Should we neuter dogs - animal rights issue?

IMO owning a dog, is contrary to animal rights.

I'm saying that, and I own a pug lol.. Well wifey does. And she's been neutered (spaed?)... the dog, I mean.

We control when she's fed, what she eats, when she walks, which dogs she interacts with. We even control when she can and can not bark.

Owning a dog is really despicable when you think about it. Getting it neutered isn't a big deal if your going to control every other aspect of its life.

I wouldn't say its the right thing to do. But it's something you should do if you want to control a dogs life.

Reply to Edy It's not really despicable though because if you left it in the wild, it suffers terribly. Also, research shows that a special part of a dogs brain lights up when they are with their owner. An owner’s scent activates the parts of a dog‘s brain associated with pleasure. So, having an owner is a great thing for the dog. It is just the "cutting off the balls bit" that troubles me.

Let me reframe the question - if the dog could speak and tell us what it wanted and we gave it a choice between living with humans and all the advantages that brings or keeping its testicles, which would it chose? If the aliens gave us the same choice, I think a lot of the males here, like almost all of them, would chose to fend for themselves.

Reply to neilldn74 Read about it and then, go with your gut. Trust that you have an inbuilt moral sense that will enable you to determine right from wrong, on the basis of the facts. I'll admit outright, I don't know enough about it to give you an answer. And honestly, I think it's a bit rich telling people they have to stop eating meat because... climate change, and then keeping a pet. I'd get rid of all the cats before I'd get rid of cows. Cows are useful. Cows don't have a trillion videos uploaded to youtube everyday. Dogs can be useful too, and they're a long term companion animal we are responsible for domesticating. So there's some leeway for dogs, but cats? Cats have to go before cows, and before dogs. Sorry, what was the question? Oh yeah - balls, I don't know!

Quoting neilldn74

It's not really despicable though because if you left it in the wild, it suffers terribly

This is an arbitrary point of comparison. It would be better to consider the case where that dog never lived at all. It's impossible to measure its suffering, but think of the part of the natural world, and the animals that lived there, that have to die just so we can cultivate a little more land and raise a few more animals in factory farms to produce the food for this pet dog?

If people want nature in their lives, they should turn off the TV or computer and go outside for a while, not keep animals as pets.

It is an error to propose that he alternative for a domesticated animal is to be wild (since they're not wild animals) rather it is to not exist.

Reply to neilldn74

The first question that would need answering is just what kind of moral weight does a dog have? It's not self aware in any way we can recognise, so do the dog's interests, if they can even be called that, matter?

The philosophical side to dog neutering would have to be about animal rights. Does spaying a dog amount to a violation of their rights? Oh, I forgot, animals don't have rights. Silly me. However, I'm familiar with the activities of PETA and RSPCA, they take their work seriously and I take that as a good sign. Maybe animal rights organizations are onto something; a hidden cognitive dissonace the likes of the meat paradox.

If animal rights seems just too much to be bothered with, how about the inherent contradiction in treating animals like objects to be neutered or euthanized as when covenient? No person I know of, those in this forum at least, would like to be accused of lugging around in their heads a frank and easy to spot inconsistency - that would make them subhuman and that's putting it mildly.

Quoting Edy

Owning a dog is really despicable when you think about it.

Do you feel like your world is controlled by others like that guy in War and Peace? Just curious.

Reply to Echarmion I think most people would agree that cruelty to animals is wrong. They don't have to be self-aware to feel pain. The extent to which they are away is debatable. If aliens cut off your balls, for example, because they wanted you to be tamer as their pet, you would feel wronged. These arguments about self-awareness etc tend to be built on shaky ground. But lets change the example - lets say we cut off the dogs leg, would it be okay because the animal was not self-aware?

Reply to TheMadFool Actually, you are wrong. Animals do have rights - that's why you can be prosecuted for cruelty to animals. But I caution you - even if they did not according to the law, they would have inherent rights from a moral perspective. The original question was really about whether dogs getting neutered harms them or not - that is separate from the question of their rights. A lot of people who work for these organizations that you scorn, e.g Takis Shelter, say that neutering is the right thing to do. I am not interested in getting into an argument with people who don't care in the first place. If you don't care, sod off quite frankly. What I am trying to grasp is how people who do care still think neutering is the right thing to do? Does it not harm the animal irreparably?

