I do not believe dogs are moral characters.

We went to see the movie "Miss Potter" the other night. It's a light,
sweet, story of Beatrix Potter's life, not bad, but a tad too sweet,
even for me, who usually doesn't mind sweetness in movies. I mean,
there's sweet, and then there's things that hurt your teeth, and this
takes all the conflict out of the plot and turns it into something
saccharine. Rather like the Beatrix Potter books themselves, come to
think of it, which I didn't care for even as a child. There just wasn't
enough going on in them.


So we see the movie, and I determine that the problem with the movie is
that there are dog people, and there are cat people, but Potter was a
kitten and bunny person, and they're worse. I get home and do a little
web research on Potter's life and learn that she did have a dog that she
liked, a spaniel who liked to go on carriage rides. Further, she
admitted that she found dogs hard to draw. Then she comes out with
this: "I respect dogs to a certain extent, but I do not believe they
are moral characters."


So we've been talking about whether dogs are moral characters.


Cubbe lies. She'll tell Jim that she's starving and that she hasn't
seen a full dog bowl in ages. This is right after I've fed her. Then
she'll tell me that she's bursting and must get outside to pee this very
instant, but it turns out that she wanted to go out to look around or
perhaps a hunting trip would be nice.


My brother calls his dog, Harrison, King of the Dissemblers. He has to
come in. A moment later, he realizes that he must go out. He has the
"I haven't eaten in ages" look well practiced also, complete with trips
to the cupboard where the kibble is kept.


--Lia
http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Author...0.html?sym=BIO

On Feb 19, 9:48 pm, Julia Altshuler wrote:

So we've been talking about whether dogs are moral characters.

Morals are a human invention that change from generation to
generation. I don't think that you can talk about whether dogs are
moral characters. Dogs don't have morals. They have instincts, actions
and reactions. I don't htinkt hat you can place upon them a human
feature.

Marcel

in thread oups.com:
"Marcel Beaudoin" whittled the following words:

On Feb 19, 9:48 pm, Julia Altshuler wrote:

So we've been talking about whether dogs are moral characters.

Morals are a human invention that change from generation to
generation. I don't think that you can talk about whether dogs are
moral characters. Dogs don't have morals. They have instincts, actions
and reactions. I don't htinkt hat you can place upon them a human
feature.

Marcel



I disagree. Danny knew when something was right or wrong, and not only
refused to cross the line of his standards himself, he made sure the people
AND animals in his environment stayed within boundaries as well.

He ran a tight ship. Speaking for all dogs based on your experience of one,
does an injustice, just like speaking for all humans, based on personal
experience.

On Feb 20, 9:29 am, diddy wrote:
in oglegroups.com:
"Marcel Beaudoin" whittled the following words:

On Feb 19, 9:48 pm, Julia Altshuler wrote:

So we've been talking about whether dogs are moral characters.

Morals are a human invention that change from generation to
generation. I don't think that you can talk about whether dogs are
moral characters. Dogs don't have morals. They have instincts, actions
and reactions. I don't htinkt hat you can place upon them a human
feature.

I disagree. Danny knew when something was right or wrong, and not only
refused to cross the line of his standards himself, he made sure the people
AND animals in his environment stayed within boundaries as well.

He ran a tight ship. Speaking for all dogs based on your experience of one,
does an injustice, just like speaking for all humans, based on personal
experience.

But did he come like that, or did he learn what was right and wrong
from his interactions with you??

One of the mantras that gets repeated fairly regularly here is that
dogs don't come knowing human rules: What is a house, how to play with
humans, where to go to the bathroom, stuff like that.

Marcel

Marcel Beaudoin wrote:

But did he come like that, or did he learn what was right and wrong
from his interactions with you?

One of the mantras that gets repeated fairly regularly here is that
dogs don't come knowing human rules: What is a house, how to play with
humans, where to go to the bathroom, stuff like that.


On the other hand, humans don't come knowing human rules either. They
learn right and wrong from their interactions with humans too. Babies
have to be taught what is a house, how to play with humans, where to go
to the bathroom, as well.


(I meant the original post in a more lighthearted way and see now that
it has turned to serious philosophy. Whatever.)


--Lia

Julia Altshuler wrote:
Marcel Beaudoin wrote:

But did he come like that, or did he learn what was right and wrong
from his interactions with you?

