organic grains, we hung out with them. We named the steaks and hamburger after them. They were raised to be food not a member of the household. I see a big difference between the cows we ate and our dog that would go out in the pasture with the cows to see if there was anything good to eat.
There are lots of cultures that don’t eat cow, some that eat dogs, some that have a very ritualistic relationship to their food. I suppose if I were Hindu, I’d be arguing for a sacred cow law instead of the elevated stature of the dog. (I absolutely can’t think of dogs as children or small people.)
And, there are lots of people who have very close relationships to pigs, not as food, as members of the household. Maybe that’s it — our cultural or personal relationship to the animal is what defines our perspective and goals.
Ok, I’m coming around. I still like Bern’s idea, and maybe we’re not ready for a new category but it is a great discussion. As someone else said, brilliant.
Beth with the Corgis says
The fact is that a “natural” death for many animals is somewhat brutal; either slow starvation or becoming prey for something else, and becoming prey is not a quick or easy death in many, many cases. Death at human hands is often one of the least traumatic ways for many animals to go. And of course there is the existential question: Is it better to live a relatively short life and end up dinner, or is it better not to have lived at all? Because for domestic food animals, those are the two options. We are not about to start keeping huge herds of dairy cows as pets, after all.
When we talk of factory farming, we are mostly talking about pigs and chickens. Unhappy cows don’t produce much milk, stressed beef cows give tough meat. For myself, I have switched to free-range chicken eggs. However, I’ve not yet made the leap away from pork or chicken. I think MOST people don’t like factory farming methods, but I think there is a sense of slight helplessness about what to do about it. I do sometimes by organic humane meat at the farmers’ market, but gosh it is pricey.
It’s also interesting to note that there are some evolutionary biologists saying that eating meat drove the development of our big brains, without which we would not be able to ponder such moral questions at all. Surely the fox does not question the morality of killing the mouse.
http://www.nasw.org/eating-meat-drove-evolution-our-big-powerful-brain
Ben says
I don’t know, I remain skeptical that the average person-pig relationship (where the pig is a pet) is as strong and deep as the average person-dog relationship (where the dog is a pet). All so subjective, but still. I just can’t bring myself to think of farm animals and dogs as equivalents.
Nic1 says
‘One man’s food is another man’s God.’
The most complicated element in the whole equation is human ideology and culture. In China up to 30,000 dogs are slaughtered every day for fur. In Nepal the slaughtering of cattle has been banned, due to Hindu respect. It is haram for a Muslim to eat pork and not kosher for a Jewish person, but that’s because the animal is documented as a ‘scavenger’ and unclean in religious scriptures. Watching ‘Man V Food’ makes you wonder how many cattle are slaughtered in Texas each year simply to afford to advertise the 72 oz steak challenge….
Given the lack of consistency with regard to animals in the regard, I respect JJs view immensely.
Rising above culture and ideology and hopefully what unites all human beings, is humanity and civility. In that we afford respect and welfare for whoever we choose to be our companion animals and raise our livestock in a way that affords them a good life. It’s the factory farming of meat to meet consumer demand which is troublesome for everyone, including the planet’s ability to sustain it’s amazing ecosystems. Clearing rainforest for cattle grazing isn’t sensible. Raising your own on your own land is. But not many people in the west have the luxury of time and finance to actually be able to afford that. A simple life has become too expensive to achieve. Madness!
Trisha says
I wanted to add my voice of sympathy regarding Maddie and Lia. I’ve been following the comments with great interest, and regret I haven’t added more to the conversation. I’ve been overwhelmed with working on my Europe talks, getting ready to leave the farm in fall and return in winter, the next blog (about new USDA regulations regarding licensing certain breeders) and working with others to try to stop the use of free running packs of hounds to hunt wolves in Wisconsin. State sponsored dog fighting in my opinion, and about to start here, the only place in the country where it is now legal. Argh. But today I get to go play with Willie–a 3 day sheep dog clinic with Patrick Shannahan, oh boy! Makes life extra busy but after not herding all summer, a wonderful opportunity for me and Willie that I couldn’t pass up.
Christina says
I saw this article when it came out, and I share the suspicion that Dr. Berns’ position is exaggerated for effect. Whether this was calculated to generate word-of-mouth advertising, or an innocent attempt to provoke conversion – some great discussions have resulted!
As to the dogs in the MRIs not reacting to the scent of another dog in the household, I others’ interest in dog friends vs. dog siblings. I suspect that Pippa would show little interest in the scent of her “little brother” especially if I was there, but that Diesel would “light up” at any hint that Pippa was around. Or maybe you’re right, and the reaction is less about “bond” and more about anticipation of food, in which case, the author’s leap to assuming that dogs love is unsupported.
