PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

[blutoski]

Except they did.

I think it's the ambiguity around the word 'kills' that pertains to intent.

Since this is an outlier incident, it's pretty clear this was two errors compounded: dog misidentified as a stray due to collection circumstances, then euthanized early due to mistaken identity in the facility (mistaken for another chihuahua that was scheduled to be euthanized after its waiting period had expired).

The events are probably not the result of any policy to intentionally opportunistically dognap and destroy animals, and seem to actually be the opposite of their general intentions to collect strays and euthanize after waiting period.

This is why there's no criminal charges involved: the authorities are probably satisfied that there's no intent here, no pattern of malice, just incompetence. The state's investigation has already reported it as an error and fined them $500.

FROM THIS POINT ON, any claim that this is the result of some sort of sinister secret policy to intentionally kidnap and destroy animals en masse is quite unsopported and borders on manufactured slander similar to "Planned Parenthood is a baby part factory".

 

[phiwum]

Just your last paragraph: yes, a person is aware of the joys that they might miss out on if they die early. I don't think most animals have this level of knowledge of their future possible joys and a corresponding loss if they were to die early; in fact i don't think most animals have a sense that they can and will die. Some might: chimps, whales, maybe even elephants. But even dogs? I doubt it. One day they go into the vet and are rendered unconscious and then dead. Of course it is a loss for many, including perhaps other dogs who knew them. But a sense of personal loss in advance to the euthanized dog? Probably not.

This is probably related to the increased amplitude in pains and pleasures that more intelligent creatures are capable of, but it's irrelevant to the point I made. Even if your sister is unaware of her impending death, she has lost the net balance of pleasure she would have otherwise had. That is what makes killing her painlessly wrong.

And what of the possible pain? Life in the wild is often short and hard for many wild animals. Does the sense of pleasure out way the harshness?

I presume that the expected utility of extended life for an arbitrary critter is positive. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my presumption.

All I am saying is that it is a complex topic. For me, not hurting other animals if at all possible, and never for trivial reasons, makes the most sense. And to really, really be thoughtful about impacts on the most aware animals largely for the reasons you cite. But if a cat needs meat for good health I am happy to feed it chicken. And if my son needs a vaccine I want it tested in rats first.

I'm not questioning your choices at all, just trying to give some information about how certain utilitarians view animal rights. Each animal counts equally in principle, but in practice, the more intelligent animals tend to be capable of greater suffering and pleasure and hence effectively count for more.

I am not personally a utilitarian, so these views are not my own.

 

[phiwum]

Highlight: you are in fact stating that a child is not the moral.equivalent as a mountain lion, and giving a reason that they are not equivalent. And I don't disagree with you. But I think PETA would.

I've no idea what PETA would say.

The point is that they are morally equivalent, insofar as equal amounts of pleasure and pain count equally, though it is the nature of intelligent beings to be subject to wider amplitudes of pleasure and pain (and also to cause greater suffering and pleasure in other intelligent beings around them).

It's a subtle point. I can look up the article I am (badly) paraphrasing, if you're interested.

 

[phiwum]

Hmmm. I don't like this argument because it reminds me too much of the anti-abortionists' "potential person" nonsense. Not saying I don't agree with it emotionally, but...

It is similar to Dan Marquis's argument that abortion is wrong because it deprives the fetus of future experiences he would have otherwise enjoyed.

But absolutely any utilitarian[1] has to say that painlessly killing an unloved human being (whose future net utility would have been positive) is wrong because it decreases net utility by the amount of utility that person would have otherwise enjoyed. We can argue whether this applies to animals or fetuses, I suppose, but we'd need a good reason that it doesn't.

Surely, we both realize that it is a fallacy to reject on argument on the grounds that it leads to consequences we don't like. That said, I'm not trying to enter into a debate over abortion and I've no idea what Singer thinks of abortion.

[1] Okay, not any, just because it's the nature of philosophers to disagree, but that seems the most obvious interpretation of utilitarianism I can think of.

 

[Desert Fox]

Even though I consider the idea that any dog being ever free from a lease being faiur game, the dog in the story does appear to have been on a porch without a means of roaming free.

 

[blutoski]

I've no idea what PETA would say.

The point is that they are morally equivalent, insofar as equal amounts of pleasure and pain count equally, though it is the nature of intelligent beings to be subject to wider amplitudes of pleasure and pain (and also to cause greater suffering and pleasure in other intelligent beings around them).

It's a subtle point. I can look up the article I am (badly) paraphrasing, if you're interested.

My impression from reading PETA's website and working with vets in an animal rescue nonprofit is that PETA is leaning towards James Rachels^WP style utilitarianism. An animal's capacity for pleasure and pain would apportion the value of its life, death, happiness, and suffering.

