A Question of Morality -- Looking for Opinions
-- Should saving a puppy mill dog just be written off as a flat NO since it supports an immoral industry and the dogs simply be considered forfeit, the collateral damage of a heartless business model?
Or
-- Should those dogs have a chance at adoption to be spared from a needless death at the dawn of their lives even though it supports an immoral industry by doing something compassionate for the animals?
On one hand is an evil industry that treats these beautiful creatures like expired cheese, destroying them if they don't sell by their expiration date, on the other, are the scumbags that prosper on your compassion for the animals.
So what consideration is more important -- giving these dogs a shot at a loving home or not giving this cruel industry a dime despite the animals welfare?
6
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
29 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Just to be clear, there is a difference between a responsible breeder and a puppy mill, and puppy mills typically come with a healthy dose of abuse. If you know of a puppy mill being operated, I would report them, then adopt from the humane society or wherever they end up. I rescued a puppy mill mama Mastiff a few years back. It was horrific how she was treated as nothing but an incubator and completely neglected otherwise. She was a fantastic dog for our family. I have also purchased full bred Labs twice when my boys were much younger and I wanted the security of the good traits of the breed, though they both came from responsible breeders I personally knew well. I have also gotten many of my hounds from shelters. If you are not getting a show dog or a working dog specifically, I say go to the shelter where your money is being paid forward to the others who are in need rather than a greedy puppy mill owner's pocket.
Amzungu
Level 8
June 18, 2020
4
I agree but I also feel terrible for the mill dogs being denied a chance at adoption and they just live out their short lives in cramped, loveless misery so you just want to go save at least one of them. But if I you do that, you're supporting the mills. It'd be great if there were a perfect answer but there isn't. Something gets compromised one way or the other and they're both bad.
Do not patronize these idiots no matter what. Money fuels the problem. Get a dog from a shelter.
PondartIncbendog
Level 8
June 19, 2020
4
@K9Kohle789 The majority of people looking for a dog do not look for machines. They are looking for a family dog. Not a one purpose dog. They ARE looking for a "backyard" dog. Mixed breeds are also healthier.
My opinion is to close down the puppy mills, and thankfully, more US cities are doing just that, or at least banning the sales of such. Save the dogs and shut down the industry. I don't even like "respectable" breeding. Millions of animals are put to death each year because they are unwanted.
If you are talking about making a choice between a puppy mill puppy and a shelter puppy, assuming that not all can be saved, I would go with the shelter puppy so as to not support the mill.
itsmedammit
Level 8
June 18, 2020
5
As long as there are dogs and cats put down in shelters, I will adopt from shelters. It doesn't matter what I want. It matters what they need. I just adopted a ten year old cat that hates me. I love him. He's nasty, mean but he really likes my dog.
The puppy mill needs to be shut down as cruel to animals, the owners fined and restricted from ever owning animals ever again, and any animals alive when the mill is shut down deserve the chance to be adopted. It isn't enough to simply not patronize a puppy mill - although that is a good start and providing them money perpetuates the animal cruelty - the mill needs to be reported to authorities or someone with tne power to shut them down.
RussRAB
Level 8
June 19, 2020
3
My sweet Ozzie was a stud in a puppy mill for the 1st 5 years of his life. We adopted him from a shelter that took over a puppy mill that was closed down by the authorities. He still does not trust all humans and the 1st year we had him my husband said, "Jo we still don't have a dog." He would you set on the other side of the room and watch us. My husband also said, he may not act like a dog but he is certainly better off here than where he came from."
He is almost a dog now and I'm very glad that I have been able to give him a better life.
I realize this is not the same situation. I have never bought a dog from a puppy mill and encourage legislators to make them illegal.
Lorajay
Level 9
June 18, 2020
3
I got my Lily from an abusive home and it took me a year and a half to win her trust. Dogs are highly emotional and they can come with a lot of baggage that takes patience and effort to overcome..
Shut ‘em down and get the pups to a no-kill shelter that can adopt them out legitimately. These mills are a “cottage industry” rampant in parts of my community, that caters to a demand for “pure bred,” small dogs that are carried around as self-indulgent props.
The-Krzyz
Level 8
June 19, 2020
2
You have the right answer, I believe. If the pups came from a shut down mill, yes.
In breeding any animal..culling is a necessity
False equivalence, one does not prevent the other nor may both result in the described outcomes.
Mofo1953
Level 9
June 19, 2020
2
Exactly
Wow, excellent question!
WARNING. SUPER UNPOPULAR OPINION BELOW.