So interesting.
Beth with the Corgis says
Hope you have a lovely weekend.
Sheyna says
Why shouldn’t people and animals be equivalent? Oh yeah its not in our best interest. It makes it a lot harder to say grind up baby chickens alive, kill animals for our convenience and vivisect them for science. What is personhood? Berg wasn’t saying that dogs should be granted full citizenship — just recognized as sentient creatures with as much right to life and respect as people have. That is a threat to our way of life.
Margaret McLaughlin says
Thank you everyone for your sympathy about Lia, & I extend mine to Beth & Maddie. Dogs’ lives are too short when they live out their full span.
I became a vegetarian in 1978; my 2 primary reasons were factory farming & the amount of grain used to produce meat. Over the years I’ve added additional reasons–the huge amount of water involved, methane production, over-grazing, rain forest destruction, etc,etc. I’ve also reaped some health benefits; despite my weight & poor heredity, my cholesterol is just great, thanks.
But my hands are not totally clean. I feed my animals a meat-based kibble, & I know perfectly well where it comes from. The dogs could also be vegetarian, but of course the cats could not, so I have the choice between feeding them meat or not having cats. I love cats, & I’ve taken the path of least resistance towards feeding the dogs.
I agree that it is way too hard to find humanely produced food. In my state it is illegal to sell raw milk, so it’s very hard to buy it right off the farm (although I used to buy milk from an Amish farmer who would let me dip it out of the vat & leave the money on the shelf; that way he hadn’t “sold” it to me). About stressed cows not giving much milk–I wish you were right. There are a couple of mega-dairies in this area, & what they do is only milk thru 1 or 2 lactations, & then slaughter.
The options at the vet school at Purdue nicely reflect our cultural ideas on what non-human animals are what: Companion Animal, Large Animal (read meat-producer) & Equine. I can argue myself into thinking that cows & pigs shouldn’t be eaten (tho’ I won’t be all that upset with you if you raised it yourself & it had a happy life & a painless death) but no way could I convince myself that it’s OK to eat dogs or horses. I’d almost eat human first. So I just avoid the issue. Rice & beans, here I come.
Mireille says
As a student,I was a ‘guinea pig’ for fMRI and spend an hour in there, eventually I fell asleep 🙂 how is that for habituation to loud noises… On that subject, janoukwas perfectly happy to keep the hubby company while he – the hubby, nt Janouk- was using his electrical saw etc. Napping directly underneath it :-).
As for guinea pigs; inmy medical biology studies, I did a course on handling animals for medical experiments. Also reading some philosophical book (I think it was Sophie’s world by Jostein Gaarder) it suddenly struck me. I am going to hurt and kill animals. I am not morally superior, I have no intrinsical moral right to do this, therefore I have the duty to be as carefull as I can be. Og,gosh, English not being my native language I cannot explain this the way I would like too. But regardless of the personhood question, we have the moral obligation to take good care of the animals placed in our care, because they do have emotions and personalities. Quit the law discussions, talk ethics 🙂
@Trisha good to see Willy enjoying himself!
Beth with the Corgis says
I respect anyone’s choice to be vegan or vegetarian. What I disagree with completely is the assumption that those of us who eat meat have never considered the sentience of the animals killed, or have failed to consider the question of what to eat from a moral viewpoint at all.
I grew up reading conservation magazines, from the time I can remember. Reading about the huge numbers of direct losses of songbirds, rodents, and other small animals in orchards and fields was one of the first things that made me realize such moral issues are not black-and-white. Even if we only buy food from small local farms, there are still threshers used for grain, there is still the issues of habitat loss. Our very existence (building houses, roads, parks) shapes and changes the existence of other critters. We improve habitat for some (grey squirrels, deer, robins) and reduce habitat for others. How many birds die from flying into buildings? Even wind turbines kill animals. Pollution from chemicals, drugs and birth control flushed into the water supply, auto exhaust all have an impact on animals as well as us.