Quoting neilldn74

The original question was really about whether dogs getting neutered harms them or not - that is separate from the question of their rights.

Sod off? :smile:

Human rights are grounded in harm i.e. we have rights because we can be harmed - we have a right not to be harmed. That humans have the capacity to suffer gives us our rights. Ergo, when we discuss animal suffering (harm), the issue of their rights arises automatically.

Quoting neilldn74

these organizations that you scorn

I don't scorn them. Au contraire, I deeply respect and admire their tireless efforts to edify us on the real and unspeakable cruelty society turns a blind eye to.

Identifying a negative facet to a complex situation is not sufficient to label it as negative. IRL essentially all complex issues have negative as well as positive attributes. Decision making is based on weighing relative risks, not trying to find a risk-free path.

Is spaying a bad thing? Is euthanizing unwanted dogs a bad thing? If the OP had proposed vasectomies instead of castration, that would be an interesting discussion, but spaying, yes or no has pretty much been resolved.

Reply to counterpunch Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the cats".

Quoting Bitter Crank

Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the cats".

:lol: Good one!

Reply to neilldn74
I don't think we can compare dogs to humans, they're too different. It isn't just neutering that humans would resent but also being given commands, having a leash, being scolded for doing what is in our nature and really most things we do with dogs. Yet, all of those things are done to create a harmonious relationship between owner and dog, they're done in the dog's best interests. A well-trained dog is a happy dog and in most cases where a dog misbehaves, the responsibility of that falls on the owner.

Animal cruelty should not be based on "what humans would like/dislike" but whether the animal is being harmed or neglected.

If you do not neuter the doggo, are you going to punish him for being sexually aggressive? Are you going to deny him access to females and prevent him from reproducing? Is the doggo going to be happier because he wasn't neutered? I think it's really hard to see that he comes out a winner by not being neutered when it just makes both his and your life harder. I dislike morality that goes against the interests of all parties, for me, that's enough to say neutering is a justifiable and responsible option.

Quoting neilldn74

I think most people would agree that cruelty to animals is wrong. They don't have to be self-aware to feel pain.

But it is interesting to ask why that is, isn't it? People have extremely varying attitudes to different animals depending on culture, and almost no-one is concerned about the well being of, say, insects.

So do we object to animal cruelty on behalf of the animal or on behalf of our human code of conduct, in the sense that we dislike people who show unnecessary cruelty? After all, we also dislike wanton destruction of, say, art, irrespective of any pain the art feels.

Quoting neilldn74

If aliens cut off your balls, for example, because they wanted you to be tamer as their pet, you would feel wronged.

Obviously, but I am aware of my own awareness. But if the Aliens could not recognise my behaviour as a sign of that awareness, how'd they conclude I was any different from a dog, a tree or a rock in moral terms?

Quoting neilldn74

But lets change the example - lets say we cut off the dogs leg, would it be okay because the animal was not self-aware?

I am just going to point out we kill thousands of animals every day which are not all that neurologically dissimilar to cats and dogs, and a lot of people seem fine with that.

Reply to Judaka But all of your objections are based upon what's best for the human owner. I could imagine aliens making the same arguments about us if we were their pets - what's best for the alien is also best for the human because it's easier. And while dogs are not humans, they are one of the closest relatives. For example, wild dogs are the only animal I know of that will actually care for an injured member of their pack. Any other animal in the wild is dead if it gets seriously injured but wild dogs will hunt for the pack member and feed it until it gets better by regurgitating the food. Does that remind you of any other species? I can only think of one - us.

Dogs may not have the same mental capacity as us but they show similar emotions - what draws us to them is some of their best qualities are qualities we admire the most when we see them in other humans. We see them in their raw form in dogs. For example, a german shepherd's owner abandoned him and he waited for a whole year in the same place hoping that he would come back. When a dog is abandoned, it actually experiences physical pain from its anguish. There are studies that show this. So, perhaps you are right and the dog would be prepared to have its balls chopped off to please you but that doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do, assuming the we care about its well being.

Reply to neilldn74
Not really, the reality is that when your dog misbehaves, the dog is the one who is punished. A better comparison for humans would be for example, whether orcas should be kept in captivity because orcas are not domesticated animals. Many are totally against any orca captivity but especially at the theme parks for example.

