I happen to agree with him that the sheer length of time for which these dogs can be incarcerated is itself inhumane. The dog does not understand, it only knows that it has been separated from its family. If it was not aggressive when it was seized, I suspect that it will be by the time it is released (if it ever is).
What was worrying, though, was the testimony offered as to dogs being trained to be aggressive, given specific exercises to strengthen their jaw muscles. Clearly, such dogs are not being acquired by dog lovers as family pets. They are being acquired by aggressive louts who want an impressive weapon that they can brandish.
Which gave me an idea - still definitely in the "provocative" category. As dogs are apparently being bought as weapons, why not remove the incentive by repealing the Dangerous Dogs Act, re-legalising handguns, and relaxing sentences for knife possession? At least the guns and the knives are less likely to be used against toddlers...
--------------------------------
*sorry
Why not charge the owners for the kennelling?
ReplyDeleteThis might speed up the court cases.
Amazing, you can abort 200 000 unborn children p.a. in this country and no one's interested. But when someone suggests that spending £10.5M is a bit steep for looking after 1146 dangerous dogs over 4 years and that it might be more appropriate to just shoot them, even the Telegraph worries it violates natural justice.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis post has been gnawing away at me because you make a good point; the possession of a dangerous dog can be akin to holding a knife or gun, but often these dogs are used to fight other dogs and their aggression towards humans is to please or to defend their owners.
ReplyDeleteCome what may, let me comment briefly. This is difficult as I could write much having had the experience of adopting an aggressive 'pitbull' from Battersea.
1. £10.5m is a drop in the ocean and if you are compassionate towards someone's prize possession, you are teaching them something about their worth in the process.
2. Certainly some dogs are beyond redemption. Yes, owners who have no money should still be charged costs or a way of bartering out of kennel fees. Good suggestion EP.
3. This is a great opportunity to engage with some that are liable to cause grief in society. I would have social work involved; you have the emotional attachment and people open up when they are involved in what they enjoy. £10.5m would not run a decent drug rehabilitation programme so I think this money is well spent.
4. I think Lord Harris missed an opportunity here, although he thought this was an opportunity to make his point. The legislation is poor as months are spent determining the breed rather than the dog's behaviour.
5. I would propose a test at the end of six months for the dog and owner before a panel upon which the dog's life depends.
6. If dogs are shot, they will not be exercised and you drive the problem further underground.
7. Albert, of course unborn children have rights but they do not harm innocent others. In fact the reverse. It is their 'owners' that harm them. Different set of values. This should be enough to let you find a quote. :-)
8. I have said enough but it is a problem that needs a constructive approach. I bet there are other ways to cut the MPA budget by £10.5m that don't interfere with the role, aims and duties of the police towards the public. ;-
of course unborn children have rights but they do not harm innocent others. In fact the reverse. It is their 'owners' that harm them.
ReplyDeleteCareful Measured, you're starting to sound like a Catholic on this one. I've always thought it odd that the decade that abolished the death penalty for murder, also gave us the death penalty for the innocent. But I hadn't noticed the increased absurdity that requires us to murder innocent human beings by the 100 thousand, but keep 1100 dangerous dogs alive at a cost of £10.5M, lest we violate "natural justice." What a stupid world is created by secular modernity.
It all supports Kant's assessment of the Enlightenment (so you get your quote): "Reason undoes itself" (as a Catholic, of course, I cannot accept this, but if I was a secularist I would be forced to, I suspect).
Albert,
ReplyDeletePerhaps the reason for the differing treatments stems from desire.
Now Kant said that when there is no desire, there is duty and that links into morality. Morality appears to decide whether desire is good or bad as far as I can work out, but doesn't the fulfilment of desire give rise to happiness? As the pursuit of happiness is increasingly recognised in our society, this explains why we treat dogs and unwanted unborn babies differently. So secular modernity does not necessarily create a stupid world, but obviously some, like Patently, advocate expediency so shoot the dogs while you advocate a duty towards unborn children. Well, it may not be stupid, but it's a cazy world as you are both intelligent with different opinions. Maybe they have got it about right. ;-)
Perhaps the reason for the differing treatments stems from desire.
ReplyDeleteI am sure your analysis is correct, measured, though I think that if our actions are governed simply by desire, they have ceased to be moral.
Animals simply operate on the basis of desire. They do not reason their choices in an abstract way as we do. It's exactly that capacity to reason through our desires, to select what is good from bad in our desires, that distinguishes us from other animals. It is the failure to do so (as evidenced by this case) that shows that we are losing our humanity.