I never understood the moral argument that it’s wrong to directly kill an animal to eat it, but not wrong to have lots of baby mice killed in the grain field. The idea that intentional death of animals is morally reprehensible, but unintentional death is ok does not really hold a lot of moral weight. I know vegans who won’t wear leather, but wear petro-chemical based shoes. Which is doing more harm to more animals, I wonder?
http://www.dialight.com/Assets%5CApplication_Notes%5CSignaling%5CObstruction%20Lighting%20Bird%20Strike%20Study.pdf
“We estimate that from 500 million to possibly over 1 billion birds are killed annually in the United States due to anthropogenic sources including collisions with human-made structures such as vehicles, buildings and windows, power lines, communication towers, and wind turbines; electrocutions; oil spills and other con- taminants; pesticides; cat predation; and commercial fishing by-catch. ”
Here’s an interesting discussion of the numbers of animals lost to various diets:
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2002/mar/osu-scientist-questions-moral-basis-vegan-diet
Again, I’m fine with people looking at the body of evidence and deciding for themselves that being vegan is the better choice, but I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that we can’t still eat meat if we acknowledge the sentience of animals.
JJ says
I’m sorry that I couldn’t get back here to comment sooner. I don’t know if anyone will read my comments now or not. But I did want to offer a few replies. There isn’t time to reply to everyone else’s comments. I can say as a general reply that there is a lot of ignorance about farm animal practices. I would encourage everyone who eats flesh, diary or eggs to do more research. Also there is clearly a lot of ignorance about human nutrition needs. I’ve spent years now doing the research. I would encourage you to do the same. Finally, you may want to do some more research into what the healthiest human populations, the ones who routinely live to 100 years without disease symptoms, historically ate.
JJ says
Here’s my first direct reply:
Beth with Corgis says: “…one can acknowledge the sentience of animals and still think it’s morally acceptable to eat them.”
Not if you understand the “golden rule.” I maintain that the concept behind the golden rule is the basis for all human morality regardless of religion or culture.
What this means is: Suppose I don’t want a humane bullet put through my head just so that someone can eat me – someone who does not need my flesh in order to survive. I value my life. I want to live. That means that I can’t turn around and put a bullet into the head of another sentient animal who also values her/his life.
It’s the most basic of moral lessons taught to young humans when they are old enough to understand a moral code. “Don’t hit Johnnie. How would you like it if Johnnie hit you?” “Don’t kick that dog. How would you like it if someone kicked you?” Etc. Notice how this moral code does not require the dog to have a similar moral code in order to know that it is wrong to abuse the dog.
“Animals have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it. What happens to them matters to them.” ~Dr. Tom Regan, Animal Rights Philosopher
JJ says
Robin Jackson says: “The “corporations are people” legal position in the US applies only to a few specific rights…”
Thank you for making my point with details. Just because we give an entity personhood rights does not mean that we have to go to the absurd. Corporations were given personhood status, but that status is appropriately limited in order to avoid the absurd.
We do the same limiting of personhood definition for kids. It would be absurd to talk about putting a 3 year old on trial regardless of what the kid does–just as it would be to talk about such for dogs. Some time in this past year I read an article about a man who was showing off his guns to a friend. The guns were laying on a bed. His three year old (or was it 4?) came in and picked up one of the guns. The gun went off and killed the boy’s step-mother/man’s wife. The boy is considered a person, but even the most rabid “put those juvies in jail for life” folk didn’t bring up a trial and imprisonment for the boy. It is a strawman argument to say that giving personhood status to a dog or cow would mean that all the same rules would apply as we apply to an adult human.
Your first thoughts/replies about euthanasia and sterilization are deflection and strawmen arguments. For example, no one is arguing that we should be sterilizing human children. I am pointing out the fact that parents have a right and obligation to make life and death decisions in regards to their children – such as deciding what, if any, treatment to give for major diseases. Parents also decide to do radical procedures that involve removing body parts just for religious or cosmetic reasons. For human children, we are not talking about the same body parts as we remove from dogs and other non-human animals, but the basic idea is the point. The point is that adult humans subject major life choices on the young people they own without consulting them. It would be natural to apply similar (not exact) rules to non-human people.
Put another way: The specific choices made (circumcision vs sterilization) is not the point. If we gave dogs personhood status, it does not automatically mean that we would have to go to the absurd. It does not mean that we would have to have laws that prevented sterilization of dogs. It doesn’t mean that any more than granting personhood status to corporations means that we have to talk about laws regarding sterilization of corporations (or corporate heads? hee, hee) (Though if you will recall, we had a discussion not too long ago where someone from another country posted that it is not considered OK to routinely sterilize dogs in their country. Something to think about.)
JJ says
@Kat says: “…the idea of killing and eating another animal falls into the same realm as a cat killing and eating a mouse.”
Cats are obligate carnivores. Humans are not. The only humans who can argue needing to eat animal flesh are those who live in rural areas and extreme poverty–where eating animal flesh and secretions is the difference between getting enough calories or not.
