How about sharing a bit of the empathy reserved for the bored dog with the sheep, which are essentially reduced from living, thinking, feeling beings to just toys for the dog? This kind of speciesism sickens me.
Serious question: How do you feel about the way plants are treated?
I'm an environmental studies major. I've read stuff that indicates that plants "scream" when harmed (emit a pulse which humans can't detect but which other plants can) and they also communicate to other plants about dangers in the area (such as insects chewing on them and harming them).
Curious as to how far you think we should take this stand against "speciesism". (EDIT: I mean, for example, should we protest that the sheep are stepping on and eating the grass? I'm sure the grass doesn't much appreciate it -- and, no, I am not being facetious.)
My personal point of view is that I do not want to cause any suffering when I can avoid doing so (i.e. when my survival does not depend on it). Only a conscious being can suffer, and, as far as I know, plants are not conscious. There are organisms of all levels of complexity between single-cell organisms and homo sapiens, and no-one knows for sure where true consciousness begins, but the line between things and beings needs to be drawn somewhere. I have personally drawn the line between plants and animals, just to be on the safe side. It may be too far, and there's a risk that I'm not using some things for fear of causing suffering to a conscious being, but I'm OK with that.
Thank you for sharing that. However, I will comment on this bit:
Can they feel fear and pain in a way that we can comprehend? Almost certainly not.
I personally think this is a silly argument: Just because we are unable to perceive their suffering doesn't mean it isn't real. Lots of animals also have senses that are quite different from humans: Carrier pigeons sense something we cannot which helps them navigate, hammerhead sharks sense electrical fields that most humans cannot (though my understanding is some humans are more sensitive to this than others), and elephants communicate over long distances using very low sound waves that humans cannot hear. Does the fact that humans fail to perceive these things invalidate them? I don't think so.
I think your lifestyle choice is admirable. But I don't see any real reason to hold animals as somehow more sacred (for lack of a better word) than plants. Or to view this in moral terms per se. (FWIW, a lot of people often interpret things I say/advocate as "moral" whereas in many cases I would classify them as merely "pragmatic".)
To the downvoters: Do the sheep find being herded by dogs a pleasant experience as well? If not (as I assume), how can you morally justify increasing their suffering in order to reduce that of a dog?
Peremptory answer: Dogs are our pets. Sheep are our dinner.
Peremptory answer redacted for inherent biases: Dogs are our slaves. Sheep are our murder victims.
Somewhat sympathetic answer: Sheep naturally flock together. The dogs just reshape and redirect the flock. "Dog-broke" sheep, as mentioned in the article, are used to the dogs and know they are not to be feared.
Sympathy-trumping counter-answer: given the steady destruction of sustainable farming practices in the face of agribusiness hegemony, why begrudge the local shepherds any extra source of income? At least these sheep aren't growing up in a tiny stall in a factory farm.
Here's an upvote for taking the time to answer instead of just clicking on an arrow.
Re: Somewhat sympathetic answer: I thought the reason sheep can be herded by a dog at all is that they are timid and easily frightened, and think of the dog as a predator. If they weren't afraid, they wouldn't defend themselves by flocking.
Re: Sympathy-trumping counter-answer, economic argument: In my opinion moral concerns outweigh economic concerns. Your mileage may vary.
Re: Sympathy-trumping counter-answer, factory farm argument: Harming animals is not justified by the fact that they could have been harmed even more. (Replace "animals" with "people" for plenty of potential analogies. I resist the temptation to write any of them out for the fear of sounding like a troll.)
Harming animals is not justified by the fact that they could have been harmed even more.
