Re: Libertarian views on dog breeding
- From: "Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:46:02 -0400
mireh wrote:
I know this is going to be a very minor subject, but normal people's everyday life is full of things like this, isn't it?
I would be very interested in opinions on the following subject: dog breeders reponsibility towards the dogs they breed. There seems to be a growing line of thought nowadays in certain circles of the dog fancy (breeders, people that does rescue, etc.) that says the breeder of a dog is forever responsible for the welfare of any dog he/she has bred, even if the dog was sold as a puppy long ago. Personally I think there is no doubt you are responsible for the welfare of any dogs that you own, but dogs you sold??? I believe breeders should try to sell the puppies to good responsible owners, but other than that, I do not think it is reasonable to expect breeders do anything else. Rescueing and taking back dogs you bred years ago would be a compassionate and charitable thing to do, but as such, voluntary and never mandatory!
Breeders are responsible for the dog's existence in the first place, so it might reasonably be argued that they have some ongoing responsibility. But I agree that a breeder does not have an indefinite unlimited responsibility.
Some dog breeders are including in their puppy sales contracts things like this: be notified in the event that the owners change their residence / the dog may not be given away or sold to a third party, but must be returned to breeder / defines the conditions under which the puppy must be kept / etc.
What do you think of this?
Breeders have a right to include whatever conditions they want; no one is forcing the seller to accept them. Some conditions seem reasonable since a dog is not just an inanimate piece of property, but a living being with some degree of sentience.
As far as the "libertarian view," on the subject, libertarianism is a political theory, not a complete moral theory. My own view is that animals with some degree of sentience are entitled to some degree of moral consideration. As Robert Nozick (arguably one of the most influential libertarian philosophers of the 20th century)put it:
"Animals count for something. Some higher animals, at least, ought to be given some weight in people's deliberations about what we do. It is difficult to prove this (It is also difficult to prove that people count for something!). If only the experiences of pleasure, pain, happiness, and so on (and the capacity for these experiences) are morally relevant, then animals must be counted in moral calculations to the extent they *do* have these capacities and experiences."
--Robert Nozick, _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_ (New York: Basic Books, 1974)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Libertarian views on dog breeding
- From: mireh
- Re: Libertarian views on dog breeding
- References:
- Libertarian views on dog breeding
- From: mireh
- Libertarian views on dog breeding
- Prev by Date: Re: Bad Constitutional Amendments
- Next by Date: Re: Libertarian views on dog breeding
- Previous by thread: Libertarian views on dog breeding
- Next by thread: Re: Libertarian views on dog breeding
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|