I will, as I do with every other question about cruelty to animals for the pleasure of humans, come down on the side of: we have collectively agreed that torture of animals for our pleasure is okay. I personally do not see any difference between torturing pigs for food, cows for leather, fish for tanks, dogs/chickens for fighting, horses for racing, etc. so I don't see any reason why whatever puppy mills do to dogs to produce their product should be punishable by law when we currently think it's totally okay to dip live chickens into vats of boiling water to remove their feathers. I think it's a huge miscarriage of justice that Michal Vick was sentenced to a stretch in federal prison for cruelty to dogs (don't give me any shit about 'it was actually for gambling' because you and I both know it was this country's unjustified love of dogs that he saw the inside of a cell) when likely everyone in that courtroom tortured animals by proxy every single day of his trial. Until we pass sweeping legislation that protects all animals from torture, I don't think anyone should hold a moral high ground simply because the animal they like to torture isn't as cute.
Also, why get a dog at all? Cats are better in almost every single way.
ChestRockfield
Level 8
June 19, 2020
2
I think yours is the old "don't do anything unless you do everything" argument.
And it's fallacious.
@Gareth No, it's the don't tell me not to do what you're doing argument, and it's about fairness. I don't believe the perfectionist fallacy applies here because the goals and costs of the actions are more global and not specific to individuals or groups e.g. "We should protect the park from being turned into a parking lot." "Well, millions of acres of rainforests are being chopped down and we're not fixing that, so why bother with this?"
I think you're in just as much danger of committing the politician's syllogism fallacy here i.e. "We have to do SOMETHING, this IS something, we have to do it."
Let's try an analogy. Say we both agree that speeding is a problem and something needs to be done. So we develop a device that monitors speed and automatically sends a speeding ticket to your home. But for some reason, we can only get it to work on black males. It IS something, and it would technically reduce speeding, but don't you agree that it is unfair to target one group for wrongdoing when everyone else is doing the same thing and getting away with it? Or would you put those devices to work? What is the fundamental difference between using animals for meat, leather, fur, or entertainment and dog breeding that it makes it okay to only target those that want to use or provide the services of a breeder?
@JeffMurray I'm sorry Jeff, but you're repeating yourself and I don't see how from my short post you managed to find any argument that wasn't only in your head and projected into it.
If you really can't see a difference between killing an animal for food and doing it for entertainment then we have nothing more to discuss. I'm not trying to be rude, but the internet is full of people peddling bad or dishonest arguments.
You talk about people being 'targeted' as though not choosing not to buy a factory-farmed pet is some kind of confrontation, which I find both polarising and disturbing.
The idea that we should be considering the implications of some weird, hypothetical, somehow racially-biased technology in order to better understand how we ought to behave with regard to sentient but non-human beings strikes me as a complete deflection.
And, last thought; I'm sure you're familiar with 'whatabout-ism'.
- I wasn't comparing ONLY animals for food and animals for entertainment. We currently legally use (torture) animals for food, entertainment, clothing, luxury, comfort, etc. You're the one that's trying to distort my argument. Even if I did compare just animals for meat vs. animals for companionship (or entertainment as you labeled it), it would still be a valid argument because animals aren't necessary to feed humans. Actually, eating animals, by most estimations, reduces food supplies for humans, so the consumption of tortured meat is purely for pleasure, not sustenance.
- Nothing about my argument is "bad or dishonest". If it is, show how by pointing out fallacies or using analogies. (As I have done and you failed to refute.)
- I said nothing about a personal choice to not buy from a puppy mill. My argument is against shutting them down and prosecuting them (and only them as opposed to all forms of animal torture equally. That is how it relates to the technology analogy.) What you have done here is create a straw man fallacy.
- This has nothing to do with whataboutism. Whataboutism is a tactic of claiming there is some other worse, yet unrelated problem we should be worrying about instead of the problem at hand. This, however, is a very related problem (the exact same problem if you ask me- the mistreatment of animals for human benefit) so I'm not attempting to deflect or change the subject in any way.
karl:
Somehow I have become the property of a cat. Get a dog they'll treat you better.
As to puppy mills. I live in a very rural area. Lots of farmers have bitch they hope will produce puppies they can sell & get a little income. In my experience those pups are treated well and should make good, well socialized pets. (Rural poverty being what it is, I suspect those pups are likely to bring bonus pets in the form of really robust parasites. Tape worms are the price of freedom.)
@JeffMurray 1. You specifically equated meat-eating to dog-fighting (inter alia). Read your own posts.