Therefore, I think the present position, in which we desire to look after the dog, but kill the child, is deeply immoral, and clearly irrational. By what standard can the life of dog be more desirable to save than that of a human being?
like Patently, advocate expediency so shoot the dogs while you advocate a duty towards unborn children.
Actually, I think P and I would agree here: shoot the dogs and save the children. Therefore, my assertion that secular modernity has created a stupid world still holds.
Well, I must be the stupid one then. I would not shoot all the dogs and I am not sure I would save all the 'children' - an emotive word as I do not classify a foetus is a child. ::[ducks]::
ReplyDeleteAnimals do not always simply operate on the basis of desire. They can operate from obedience or to protect others too, like humans. Saving the life of a dog can save the life of an individual in the form of salvation.
Doesn't desire and morality/duty overlap to differing degrees in different people? I have no desire to worship other gods and on some occasions lust can be good and healthy; to create children for example. The world is not stupid; it is complicated with competing interests.
I am not sure I would save all the 'children' - an emotive word as I do not classify a foetus is a child.
ReplyDeleteNo need to duck measured, I know we don't agree on this! My questions arising are these:
1. How would you decide which (if any) unborn children to save?
2. If the foetus is not a child what is it?
3. When does it become a child?
I accept what you say about dogs and obedience though what I actually said was: Animals simply operate on the basis of desire. They do not reason their choices in an abstract way as we do. So it was not simply acting on desire, but desire as opposed to reason. I suspect, the example you gave is in any case just a rather more sophisticated version of desire/instinct.
Saving the life of a dog can save the life of an individual in the form of salvation.
But in that case, you have premised the value of the dog (and of saving the dog) on the value of the human. Therefore, if the value of the dog's life comes from the value of the human life, it makes no sense to kill a human life and save a dog's life.
on some occasions lust can be good and healthy; to create children for example.
I don't think that lust is ever good since it implies an irrational desire to use another human being as an object not a person - a means and not an end (to borrow from Kant again - just to show the point can be made in secular terms). The fact that God sometimes brings the good of a new human life from a bad act is a sign of his goodness and mercy, not of the goodness of the bad act. If your argument were correct rape would be justified if it resulted in children.
Albert,
ReplyDeleteGood morning. So many issues to deal with.
1. An foetus (passed the embryo stage) should not be aborted once it can feel pain and a baby should not be kept alive once it can no longer show signs of pleasure. Greater minds than mine can determine the expert opinion on this and I would err on the side of caution to remain conscience free. Having thought about this, I do now appreciate why the debate revolves around the number of weeks of gestation.
2. I did think after I had written it, as you picked me up on, that obedience from dogs stems from their desire to please but dogs do know that to steal is 'wrong'. I suspect we still underestimate animals and man does terrible things to them. We will always exploit them but not to be cruel (as in gratuitous violence) to them should be a commandment in my book. You can still shoot them,just not throw them off cliffs, but yes, humans do have a higher intellegience.
3. I understand the point about about premising the value of the dog on the value of a human.
4. Finally, now, hang on. Lust should be defined as unrestrained or overwhelming desire. To condemn lust as never good is denying the acceptance of a basic human condition and you'll live your life under a veil of guilt. It is a common experience that needs to be controlled and accepted. Not necessarily acted upon, but recognised and allowed to blow through you, otherwise it may drive you crazy and leave you a bitter man.
I did not extend my argument to non consensual sex which on reflection, can never be justified (interesting as there are few absolutes in this world). The fact that God sometimes brings the good of a new human life from a bad act is a sign of his goodness and mercy, not of the goodness of the bad act Isn't that just what arises from a specific set of unfortunate conditions? Do you believe in fate?
Good evening measured! This is proving to be rather interesting!
ReplyDelete1.An foetus (passed the embryo stage) should not be aborted once it can feel pain and a baby should not be kept alive once it can no longer show signs of pleasure.
But surely a foetus doesn't show pleasure even when it is mature enough to feel pain? In any case, do you mean to argue for infanticide?
2. dogs do know that to steal is 'wrong'.
I don't think they do, it's just that experience teaches them that certain actions are followed by punishment.
4. Finally, now, hang on. Lust should be defined as unrestrained or overwhelming desire. But then you say It is a common experience that needs to be controlled and accepted.
I'm a bit confused: first you say it is unrestrained, but then you say it needs to be controlled.
Perhaps it would help to say that I am not condemning erotic passion (how could I? God invented it!), it is the departure of that passion from the order of reason that I am worried about. This is St Thomas' definition:
"Lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts" and I would intend to mean that by "lust". Given this definition, St Thomas says "Wherefore without any doubt lust is a sin" and in the words of Mrs Proudie "I agree with him" (with the caveat that I don't know what he means by "mode").
