For those of you who believe it's unethical to own purebred dogs (or perhaps just brachycephalic purebred dogs) because their lives are defined by suffering due to genetic defects inherent in the breed, a question:
Are we as a society ethically obligated to euthanize all these brachycephalic dogs immediately to end that suffering? If not, why not?
I think it is unethical to breed brachycephalic dogs. It's merely inconvenient to own them. I don't blame dog owners for not knowing better.
I blame dog breeders for knowing better and breeding the dogs anyway.
Never say "ethically obligated" and "euthanasia" in the same sentence. That is asking the wrong question - but for the record the answer is no. Obviously. In addition to such a thing being impossible, there are easier ways forward. :-)
On suffering, the fact of the matter is that the dogs really have no idea that they're suffering. They just exist. They know nothing more than what they are exposed to, and what they perceive.
I feel that if we are obligated to do anything, it is simply to change how and for what purpose we breed animals. Deciding that the pug can still exist - with a longer nose - or that the Dalmatian can exist after they breed out their uric acid problem is attainable. It just takes work. And support, from pet owners and breed lovers, to guide people and to vote with their money.
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).
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?
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.
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.
I'm as much of a dog lover as anyone, but this seems really extreme.
People have known for a long time that brachycephalic breeds have many health problems, but just like people: why shouldn't they have a chance to live their life? I don't think it's fair to say that society as a whole has a responsibility to completely remove a type of animal from the world by force.
Instead: it would be great if more people were educated about this stuff. The more dog owners that know about this, the better. When I first heard about this I told myself that if I ever had a brachycephalic dog I'd ensure they were fixed, and didn't reproduce. That way I can take care of something and ensure it has a good life, but also prevent future generations from pain.
Dogs are great companion animals. If anything, we have a responsibility to help them out as much as we can and reduce suffering long term through education.
No, were not obliged to euthanize all these brachycephalic dogs immediately. The reason is that the (a) desire for the dog to live and (b) emotional bond between dog and owner usually outweighs (c) the suffering of the dog.
But in choosing a dog to bring into the world, (a) and (b) have no weight, so (c) wins
Putting aside the pain it would cause dog owners to have their pets put down --- which I agree is a meaningful concern --- would we still be obligated ethically to end the suffering of these dogs?
For instance, to refine the point: some decent number of brachy purebred dogs are currently in shelters (usually, specialized shelters). Those dogs have no owners and the human emotional pain that would be inflicted by euthanizing them is minimal. Should those dogs be put down, rather than rehomed? Bear in mind that it's actually pretty difficult to acquire a homeless purebred brachycephalic dog; they're in demand.
(We tried; our older dog is a rescue and we'd hoped to rescue an older purebred as well).
Can you help me understand how an extant dog could have a desire to live so ethically powerful that it overrides suffering, while it being simultaneously the case that it is unethical to bring such a dog into existence? It seems to me that your (a) implies that a living dog suffering from these defects is generating some benefit from living. Isn't it: maximum benefit > some benefit > no benefit?
That's a good question. I suppose I'm arguing for ethical framework in which I'm not the sole judge of costs and benefits.
I think the pug will suffer so much that its life is not worth living. But if the pug feels differently then to some degree I should respect that.
I guess my view is shaped by my empathy for the dog. How would I feel in his situation? Similarly, if I end up in a hospital bed racked with pain, do I want the doctor to make a cost-benefit analysis without regard for my own feelings?
Respectfully I want to creep up towards a presumptuous argument and say that you won't argue for euthanizing pugs because your gut tells you that whatever trouble pugs have due to their (many) health problems, a well-cared-for pug is generally a happy dog, and is not in fact living a life of overwhelming suffering.
We own a rescue mutt and a brachy purebred, and while I can't get inside the heads of either of my dogs, I would have absolutely no trouble telling you which of the two dogs is enjoying its life more. :)
Are we as a society ethically obligated to euthanize all these brachycephalic dogs immediately to end that suffering? If not, why not?