Your argument is scarily similar to those websites which find examples/videos of all of the worst that non-human animals do to each other – including cannibalism, torture and rape. Then the argument goes – if it happens in nature, it is perfectly fine for humans to do too. We are just “embracing our animal nature.” I would argue that “monkey see, monkey do” is not the standard most people think we should (or want to) live by. Plus, those types of arguments focus squarely on one carefully cherry picked aspect of non-human animal behaviors, violence. That argument ignores all the many instances of cooperation, plant eating etc. Bottom line: What we see animals do is not the recipe for human behavior and most people instinctively know this. It is another strawman argument.
re: “I have raised and eaten animals I knew personally and each one had a good life right up until the day the butcher came out and shot it so I could eat.”
It is admirable that you had the butcher come out rather than sending the non-human animals in your care to the slaughter house. I would point out however, that it is not a point of pride to choose the lesser of two evils when it is not necessary to choose an evil at all. How sad for you and for the creatures under your care that you fail to recognize and/or care that their lives have meaning for them – as yours does for you. The creatures you were responsible for lost their lives just so that you could have some momentary pleasure (a good meal), which you could have gotten another way (whole food plant based meals are both delicious and lead to better human health).
My comments are assuming you weren’t living in extreme rural poverty. Most people are not. But even if you were, the vast majority of people in America and other industrialized countries take their pleasure from the animals who lose their lives for nothing but providing momentary human pleasure. The vast majority of those animals do experience terrible quality of life. However, neither what you did nor what we do to the vast majority of food animals is an argument that is relevant about whether or not sentient animals should have appropriately defined personhood status.
What I like about your comment is how relevant it is to my explanation of why we don’t give dogs personhood status. People enjoy their cheese burgers, quiche, and ice cream far more than they care about having consistent values. The issue of whether or not dogs should have personhood status is about people’s bellies – and that’s it.
I expect people’s opinions on what constitutes a good meal to change in the future as global warming becomes an unavoidable issue. But then such a change will be far too late. And it still won’t be about values. It will just be about another belly issue – starving – ironically enough, the one time that someone could make a legitimate moral argument about eating various animals.
JJ says
Ben says, “Dogs have evolved/bred into creatures that trust and love us. Part of that is our doing, we should take responsibility. We have not bred pigs to trust and love us.”
That is like saying that it is OK to kill people who are not part of my family because they do not love and trust me. Whether or not a sentient animal (human or otherwise) loves you is not a moral argument about whether or not it is OK to shorten the life of that animal.
As an aside, I have heard many stories of cows (that we have bred to be domesticated animals over many years) loving their people. These are cows who really love and trust their humans as much as dogs do. By your argument…. And while I’m not as familiar with pigs, I would be shocked if the same emotions did not apply to pigs too.
——————-
There were a lot more points made by people. I just don’t have time to respond to them all individually. However, I believe that my comments have covered it all as best I can in a forum like this.
By the way, I’m not trying to change anyone’s diet. (I do not believe it is possible in a forum like this.) All I am doing is answering the question of the day about whether or not we should apply personhood status to dogs. That’s the topic. The question of whether or not we should is undeniably yes. I haven’t seen one logical argument against it. The interesting question is, “Why don’t we?” And while it is more complicated than I made it out to be, I gave the main answer that would work in a space like this. That’s the only purpose to my comments.
Robin Jackson says
@JJ,
Forgive me, but I’m confused. You said my comments about the legal rights of children were “straw men and deflections,” but you raised both those specific subjects when you introduced the idea of “minors” as a possible legal status for dogs. I don’t see how my note regarding the legal issues could have been any more on point. Dr. M’s concerns regarding euthanasia apply whether the dog is considered to have full personhood or that of a minor, as the links I gave demonstrate.
I myself have been a vegetarian for almost 50 years. In that time I have learned that most people think their personal position, regardless of what it is, is simply “logical.” Yet rarely does it hold up to a rhetorical analysis, regardless of the side they’re taking.
For myself, several entirely illogical factors led to my own decision, and I don’t expect them to influence anyone else. I grew up in a household with literally dozens of different species, from armadillos to wallabies. I had a dog and a rabbit who were friends, as well as a cat and a horse, and a chicken and a box turtle. And it occurred to me one day that all of the cross species friendships I had observed in a decade or so happened, just like the dog and cheetah zoo pairings we mentioned a few weeks ago, because humans had been involved. We are able to generate trust on an almost magical scale. And I just thought it was better not to mess with that. I chose not to use that power to lead an animal into a slaughterhouse. But that’s just me.
Respectfully,
Robin J.