Now the really interesting bits:
Isn't that just what arises from a specific set of unfortunate conditions?
If you mean there are a set of conditions in which God is not involved in anyway, then I don't think that. God is not an additional agent in any situation, rather he is the reason there is a situation in the first place.
Do you believe in fate? Depends on what you mean by fate.
Albert,
ReplyDelete1. I was just looking at both ends of a spectrum - a foetus that will grow into a human being and a terminally ill baby.
2. Dogs appreciate ownership without a doubt. They also display empathy. Do you or have you owned a dog?
3. St Thomas's definition is a tad puritanical, Albert. I believe lust to be just a stronger form of desire and it is not a sin. It is an emotion which may give rise to sin, just as misguided love might. Do not condemn lust, but do not let it rule you. For example, is drinking alcohol a sin? Only if the habit becomes uncontrollable and adversely affects you and others. Do not live your life in purgatory (temporary punishment) or perhaps that is what the Catholic Church promotes.
4.He is the reason there is a situation in the first place. You are not blaming God for the sin of rape, are you? Surely this sin is borne out of man's weakness of the flesh?
5.In my opinion, the definition of fate is basically believing the existence of pre-ordained series of events. This leads to one to be fatalistic, as adopted by Sikhs I believe. It has huge disadvantages in my opinion. So, do you or does the Church believe in fate?
Measured,
ReplyDelete1. a foetus that will grow into a human being and a terminally ill baby.
I think a foetus already is a human being - it is ( = it's a being) and it is human, therefore it is a human being, and it is gravely wrong to kill innocent human beings, therefore abortion is always gravely wrong. Similarly, with the baby, why is his/her life less valuable and less worthy of protection because s/he can no longer show signs of pleasure?
2. We always had dogs when I was growing up. Yes they show empathy, but I do not believe they show evidence of abstract reasoning, which is what is at stake with morality.
3. St Thomas's definition is a tad puritanical, Albert. I believe lust to be just a stronger form of desire and it is not a sin. It is an emotion which may give rise to sin
I don't think definitions can be (or not be) puritanical. Judgments are puritanical, definitions are not. What Catholic teaching would be is this: sexual desire is, viewed in itself, good - it was invented by God. But like all good things, it can be misused, and you and I agree on that. I add further that its misuse comes when it violates the order of reason, and I call such acts lust (assuming they are purely internal).
The benefit of this definition is that it means we have a word to describe the kind of "mental" act that is sinful. As far as I can see, you acknowledge there are wrong "lustful" acts, but because you wish to use the word "lust" to describe both moral and immoral desire, you don't have a word left to name either immoral or moral desire.
I suspect our positions are not so different materially speaking. You say Do not condemn lust, but do not let it rule you. and I would agree, provided I can substitute "passion" or "eros" for "lust".
Do not live your life in purgatory (temporary punishment) or perhaps that is what the Catholic Church promotes.
Purgatory comes after this life so we cannot live this life in it. However, we can live a life of penance, though excessive and misguided penance is clearly unhealthy, joyless and lacking in gratitude to God.
4. You are not blaming God for the sin of rape, are you? Surely this sin is borne out of man's weakness of the flesh?
No, sin is by definition a violation of God's will, and it is therefore freely done by free agents. Rape is never God's will. However, that the rapist exists, is free, and has the power to rape is God's will. Similarly, no human life can arise without God willing it, since it requires the direct creation of a rational soul. So although the natural cause of the child is the evil rapist, the supernatural cause of the goodness of life arising from the rape, is God.
5.In my opinion, the definition of fate is basically believing the existence of pre-ordained series of events. This leads to one to be fatalistic, as adopted by Sikhs I believe. It has huge disadvantages in my opinion. So, do you or does the Church believe in fate?
The answer is quite complicated. In the sense you have described I would say no, because what you have said excludes freedom and responsibility. But insofar as all things happen within God's providence and his omniscience, then yes - nothing happens that "surprises God", since nothing exists or has the power to act independently of God (though this answer obviously requires teasing out a bit).
Albert,
ReplyDeleteOh my, you are on form.
"Lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts" Is there not judgment in this definition? Does not the word 'exceeding' suggest a value or measurement in place?
1. We agree to disagree.
2. You are probably right but evidence may be forthcoming to show I am right as I do think animals are underestimated.
3. Definitions are frequently relative. Also, you must acknowledge that it is very hard to deny attraction, but lust is evidently not a word you like. I think sexual desire sounds more erotic, but it is all much of a muchness, isn't it?
