Western society is going to the dogs — literally and figuratively

Having complained about barking dogs last week, I want to turn more generally to the current dog mania that is plaguing the country, if not the West–to the point where dog rights are superseding human rights. When even dog owners themselves are complaining about this, you know there’s a problem!

To backtrack a bit, it’s important to know how we got here. Pet ownership, particularly ownership of dogs in the West, has long been a sign of status through the ages, but especially from the seventeenth century. British squires showed off their hunting dogs while their wives lavished affection on their various lapdogs, along with monkeys, squirrels and sometimes cats. There was also a growing awareness of animal rights through the eighteenth century and an accompanying concern about animal cruelty. As the famous Utilitarian Jeremy Bentham put it, “the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” Meanwhile, eulogies for pets took on a more sad and sentimental tone, rather than a playful one. (See also Kathryn Shevelow’s wonderful For the Love of Animals.)

Then, as now, wealthy aristocratic ladies brought their lapdogs everywhere, including church. In fact, this obsession with dogs–and especially on the part of women who seemed to care more for their dogs than their children — bothered the likes of early feminist Mary Wollstonecraft and Jane Austen alike: the latter would mock such women in her novel, Mansfield Park, in the character of the pug-fixated Lady Bertram who remains virtually oblivious to the unsavory activities carried under her own roof by her children.

With rising living standards over the centuries, more and more people beyond the affluent have been able to adopt or purchase pets. This is actually a good thing since pet ownership has numerous health benefits — and everyone, regardless of socio-economic status, should be able to enjoy them.

But unfortunately, with this growing fixation–if not worship of dogs–over the last three decades, there has also been increasing instances of dog-owning irresponsibility and recklessness. Partly to blame, no doubt is the rise of yippiedom in the 1960s–I’ll do what I want to do–crossed with narcissism and entitlement that took off during the latter part of the 1970s, the “Me” decade. The unfortunate intertwining of these trends is already terribly pervasive, but when combined with virtue signalling over animals, becomes downright dangerous. Here, I’m referring to the fact that society’s consideration for dogs trumps consideration for humans–even friends, particularly where one’s own pet is involved. And when dog lives take precedence over human lives, we need to think twice.

I will start off by saying this as the author of a textbook on the history of rights that your rights end when they infringe on mine. Most of us should have learned from middle school lessons on the Bill of Rights that individual rights are limited when they cause harm to others. For instance, you have freedom of speech–but less so when it involves fraud, obscenity, defamation, etc.

Now, let’s extrapolate that to the barking and sleep deprivation I mentioned last week. You have no business allowing your dog to bark at 3 am any more than I do to blast a Wagner opera or Metallica album at 3 am with open windows. Indeed, not long after I published my article last week, I found just the sort of typical dognutter selfishness that I complained about. Just take the example of Michelle Tedium, Teheux, or whatever, after she wrote a response to my article and blocked me:

Evidently, she either didn’t read or purposely chose to ignore my statements on the effects of sleep deprivation, which exacerbate mental and physical issues. In other words, Ms. Tedium cares more about dogs than humans. What if these people who poisoned or beat the dogs engaged in these desperate actions precisely because they snapped and couldn’t take it any longer?

But more serious, is the problem of dogs running unleashed, particularly those which attack people and terrorize neighborhoods–and the people who defend such behavior.

Is it right that a dog that has already fatally mauled a vulnerable child or elderly person gets to remain with the owner — and not immediately euthanized so as to prevent another attack? And why do we even allow situations where an entire neighborhood goes without mail sometimes for weeks because the postman/woman fears a loose dog? (Here’s another example.) Or what about a neighborhood terrorized by a number of loose dogs such that people fear venturing outside their homes for 6 years? (See this as well.) In short, why must humans suffer because of a single person’s or family’s dog-owning irresponsibility? If there is ever a reason for widespread retention and use of the second amendment, it would be for the sheer irresponsibility of dog owners. I have as much right to protect myself from a four-legged intruder and attacker as much as I do from a two-legged one.

Then there are double standards. A dog owner becomes upset because her dog was shot after it attacked and killed someone’s pet chickens: in other words, her pet is allowed to kill other pets, but hers has a right to life. What kind of selfish logic is that? And why are there dog owners who gleefully engage in violence against cats and, moreover, boast about it — but start whining and calling for the killing of a cougar or bobcat that finishes off a dog while prowling a neighborhood? Isn’t it the owner’s fault in the first place that their Fido was running around unleashed?

By now, some of you will be crying “OMIGOD! You hate animals!” And perhaps you’ll throw a few famous Gandhi quotes at me like: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” Or perhaps: “the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man.”

Not so fast. What few recall is that even for Gandhi, there were limits to protecting animals–especially potentially dangerous stray dogs. Like any rational person, he knew that dog rights or any animal rights could not supersede human rights. He once defended a mill owner in Ahmedabad who killed 60 stray dogs outside his mill which triggered off a debate on animal rights. In a letter, Gandhi considered the feeding of stray dogs “misdirected compassion,” calling it “a sin to feed stray dogs.” A far better solution was passing “legislation making every stray dog liable to be shot. Even if those who feed stray dogs consented to pay a penalty for their misdirected compassion, we should be free from the curse of stray dogs.”

This reply shocked and angered many since Gandhi was widely viewed as the apostle of “Ahimsa” — the principle of nonviolence towards all living creatures. Nonetheless, with solid common sense, he proceeded to explain that when someone dumps a number of stray dogs near where he lives, thinking he has saved their lives, that person has actually “committed the greater sin of putting my life in danger.” Moreover, “a roving dog without an owner is a danger to society and a swarm of them is a menace to its very existence.” In no uncertain terms, he reinforces the latter message with “Dogs will be killed whenever they are a menace to society. I regard this as unavoidable in the life of a householder. To wait until they get rabid is not to be merciful to them.”

So what does this have to do with our treatment of dogs in the West? It goes to show by Gandhi’s reasoning that these so-called defenders of dogs are anything but compassionate people. They may love dogs but disregard human beings altogether. In short, they are selfish and illiberal virtue-signallers.

The fact is we need stricter laws and policies on dogs that attack people unprovoked. They should be immediately euthanized in order to prevent another attack — which happens far too often when irresponsible owners get nary a slap on the wrist, for instance as in Broward County where a dog has repeatedly attacked others. As for barking dogs that cause sleep deprivation, there should be a warning on the first offense, followed by a $500 fine on the second, a $1,000 fine on the third, and finally, confiscation on the fourth.

Yes, I get that dog owners love their dogs. We all love our pets. But remember, it is humans who are the pillars of society. It is humans who build, cook, fix, heal, teach, write, and perform many other tasks. Not dogs — or cats, for that matter. A society that blatantly disregards human rights for animal rights is a doggone crazy one (pardon the pun) at the end of the day.