One of the mantras that gets repeated fairly regularly here is that
dogs don't come knowing human rules: What is a house, how to play with
humans, where to go to the bathroom, stuff like that.


On the other hand, humans don't come knowing human rules either. They
learn right and wrong from their interactions with humans too. Babies
have to be taught what is a house, how to play with humans, where to go
to the bathroom, as well.


(I meant the original post in a more lighthearted way and see now that
it has turned to serious philosophy. Whatever.)

I thought it lightheared, myself. Oppie and Dylan, in
particular, lie(d) at every opportunity when food was involved.
Especially if I fed them (normally husband's job), later when he
came home they would muster up every "hungry dog" signal in their
repertoire.

And if one of them got into something forbidden (like the trash)
both would act "guilty."

But I don't think it's a matter of dogs lacking morals; what's
"right" and "wrong" is just different from human standards. To a
dog, anything that involves getting food is allowed, unless
expressly forbidden in the pack.

In this pack, muscling in on someone else's dinner is forbidden.
Lying to get food is just fine (even though it rarely works).
Breaking into the trash evokes a deep-voiced, loud "Who did
this?" response from a human who is trying really hard not to
laugh at the hang-dog expressions on their faces. (The human then
smacks herself on the head with a rolled up newspaper for leaving
the trash accessible, while the dogs quietly snicker.)

Walking in a "funny" way (like sideways, backwards, dancing) is
not tolerated. Oppie whines and jumps up and puts his paws on
your chest to stop this immoral behavior.

And routines are not to be violated. Even though the dogs may
not set them up, they do try to enforce them. Breakfast at 7,
dinner at 6. You'd think they could read the clock. A leash
means a walk. Don't you dare pick one up with the intent of
merely putting it away! A recent one: dog bed at the foot of
the human bed comes with a pillow. If pillow is not on bed, dog
will not lie down. Human is at fault.

FurPaw
--
My family values don't involve depleted uranium.

To reply, unleash the dog.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:18:01 -0700, FurPaw
wrote:

And routines are not to be violated. Even though the dogs may
not set them up, they do try to enforce them. Breakfast at 7,
dinner at 6. You'd think they could read the clock. A leash
means a walk. Don't you dare pick one up with the intent of
merely putting it away! A recent one: dog bed at the foot of
the human bed comes with a pillow. If pillow is not on bed, dog
will not lie down. Human is at fault.

FurPaw

Routine rules in our house too - both the dog and the cats insist on
it.
The leash rule is funny. The dog, Fox, knows that the leash means a
walk and gets terribly confused when the Persephone, our pint-sized
cat, uses the leash for a play-thing (she drags it all over the house
and pounces on the moving end). I can watch the cogs in Fox's head
spinning as he tries to rationalise the meaning of leash+cat. He's
aware that the cats are indoors-only and the poor soul just *can't*
figure out how and indoors-only cat can take him for a walk outside.
Both Fox and Persephone look injured when the stoopid humans laugh at
them.

Tish

on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:02:06 GMT, Julia Altshuler
wrote:

(I meant the original post in a more lighthearted way and see now that
it has turned to serious philosophy. Whatever.)

I found this pretty darned funny! You really shouldn't unsubscribe--I
enjoy your posts too much. Maybe you can try my approach? I only open and
follow a select few threads when I'm busy and mark the rest of the forum as
unread. I'm sure I miss a lot of good stuff, but who really has time to
read it all?

--
Lynne

on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:00:13 GMT, Lynne
wrote:

mark the rest of the forum as unread

er make that READ

--
Lynne

Lynne wrote:
You really shouldn't unsubscribe--I
enjoy your posts too much. Maybe you can try my approach? I only open and
follow a select few threads when I'm busy and mark the rest of the forum as
read. I'm sure I miss a lot of good stuff, but who really has time to
read it all?


Aw, shucks. But the truth is, I've been unsubscribing and resubscribing
every few weeks for a while now. I'll think of something to say, get
on, stay for a week to see the responses, then leave again. Cubbe is a
plain good dog. I don't have stories about her. Right now she's in the
other room on her couch not bothering anybody. This morning she had a
nice walk, came in wet-bellied from the snow, ate breakfast. Riveting
stuff, eh? As for only following a few threads and marking the rest
read, I've been doing that for ages, both here and on cooking. I still
feel too involved. I'm trying to spend more of my free time reading
books instead of usenet.


--Lia