4. You are right; life should be seen as a gift from God if you believe in God.
5.Knickers in a twist. You can't have the best of both worlds....er, well, maybe you can. :-)
Oh my, you are on form.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are on form in a way that I am never on form: succinct! :-)
Is there not judgment in this definition? Does not the word 'exceeding' suggest a value or measurement in place?
It implies there is a standard by which to measure, but it does not measure it by itself, so there is no judgement in definition itself.
1. We agree to disagree. I'm not sure which I am agreeing to disagree about: (a) whether a foetus is a human being? (b) or whether it is wrong to kill innocent human beings?
you must acknowledge that it is very hard to deny attraction
Certainly, but we do have (some) control over what we turn our attention to.
4. You are right; life should be seen as a gift from God if you believe in God.
And if you don't believe in God, can it be seen as a gift at all?
5.Knickers in a twist. You can't have the best of both worlds....er, well, maybe you can. :-)
I don't wear knickers measured, so they cannot be in a twist. Therefore it is definitively proved that Catholics can have the best of both worlds.(!) ;-D
Albert,
ReplyDeleteExceeding is derived from in excess. Exceeding implies you have exceeded a standard or a norm or a limit. This word 'exceeding' is in St Thomas' definition. Therefore the definition by St Thomas is judgmental.
However, when you look at the modern use of the word lust, it is descriptive. For example, 'he looked at her with lust'. In my mind this is not an evil act. This is not a sin. St Thomas's definition of lust is outdated and your assertion that 'I don't think that lust is ever good since it implies an irrational desire to use another human being as an object not a person' is non sequitur. I appreciate that it stems from a narrow sinful view of lust, rather than "sensuous or passionate desire" as cited as a definition in my dictionary.
Finally, what I coming to appreciate is that it is an individual's decision to believe whether there is a God or not. Proof is not going to be present to me on a plate. Very intelligent people believe there is a God so whether you believe or not is not a reflection on your intelligence. I suspect Patently might think it is, but I am happy to agree to disagree with him on this. I do not know if there is a God or not, but encouraging humans to act more responsibly towards each other and animals is a good thing. Ahem.
I take the word "judgmental" to refer to the act of judging. I think St Thomas isn't doing this in his definition, he is simply giving us a standard by which we may judge.
ReplyDeleteSt Thomas's definition of lust is outdated
Certainly St Thomas' natural law ethics (which is what is really at stake here) are not so popular, but they are more popular now than perhaps they were in the period immediately before the Reformation. Really important philosophers follow St Thomas, like GEM Anscombe and Alasdair MacIntyre. Anscombe was one of the top thinkers of the 20thC and MacIntyre perhaps the most important ethicist alive.
your assertion that 'I don't think that lust is ever good since it implies an irrational desire to use another human being as an object not a person' is non sequitur.
Provided you accept my definitions of "lust" and "sin" it is not a non-sequitur but follows of necessity.
Finally, what I coming to appreciate is that it is an individual's decision to believe whether there is a God or not. Proof is not going to be present to me on a plate.
Probably not measured. Although the existence of God is accessible to human reason in principle, it is not something we normally grasp by human reason alone. On the other hand, you might be surprised by quite how good the arguments for God's existence are. Do you want me to outline some, or indicate where on the internet you can find them?
Albert,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. I look at all the links you provide and have learnt much. I am not as sceptical as I was, but I am not ready to take God seriously, unless you can provide me with definitive proof. I suspect others would have done that already if it was possible. I am sure we will chat again though.
Measured,
ReplyDeleteI am not ready to take God seriously, unless you can provide me with definitive proof.
It's been fun. Three things to conclude, firstly, see here for a useful article on the question of God. Secondly, what would count as definitive proof of anything? Thirdly, are you ready to take atheism seriously? What claims do atheists implicitly make, often without knowing that they make them?
Oh, Measured. Really. Have you not read enough HHGTTG?
ReplyDeleteAre you not familiar with Adams' proof of the non-existence of God, which he achieves by proving the existence of God?
The argument goes like this : "I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
ReplyDelete"But", says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? it could not have evolved by chance. it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
But this simply indicates my point: atheists (like Adams, Dawkins etc.) don't actually know what the word "God" refers to in classical theism. The existence of God
can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason
(Vatican I).
"Oh dear", says Adams' argument, "I didn't know that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of knowledge.
Reckon it is each to their own then, beliefs that is.
ReplyDeleteOr that it is hard to have a discussion about God until atheists learn that the god they don't believe in, theists don't believe in either (Doh!).
ReplyDelete