2. I'm not indulging your ridiculous analogy
3. Neither the OP nor I mention anything to this effect. Your own straw-man.
4. Your strategy is the very epitome of 'whatabout-ism'.
That's all the troll-food I've got. Bon appetit.
@K9Kohle789 I'm not arguing with you on that. Should we even be racing horses at all? I personally don't give a shit about horse racing, but I can't advocate for banning it or prosecuting those that enjoy it while I'm eating a cheeseburger or sitting on my leather couch without being a hypocrite.
- Not ONLY dog fighting. You're missing the point. I'm comparing ALL forms of animal abuse for the benefit of humans. Until you can point out a legitimate difference between your desired animal abuse and another's, you don't have a moral leg to stand on. The only people that really have the moral high ground here are people like my sister that won't even eat honey she's so vegan.
- Then you concede?
- Your very first reply you stated, ”I think yours is the old 'don't do anything unless you do everything' argument.
And it's fallacious." I took that to mean that you agreed with the proposition of banning puppy mills. If that's not what you meant I apologize, but you could have stated your position clearly. - Again, whataboutism is about changing the subject. I am not changing the subject.
@JeffMurray Right off the bat, you fail to understand what 'inter alia' means and don't even look it up. I can't argue at this level; it's futile.
@Gareth You didn't argue a fundamental difference between ANY of them. My point stands.
@JeffMurray Hopefully more people will be educated about the cruelty of both/all of these industries.
@Nunya That douche face blocked me, so I can't see if he responded to me (which is not really fair, @admin . If someone comments on or replies to you that should be fair game even through a block). Do feel free to quote his whole comment in your replies.
Anyway, yes, that's what he thinks. He can't grasp the fact that animal torture for meat is purely for pleasure and in no appreciable way different than any other form of animal torture for human pleasure.
Is it the puppy farm or is it the conditions which allow puppy farms to exist. We've virtually eliminated them in aussie by changing registration and breeding requirements. I'm not saying they don't exist but they're rarer and no longer on a large scale.
Cyklone
Level 7
June 19, 2020
3
Pronlem is, Murica moves at a snauk's pace where any kind of reform is needed. Just look at the police problem we're still having after many decades with the same issue.
@Sgt_Spanky yeah, we have a similar problem with our police, though fortunately not as bad as yours.
This is a tough question. I keep wanting to think of other options.
Can't you and I, Sgt_Spanky, just break into the puppy mill in the dead of night, and take the dogs? With maybe some light vandalism as we're leaving? Maybe?
Okay, failing that...can I buy the puppy while surreptitiously taking photos of the place, to hand over to authorities and/or blast on social media?
AmyTheBruce
Level 7
June 18, 2020
2
@OldMetalHead Smart thinking!
If an animal is a unique entity, with its own unique and precious consciousness, and, in as much, is thusly on par with humans, just different in species, with different intellect or whatever....
Then perhaps there is a history of how humans have treated or mistreated one another that gives guidance in answering this question as an analog.
APaleBlueDot
Level 7
June 18, 2020
3
I doubt they are treated worse than chickens, pigs, cows or sheep.
MsDemeanour
Level 8
June 18, 2020
3
They breed dogs to be sold within a certain timeframe or they're callously destroyed for being too old even though they're still ostensibly puppies.
@Sgt_Spanky Yes it is a terrible thing in a world where we constantly turn a blind eye to atrocities endured by fellow humans and committed against other animals. People are not nice. [kinderworld.org]
Are you considering getting a dog? If you are, go to the shelter. Or are you debating between donating to a puppy mill versus a shelter? Donate to the shelter. Puppy mills are terrible. We don’t need more dogs being bred and raised. There are plenty in the world who need homes.
Bobbyzen
Level 8
June 18, 2020
3
I am getting a dog from a shelter but I had this discussion with someone who argues that puppy mill dogs also need to be saved so I'm putting it out there for a group discussion.
@Sgt_Spanky I see. Well that’s my opinion: Don’t save puppy mills, shut them down.
@Sgt_Spanky buying a puppy mill dog just gives the "breeders" a profit so they can abuse more dogs! Stop! Rescue a dog from a shelter...they Know & are grateful in a special way!
Write to your local leaders to get the mills banned comprehensively. Join groups that help to show the conditions in these mills and rescue the animals while getting the thugs that prey on them charged with animal cruelty/abuse what ever laws can be thrown at them. Raise your voice for the voiceless.