I'm trying to remember the exact terminology, but something like a Penumbra of Humanity? (or was that Jane Goodall?)

 

[marplots]

I think it's the ambiguity around the word 'kills' that pertains to intent.

Since this is an outlier incident, it's pretty clear this was two errors compounded: dog misidentified as a stray due to collection circumstances, then euthanized early due to mistaken identity in the facility (mistaken for another chihuahua that was scheduled to be euthanized after its waiting period had expired).

The events are probably not the result of any policy to intentionally opportunistically dognap and destroy animals, and seem to actually be the opposite of their general intentions to collect strays and euthanize after waiting period.

This is why there's no criminal charges involved: the authorities are probably satisfied that there's no intent here, no pattern of malice, just incompetence. The state's investigation has already reported it as an error and fined them $500.

FROM THIS POINT ON, any claim that this is the result of some sort of sinister secret policy to intentionally kidnap and destroy animals en masse is quite unsopported and borders on manufactured slander similar to "Planned Parenthood is a baby part factory".

One of my favorites, the "mistakes were made" defense.

It might not be as big a deal if they didn't have such lofty ideals; the organization's name is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Opinions on what constitutes ethical behavior will naturally vary. It also opens them up to criticism that is not based on proving criminal intent, but merely ethical standards.

 

[blutoski]

It is similar to Dan Marquis's argument that abortion is wrong because it deprives the fetus of future experiences he would have otherwise enjoyed.

But absolutely any utilitarian[1] has to say that painlessly killing an unloved human being (whose future net utility would have been positive) is wrong because it decreases net utility by the amount of utility that person would have otherwise enjoyed. We can argue whether this applies to animals or fetuses, I suppose, but we'd need a good reason that it doesn't.

Surely, we both realize that it is a fallacy to reject on argument on the grounds that it leads to consequences we don't like. That said, I'm not trying to enter into a debate over abortion and I've no idea what Singer thinks of abortion.

[1] Okay, not any, just because it's the nature of philosophers to disagree, but that seems the most obvious interpretation of utilitarianism I can think of.

Actually utilitarians disagree on abortion because it's a bit more complex and we assign different enjoyment weights to living a society with certain values. There's the mother's future life enjoyment to account for, and the social, economic, and biological (mostly genetic) implications on the population's hedon calculus as well.

Just as an example, if the grounds for barring abortion are that the fetus has a right to override the mother's expectation of body autonomy... well what's so special about a fetus? What if I need a kidney from her to survive? Does the same reasoning (a whole life has more value than the loss of life from a medical process, we must force the medical practice on the candidate best able to save the life) not apply?

Back to animals... there are criticisms of Rachels' utilitarianism because he is arguing that animals with human quality enjoyments are elevated over others as an anthropocentric bias rather than objective utilitarian observation. This was why I sometimes get his models jumbled with Goodall, as they both argue for ethically erring on the side of the 'human properties' that are shared across species.

 

[Aepervius]

Not addressing criminal intent? You flatly accused PETA of snatching up pets and gassing them.


Someone posted an interesting comment up-thread on animal euthanasia that you might want to read:

​

In any case, who says PETA was paid to collect stray animals from the trailer park? I don't see any evidence that PETA accepted money for the job, can you cite a source showing that they did?


The chihuahua that was euthanized was allowed to run around the trailer park unleashed and unattended while it's caretaker was at work, it was not just a "house pet". But to answer your question: yes, I think it can be hard to distinguish a well-cared for pet -- who has no collar, no rabies tag, no chip, no identifying tags -- from a stray.

In addition to what was said : That is why there rules to wait for a few days, up to 5. Because in case of error it leaves time for the person to contact local shelters.

 

[blutoski]

One of my favorites, the "mistakes were made" defense.

It's a valid defense if the charge is 'they intended to do it'.

We use it all the time to distinguish a person who hits a dog on the freeway versus somebody who runs one down on purpose to see it suffer. Intention matters in matters of ethics and law.

It might not be as big a deal if they didn't have such lofty ideals; the organization's name is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Opinions on what constitutes ethical behavior will naturally vary. It also opens them up to criticism that is not based on proving criminal intent, but merely ethical standards.

Sure... but since this case in question was an accident that was contrary to their intentions... i'm not sure it sheds any light on their 'ethical standards'.

 

[blutoski]

Even though I consider the idea that any dog being ever free from a lease being faiur game, the dog in the story does appear to have been on a porch without a means of roaming free.

It was captured on the porch, but prior to that it was roaming outside the owner's property; the yards have no boundaries, they incorrectly assumed it was on a random porch attempting to evade capture.