For the most part, moral consideration to animal suffering is a consequence of utilitarianism--the idea that all moral duties revolve around minimizing the amount of suffering and maximizing the amount of pleasure in the world[1]. Most moral philosophers who take animal rights seriously (chiefly among them Peter Singer, if you're familiar with the name) are utilitarians. But a utilitarian is absolutely willing to cause small amounts of suffering to alleviate larger amounts of suffering, because it's a net positive in the "pleasure calculus".[2]
If you're not a utilitarian, then suffering isn't a morally relevant concern and you base your morality on something else, usually some set of universal rules and principles governing interactions between people.[3] These rules and principles tend to be reciprocal by design, only governing how moral agents treat other moral agents. Sheep aren't capable of moral agency, so even from a deontological perspective you are unlikely to come up with any sort of moral duty not to herd sheep with dogs.
Let's be clear here: I'm sure you could rationalize some type of moral system where it's wrong to herd sheep with dogs, and I'm wary of this discussion turning into an exercise to do just that. But I don't think that's the type of moral system you would ever naturally arrive at if you weren't being tendentious about that specific point.
[1] This is a naive kind of utilitarianism: Mill's utilitarianism also takes into account the quality, not merely the quantity, of pleasure or suffering involved, and there have been further philosophical refinements, none of which change the basic point here.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Don't worry, I'm clearly out of my depth here, so I'm not going to debate you on this particular point any further -- you win. :-) (I still stand by my original statement, but I'm unable to put my point to words as well as you can yours.)
What bothered me about the article, and prompted my original, poorly worded, reply was the fact that dogs are treated with more empathy and respect than other kinds of animals (even to the extent of harming other animals to bring them joy). To me this humane attitude seems so intuitive that I feel like it is not so much consciously learned to be felt for dogs as suppressed for all other beings. I don't think there's anything special about dogs in particular since they are not given the same status in all cultures. It's not about their utility either (anymore): most people get dogs because they feel sympathy for them, and not the other way around.
As you seem to be knowledgeable about ethics, do you happen to know of any books that deal with this tendency of humans to strongly empathize with some animals while having no trouble harming others? I'd like to read more about the issue from any viewpoint, be it ethical, psychological, or cultural. I'd like to better understand my own, intuitive worldview, which departed from mainstream when I started thinking about these issues, as well as that of people who do not share it.
It's not an ethical thing, more a cultural thing. White middle-class Americans are affectionate towards dogs. Other cultures eat dogs, or have the dogs fight for sport. Why the difference? That's actually an interesting question. Not one I'm equipped to answer, though.
I'd investigate your assumption that being herded by dogs causes sheep any harm or suffering, though. It doesn't really seem that obvious to me that it would.
The moral justification in my mind is simple: morality is a universal social contract between all beings capable of reciprocating moral obligations; sheep aren't capable of reciprocating moral obligations, hence we have no moral obligations to them.
This isn't a popular viewpoint, and it's counterintuitive to people who have been raised to be affectionate towards animals (myself included), but you asked for a moral justification, not an emotional justification.
To be absolutely honest, I can't imagine that being herded by dogs is any worse than being herded by humans. Especially when you consider that the dogs are unlikely to then flip them over and castrate them, give them injections, etc.
I think you're being downvoted because you're being overly sensitive to an imaginary problem. From reading the article, it sounds like the dogs are more likely to be harmed than the sheep.
Thanks, I didn't think about the viewpoint of "the sheep are going to be herded anyway, it might as well be my dog that has a bit of fun doing it".
I don't think the problem is imaginary, though. I still think it's schizophrenic to cause harm (in this case stress) to one kind of animal not out of necessity, but to bring happiness to another kind of animal -- even if the amount of harm is relatively minor compared to what could have been done. I have nothing against empathizing with dogs and trying to bring them happiness. On the contrary, I think it's illogical to restrict this attitude to dogs instead of extending it to all sentient beings, including sheep.
The dogs are to keep any stray sheep from escaping. Before that, they used behavioral methods on the sheep. If a lamb wandered off, the shepherd broke the lamb's legs and then carried it around until it healed.
I think the sheep probably prefer getting herded to getting their legs broken. They probably also prefer it to getting eaten by a coyote, a not uncommon fate of lost sheep.