I'm just pointing out that you are not going to let your dog be sexually active, your dog is not in a position to act on its instincts regardless of whether you neuter him or not. It is hypocrisy to say that you're going to allow your dog to be natural and free (not neutered) but then restrict his access to females, reprimand him for humping people, pull on his leash whenever he makes a move on a female dog. The dog doesn't care about being "natural" like you do, so really, the dog is better off not having these desires and urges, since they're not going to be satisfied anyway. It's not the law to neuter your dog, don't neuter him, whatever but I don't really think your dog is going to ever be happier because of it.

Do you even have a counter-argument? Why do you think the dog would be happier not being neutered?

A counter argument to what Judaka?

Reply to Echarmion The original thread was about whether neutering a dog harmed it or not. But since you wish to expand the scope of this, I will say that I did think about the insect thing. There is a novel by George Orwell where he goes up to the top of a skyscraper and looks down at people who now look like ants - the same thing really. Your ability to care about others depends upon how far removed you are from them and we are very far removed from insects. Even having said that, I think it would be wrong to, for example, pull the wings off a fly. That would be cruelty for no purpose.

Do insects feel pain? I used to think you had to have a spinal cord to feel pain so they could not. I have just found out that I was wrong. This article says that not only do they feel pain but they also feel chronic pain.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/insects-can-experience-chronic-pain-study-finds-180972656/#:~:text=Over%2015%20years%20ago%2C%20researchers,way%20humans%20react%20to%20pain.

So my first instincts about someone pulling the wings off a fly being immoral were correct.

Reply to neilldn74
You're a human, who cares about things being in their "natural state", complaining about humans treating dogs without compassion, thinking only of themselves. Dogs don't know about "natural states", I have said that the dog is better off being neutered (from the dogs perspective) do you have any counter to this? I literally explained what you needed to argue for in the next sentence already.

Reply to Judaka People have had dogs for thousands of years. The practice of neutering them only started in the 30's and really only became commonplace in the 70s because millions of stray dogs were being euthanized. There are other ways to control a dog other than cutting off its balls. If it is properly trained and sees you as above it in the pack, much of the sexually aggressive behavior will not be a problem. For example, when feeding it, you never let it eat first as the order in which it eats signals to the dog what its status is. It must be constantly reinforced that its status is the lowest member of the pack.

You said that from a dogs perspective, it's better off having its balls cut off because the owner is not able to deal with their sexually aggressive behavior. So it really is about what's best for the owner again, not the dog.

I will concede though that in some cases, you might be right. Neutering might be the best and only option but it should not be the default option for all dogs.

Reply to neilldn74
You twist my words but oh well, each owner can make the decision based on their needs and circumstances but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not taking into account the dog's wellbeing. If aliens kidnapped me and cut off my balls I'd be horrified but my sensibilities as a human are not the basis for how dogs should be treated. The process of neutering a dog is done under anaesthesia, the pain lasts a few days. We know that the act is done for either the benefit of the owner, dog or wider society and not with ill-intent. There's really nothing in your response to indicate that we're dealing with an animal rights issue, I think both owners and dogs would be disadvantaged if neutering was banned.

Inexperienced dog owners will have an easier time with a neutered dog, that's why it's advised. If there was a study which showed: "neutered dogs are more likely to be depressed" then the whole discussion could change, right? Until then, it's just you finding it ugly, rather than dogs being taken advantage of.

Quoting Judaka

It is hypocrisy to say that you're going to allow your dog to be natural and free (not neutered) but then restrict his access to females, reprimand him for humping people, pull on his leash whenever he makes a move on a female dog.

Dogs and humans evolved together for thousands of years and the way we currently interact together is as natural as anything is.

This thing about restricting his access to females seems to be your key objection. I would point out that wild dogs don't mate - only the alpha female and alpha male mate. Somehow, the rest of them control their urges without humans around to cut their balls off for them.

Reply to neilldn74

i edited this. Something to consider is domesticated creatures tend to reproduce more than wild and non-domesticated plants and animals. That dog's mother or grandmother would have died more than likely if a human didn't care for it. Wheat and Dogs are what they are due to People. Have you heard of Noah Harrari? I reject Harrari on some levels because he seems to reject constitutiive micro-psychism and panenpsyschism.

edit: by panenpsychism i meant panentheism which is different from pantheism.