As mentioned, the owner's other dogs on the same property were tethered. The capture team incorrectly assumed that if an owner would tie up at least one dog, that the owner would have tied up all his dogs and not left just one untethered. They jumped to conclusions that this was actually one of several strays they were collecting from the property.

The landlord had asked for the strays to be collected, all the strays would have been on *somebody's* property.

 

[marplots]

It's a valid defense if the charge is 'they intended to do it'.

We use it all the time to distinguish a person who hits a dog on the freeway versus somebody who runs one down on purpose to see it suffer. Intention matters in matters of ethics and law.

Sure... but since this case in question was an accident that was contrary to their intentions... i'm not sure it sheds any light on their 'ethical standards'.

I'm asked to believe that they took a dog off of someone's property based on thinking the dog was a stray - something that would necessarily mean an identification of that particular dog. Why? Because otherwise, you wouldn't know you took a stray instead of a legitimate dog.

Then I'm asked to believe the dog was euthanized by mistake because it looked like another dog they had in custody. But this too depends on making a proper identification. So we have a snatch that depends on an identification and a kill that is justified by a misidentification. A bit of have your cake and eat it too.

There's a problem here. Whether it is systemic or not, driven by a lust to kill or not - those I cannot tell. But if I hold myself out to be ethical, it certainly must mean I care about animals and would have clear policies in place to prevent exactly what happened. Do they? I don't know.

It would be nice to see the results of the investigation. For example, did the chihuahua mix-up mean the wrong dog was held for a further 5 days, or did that one get offed too? Were the other dogs held the required time? Was notification even left that they took a dog from the property?

The fact that no criminal charges were filed, but the organization was fined anyhow, points to some wrongdoing.

tl;dr: "I can tell one chihuahua from another, except when I kill the wrong one."

 

[Giordano]

To the PETA supporters here. just a few points that I wish to make:

1. As I mentioned, I initially thought of PETA as a radical animal protection group with perhaps too large a "heart" and too extreme, but with goals that basically sought to protect animals from harm. After time I came to be convinced that these were not PETA's ultimate goals at all, and that they were far more focused on a philosophical concept: no species has a right to interfere with the actions of any other species. A lot of this is not pro-animal, let alone pro-human, and manifests as a an ideology focused on a philosophical goal that is not to limit harm to animals as much as to eliminate "specieism." As such, I would far rather give my money to the SPCA, Humane Society, etc. who are much more dedicated to protecting animals from harm than an abstract, heartless, philosophical "ideal" that has never been part of the natural world, and in fact if ever implemented (and I don't see how to keep mountain lions from killing deer) would hurt both non-human and human animals.

2. We are all people, and will therefore tend to selectively read what we see as supporting our prior conclusions. It usually takes a lot of evidence to cause someone to re-think their basic views. So I don't ask that PETA supporters believe my spin on things: just to read more about what PETA itself states as to its views, and an assortment of appropriate but other groups. You may still strongly support exactly what PETA proposes, or a defined portion of the whole, after this closer view. But please first find out exactly what PETA's views are, do not rely on your existing general "impression" of who you think that they are. I once did, and when I investigated the facts, including PETA's own statements, I dramatically changed my mind dramatically.

3. More specifically: it took me no time at all to find the public statement on the PETA site saying that they were philosophically against pets keeping, specifically citing pet breeding. As already pointed out, what do PETA supporters believe would happen to pets (companion animals) if all "pet breeding" was eliminated? I certainly don't think that PETA means that we should instead capture all our pets from the wild, and turn mountain lions and wolves into house pets!

If PETA achieved their stated goals, in 20 years the only remaining pets would be a few turtles and parrots. They are against the keeping of pets, plain and simple, and they have stated this publicly in more than one fashion (look it up). They are "generously" willing to allow pre-existing pets to die off naturally, but they are against replacing them. Period. If you agree, fine. But don't think that PETA only objects to orca and elephants in SeaWorld and zoos: they don't like the idea of you keeping Fluffy in your house either because (as already quoted quoted by others) PETA views this as demeaning to the pet and a fundamental violation of the rights of the animal to be independent in all ways. The fact that house cats and dogs do not exist in the wild means, as PETA itself knows, their eventual (20 years?) complete elimination as species. And PETA has publicly indicated that as a goal they hope can be achieved.

Yes there are a lot of commercial breeders who treat their animals poorly, but PETA is not focused on improving the level of care, but eliminating pet breeding completely. And if you read what they publicly advocate, this is not just breeders of fancy pure-bred cats and dogs- all breeding, informal and voluntary to formal and arranged. No new cats and no new dogs, period.

