4 ms·

No, the reduced quality of life for existing dogs isn't enough justification for euthanization (except maybe in extreme cases). I'd say it's probably unethical

by oxryly1 10y ago

No, the reduced quality of life for existing dogs isn't enough justification for euthanization (except maybe in extreme cases). I'd say it's probably unethical to breed more brachycephalic dogs, and by extension unethical to purchase those dogs from breeders (unless maybe the breeders have ceased to breed these dogs).

tptacek 10y ago
Ok. Can I assume we agree that nobody is obligated to own or care for a dog of any sort? I apologize in advance if you don't agree. With that stipulated: If the benefit a dog obtains from living outweighs --- in all but the most extreme cases --- the suffering that dog will have due to its genetic defects, AND people are entitled to make a rational decision not own a dog, are they not ethically entitled to select any breed they want? How would it be more ethical to create no benefits for any dogs than to create compromised but net-positive benefit for some dogs?
- tdb7893 10y ago
  I don't think the argument still works of you view the different companion animal breeds as generally fungible. You would need to make the argument that the breed would need to somehow be substantially better than other choices or else it would always be better to pick other dogs.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    That's a good point I forgot to account for. But it can be accounted for: even if we stipulate that it's not ethical to acquire genetically compromised dogs purely for aesthetic reasons, there are other attributes of these dogs breeds that make them more suitable than others. For us, it was a requirement that the dog be content on its own, amiable with other dogs and children, and not excessively demanding of exercise that we'd be unable to provide it (we're simply not around most of the day). Were no dog available that could reliably provide those attributes, our choice would certainly have been not to acquire a second dog. But I also think, for what it's worth, that it's still ethically tricky to dispose of the question of whether it's unethical to select dogs for appearance. I think you can predict the argument I'd make there.
- dionidium 10y ago
  I think it's critical to distinguish between: a) Given existence: significant suffering, but not enough to justify ending the existence b) Given no existence: creating an existence knowing you'll create the same amount of suffering as in (a) Something meaningful is created by the very fact of existence. Or, should I say, already existing matters a lot.

by oxryly1 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

Ok. Can I assume we agree that nobody is obligated to own or care for a dog of any sort? I apologize in advance if you don't agree. With that stipulated: If the benefit a dog obtains from living outweighs --- in all but the most extreme cases --- the suffering that dog will have due to its genetic defects, AND people are entitled to make a rational decision not own a dog, are they not ethically entitled to select any breed they want? How would it be more ethical to create no benefits for any dogs than to create compromised but net-positive benefit for some dogs?

tdb7893 10y ago
I don't think the argument still works of you view the different companion animal breeds as generally fungible. You would need to make the argument that the breed would need to somehow be substantially better than other choices or else it would always be better to pick other dogs.
- tptacek 10y ago
  That's a good point I forgot to account for. But it can be accounted for: even if we stipulate that it's not ethical to acquire genetically compromised dogs purely for aesthetic reasons, there are other attributes of these dogs breeds that make them more suitable than others. For us, it was a requirement that the dog be content on its own, amiable with other dogs and children, and not excessively demanding of exercise that we'd be unable to provide it (we're simply not around most of the day). Were no dog available that could reliably provide those attributes, our choice would certainly have been not to acquire a second dog. But I also think, for what it's worth, that it's still ethically tricky to dispose of the question of whether it's unethical to select dogs for appearance. I think you can predict the argument I'd make there.
dionidium 10y ago
I think it's critical to distinguish between: a) Given existence: significant suffering, but not enough to justify ending the existence b) Given no existence: creating an existence knowing you'll create the same amount of suffering as in (a) Something meaningful is created by the very fact of existence. Or, should I say, already existing matters a lot.