Beth with the Corgis says
JJ, I appreciate your respectful replies. We will have to just disagree on this. The golden rule is certainly not the basis of how I treat my animals. I do unto them countless things I would not want done unto me (sterilization, walking on a leash, eating the same thing most days, being restricted out of certain parts of the house, and so on). Most of these things are done for my convenience, not theirs. We are operating from a different basis of morality.
Ben says
JJ:
Be more careful about how much you really know about diet. I’ve spent quite a bit of time researching nutrition too. But guess what? You and I both know practically nothing compared to people who learn about nutrition as their day job (but I bet I know more than you do – I used to be vegan by the way). I’ve listened to all sides of the debate, and the ancestral health movement put forth by Robb Wolf, Chris Kresser, Mark Sisson, (people who learn about nutrition as their job, have clients) etc has the strongest evidence in my opinion. Oh and the sustainability argument has been covered by these people too, do some googling around. In other words, I think that to thrive, eating meat is essential. There is always going to be a balance of selfishness and selflessness. I choose to be selfish and eat meat. You choose to be selfless and not eat meat. But do you have a TV? You could surely dispense of that to provide funds to help others. Eating meat is not strictly necessary but I am positive you possess things you do not strictly need. You see where I am going? Already the morals are becoming less black and white..
Should we try to prevent killing in nature? If not, why? All those animals want to live. We could act to prevent it. Should we be trying to artificially extend the life of farm animals, beyond what they would live in nature? Why not?
regarding the cows and pigs and humans interacting, I am still skeptical. If the stories are even true, they are probably wild outliers. I would bet the average relationship would be fairly unattached from the non-humans point of view. Every pig and cow I’ve ever seen in real life has ignored me.
Regarding not taking into consideration love + trust when making decisions, I’m a bit shocked you don’t! If a building was burning down, I would save my mom before I saved a middle aged woman who I didn’t know. When choosing what animal to eat, I would eat pigs. I would not eat dogs.
Not all species are the same. You don’t think there is a continuum of pleasure, pain, emotions, etc felt by different species? I guess I am saying: how I treat a species (in general, before accounting for the individual) is governed by their capacities for pain/pleasure/emotions, and their relationship with humans.
I think its hard to convey the idea that human life is more valuable than non human life partly because its so intuitive. JJ, would you REALLY save two mice instead of a human if a situation ever arose where you could only save two mice or a human? I don’t think so.
Ben says
Oh yeah I forgot to add, more small animals are killed by the agricultural industry than large animals by the meat industry.
Woo, I’m betting Trisha wish she never posted this entry haha. Hard to get more heated than ethics..
JJ says
Ben says, “…more small animals are killed by the agricultural industry than large animals by the meat industry.”
The problem with that argument is that it misses that large animals in the meat industry eat plants. It takes more of those plants to produce the meat than just eating the plants themselves would provide. So, you kill the far fewest animals by just eating the plants. I don’t have the stats on the top of my head, but they are easy to find for anyone who is interested.
Beth with the Corgis says
Ben, NWF ran an article about bird losses in orchards and it was pretty staggering to me. However, I could not find it online.
My parents plant lots of their own food in their suburban back yard. Some years they get some berries, other years the birds eat every last berry just before they are ripe. They have put up nets, but yes birds have been killed in the nets. They switched the style of net this year and had better luck…..
But over the years, they have humanely trapped and relocated a fair number of animals that were eating their crops. It’s really, really hard to eat without killing animals, since they are either the food themselves, or they want to eat our food.
Beth with the Corgis says
Thank you again, Robin.
The reason I mentioned Vallhunds is that there are about 20 breeders in the whole country. I had briefly looked into them (I would prefer a dog with a tail, Cardis aren’t the right personality for me and I find them a bit low and heavy, and Vallhunds seemed like a nice alternative— similar to Corgis, but apparently a bit more Spitzy).
Here is the breeder list. You can see that shipping would be likely for most people.
http://www.swedishvallhund.com/breeders/breeders-list
I suppose if you can meet the dog at a show, that would be ok for a lot of people, though not for the Alaska or overseas situation I mentioned before.
Hopefully the breed clubs will do enough educating to alleviate fears of breeders where possible and give feedback to USDA where necessary.
Ben says
JJ – not if you buy from a farm where the animals eat grass.
Beth with the Corgis says
The above comment about Vallhunds is in the wrong discussion. Ooops.
Nic1 says
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pets/10418004/How-your-dogs-wagging-tail-can-reveal-its-emotions.html
Trisha, more on the left and right side of the brain….
Nic1 says
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26276660
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S0960982214001237
Oh wow! So exciting….