Budgie
Level 8
June 19, 2020
2
Man, try living in Kentucky. There is virtually no animal protection; no real enforcement of what does exist; no legal alternatives. This goes for children as well as animals. Virtually all complaints fall on deaf ears.
The universe does not care. What is moral is only a relative question humans in their own mind decide, usually subject to where the question falls in their own comfort zone. One could spend a great deal of time, for example . . . Where in the hierarchy of human morals lies the difference between saving a puppy and saving a raven? A porcupine? Another human? As with all matter of things, humans spend their time mulling over such things as if they were important in the grand scheme of things . . . . . and it is all relative to each individual humans own mind . . . . but the universe? It is not benevolent, it is not malevolent, it is simply not affected.
Archeus_Lore
Level 7
June 18, 2020
2
We don't yet live within a system that places a high value on love and compassion. As natural as those life affirming attributes are, they don't rule how human societies operate and have to settle for expression in limited ways that are allowed and that don't 'interfere'.
If allegedly civilized human societies that dominate our world had not been emotionally crippled by the advent of exclusively male leadership, life affirmation and love would be, as they were before birth of the emotional plague, driving forces in human existence.
As it is though, even lives of human beings are terminated if they interfere with or 'get in the way' of ANY powerful organization/s of our 'kind'.
If elusive principles of fairness and compassion were to be valued, I'd expect them not to be limited by special status arbitrarily decided by emotional whim and fancy. We'd not spare canines what we so thoughtlessly inflict on bovines or some of our other animal cousins. If, as self-respecting and living creatures, we gave ourselves a higher priority there might be some reason for hope. We do not.
When our own species gets in the way, history and our present are rife with examples of cruelty and heartless destructiveness. It is everywhere around us from our own city streets to countless other temples of misery like Gaza or slave markets in North Africa.
To claim that life is precious while actively supporting cheapening of it to the level of worthlessness is a special HUMAN proclivity. Animals are deprived of our high level of self-awareness and the ability to cast verbal self praise and rose petals in their own paths. Morality is instinctive and animals demonstrate amounts of it far superior to the artificial moralities contrived and embossed on creatures like us for the last 6,000 years.
'Man's best friend' is one of Nature's best teachers of spontaneous affection, selfless dedication, honesty and genuine love. In a civilization that strangles the capacity in the cradle, replacing it with manufactured substitutes should be neither rare nor surprising.
Unfortunately, it isn't realistic to see the puppy mills, stockyards, sex and slave trades, abortion facilities, warehousing of our own (inconvenient) kind in prisons and ghettos or ideological cults any time soon. Yes, it is disappointing I know. Thats how unrealistic expectations ALWAYS play out.
Silver1wun
Level 7
June 19, 2020
1
Well said.
If the conditions of the farm is bad I would say the more moral thing would be to not support it financially.
indirect76
Level 7
June 18, 2020
1
Well, if you were the one chained, beaten, malnourished, and abused ... would you want someone to step in, pay the ransom, take you away from all his abuse, and then be well fed, loved, cared for and never abused again?
Hmm ... tough choice, eh?
AtheistInNC
Level 7
June 18, 2020
1
No issue with supporting the mills?
No. Its simple. Don't continue to feed the money to the problem.
I think the problem has several things need cleared up. Firstly is stopping the breeding that is feeding the industry. The so called "mistakes" of one should not be other peoples burdens. Then there is the support system (veterinarians, shelters, and animal medicine) that relies on them and the animals do also. Nothing wrong with having an animal, but there is if you cannot care for them. With many desires the costs come with many mistakes....
HerbertNewsam
Level 6
June 18, 2020
1
When ever someone tells me they are going to Mexico for a vacation. My advise is always, Don’t buy anything from little kids.
FlyingGodess
Level 5
June 21, 2020
0
Why not?
@tactic8 ah.. you’ll have to experience it maybe to understand. It’s a form of child labor. Also the minute you show green you will be mobbed by an overwhelming number of little kids. And other things will come up missing.
The Cambodian gov't says the same thing over there. If you buy from kids it encourages the parents to keep them on the streets rather than in school. If the kids don't make a profit for them then there is no motivation to use kids.
Do as you like.... You only live Once.... just like the Puppy Dog.
GipsyOfNewSpain
Level 9
June 18, 2020
0
Don't worry about being responsible.
@PondartIncbendog Responsibility is Relative just like Morality.
@GipsyOfNewSpain No it isn't.
@PondartIncbendog I noticed like many dogs You are a slow learner... I will ask you again in.... 50 years?
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.