4. Once again I will ask that if PETA cared about animals as radically and strongly as they like to portray themselves (and as many people like to see them), then why on earth are they accepting contracts to round up dogs and kill them? And without even the grace period that almost all shelters provide to allow owners to find their pets or others to find potential adoptions? I couldn't do this and sleep at night- could you? This is not to say that euthanasia is not sometimes necessary and sometimes in the animals best interest, but isn't this a fundamental hypocrisy on the part of PETA, given their holier than thou public face as the True Scotsman animal lovers?

Of course keep your pet indoors and to put ID on them! But if your pet got outside and onto your porch- would you think "Oh well, they picked it up and killed it within a matter of hours without me having a chance to rescue it, but it had it coming?"

I don't know the laws where the pet was lured off its porch and killed, but it could have been a legal violation if, as in many cases, under law shelters have to keep the animal for a fixed length of time before euthanasia. Even if not, PETA may still be subject to a civil suit even if they did not break a criminal statute. But even if there is no violation of law at all, PETA still killed a pet without even giving the owner a chance to save it. Immoral and disgusting as I see it, even for an animal-hating organization let alone one claiming to love animals.

I also re-iterate what others have stated in this thread: it should have been easy for PETA to tell this little dog was a cared-for pet and not a sheep killing, starving stray. But did they even care?

 

[Varanid]

The pet breeding industry is very cruel, for the most part.

As someone who has made a large part of his living through compassionate animal breeding projects, I take issue with your broad brush.

Cruelty and bottom-line-oriented approaches are definitely part of the industry (and should be stamped out as much as is possible), but there are plenty of breeders who hold their animals in the highest regard.

 

[blutoski]

I'm asked to believe that they took a dog off of someone's property based on thinking the dog was a stray - something that would necessarily mean an identification of that particular dog. Why? Because otherwise, you wouldn't know you took a stray instead of a legitimate dog.

The call was from the landlord, who said stray dogs were running around (abandoned by previous occupants). There were no specific descriptions.

Then I'm asked to believe the dog was euthanized by mistake because it looked like another dog they had in custody. But this too depends on making a proper identification.

This I agree with, yes. There must be processes in place to reduce misidentification of animals with similar appearances (such as putting them in different containment, with unique identifiers).

There's a problem here. Whether it is systemic or not, driven by a lust to kill or not - those I cannot tell. But if I hold myself out to be ethical, it certainly must mean I care about animals and would have clear policies in place to prevent exactly what happened.

It would be nice to see the results of the investigation. For example, did the chihuahua mix-up mean the wrong dog was held for a further 5 days, or did that one get offed too? Were the other dogs held the required time? Was notification even left that they took a dog from the property?

The fact that no criminal charges were filed, but the organization was fined anyhow, points to some wrongdoing.

That's correct. The regulatory body did find wrongdoing. If I were to speculate, I'd figure it was in the intake step, creating an environment where animals similar in appearance and with no other unique identifiers could be confused for one another.

It's worth mentioning that this was the first time regulators fined this operation. It certainly feels like a tragic mistake, rather than a pattern of malicious behavior.

 

[Desert Fox]

What is interesting is that in Norfolk (the same place as the PETA headquarters) the SPCA is now a no kill shelter. Now, I suspect that one of the driving forces was that the worker who was in charge of putting animals to sleep committed suicide using the same drugs as were used on animals.

 

[marplots]

The pictures I have seen of the dog show it to be quite adoptable. What efforts were made to adopt it out?

Oh, I forgot. Owning a dog is unethical. Somehow.

Has anyone mentioned Nazis yet?

 

[blutoski]

The pictures I have seen of the dog show it to be quite adoptable. What efforts were made to adopt it out?

I think the investigation revealed it was mistaken for another dog they had had longer and had failed to get adopted.

Oh, I forgot. Owning a dog is unethical. Somehow.

Has anyone mentioned Nazis yet?

Just you so far.

 

[Desert Fox]

It's worth mentioning that this was the first time regulators fined this operation. It certainly feels like a tragic mistake, rather than a pattern of malicious behavior.

They did not wait the required four days. . . How the hell is that a tragic mistake?
Edit: If you have ever been at a shelter, even a city run one, they are given little tags similar to what patients at hospitals are. You look at the date and time on the tag.

 

[marplots]

This I agree with, yes. There must be processes in place to reduce misidentification of animals with similar appearances (such as putting them in different containment, with unique identifiers).

I have a bias on this point. I was arrested for letting a black lab run loose in the neighborhood. Fortunately for me, I was able to show there was at least one other black lab seen running free and I had measures in place to contain my dog. But it was a close thing - one black lab looking pretty much like another to most people, especially from any distance.