Can there be a “very good dog?”

June 23, 2018 11:58 AM

Kant didn’t believe a dog like Mu could think or distinguish between bad and good because she isn’t self-aware. For this reason, she is not moral. This view—which is known as human exceptionalism—persists today. But increasingly philosophers and scientists argue that animals are moral and that we humans may just be insufficiently aware of their inner lives to understand how or why they decide to do what they do.
posted by Johnny Wallflower (47 comments total)

They're good ethos, Brent.
posted by Celsius1414 at 12:03 PM on June 23, 2018 [22 favorites]

Omigosh the doggo has what very well may be the Best Dog Name:

Mu—whose full name is Tao Pi Mu—got her moniker from a Zen koan known as “the Mu koan.” It’s a philosophical riddle which has been around since the 9th century and asks, “Does a dog have Buddha nature?” According to Buddhist lore, a student asked this of Zen master Zhao Zhou and he replied, “Mu!” This reply (無) is alternately interpreted as Chinese for “no,” or “nothingness,” or the sound of a dog barking, in which case it might mean “yes.”

posted by fraula at 12:12 PM on June 23, 2018 [21 favorites]

Seems legit. I feel like sentience and all that goes with it has got to be a continuum across species. I mean, why wouldn't it be?
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 12:15 PM on June 23, 2018 [5 favorites]

I'm not sure if we've discovered exemplars of dog ethics, but in my house, the dogs' nicknames are Good Dog and New Dog, a.k.a. Original Dog and Extra Spicy.
posted by Wobbuffet at 12:23 PM on June 23, 2018 [9 favorites]

They're moral dogs, Brent.
posted by allegedly at 12:37 PM on June 23, 2018 [5 favorites]

I can't be the only one distracted by the dog eating the chocolate mousse.
posted by ardgedee at 12:50 PM on June 23, 2018 [4 favorites]

I had a very good dog, who nevertheless once ate an entire Easter basket full of Cadberry Creme Eggs...
posted by WalkerWestridge at 1:02 PM on June 23, 2018 [2 favorites]

In the same vein, I just finished reading Are we Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? and highly recommend it as a enjoyable takedown of human exceptionalism. Each chapter tears apart a previously held idea of how humans were thought to be outstanding when compared to animals -- tool usage, language, empathy, etc. I was more struck by how stubborn people are in trying to maintain superiority over animals than any specific animal capability.
posted by edgybelle27 at 1:08 PM on June 23, 2018 [17 favorites]

there is no inflection point
posted by lalochezia at 1:15 PM on June 23, 2018

Mugsy will get on the dining room table to look for snacks if you leave a chair pulled out. He knows he isn’t supposed to. He waits. Until all backs are turned. Because he knows.

He’s a good boy.
posted by middleclasstool at 1:17 PM on June 23, 2018 [5 favorites]

What a weird ending to the article though - it juat kind of stops.
posted by eustacescrubb at 1:17 PM on June 23, 2018 [1 favorite]

My very good dog is only mine because she once succumbed to instinct, killing and eating one of her former human companion's guinea fowls. I favor serendipity in the way humans become associated with non-human creatures.
posted by Agave at 1:21 PM on June 23, 2018 [1 favorite]

My dog is a better person than I'll ever be, and that's all I have to say.
posted by mikelieman at 1:22 PM on June 23, 2018 [7 favorites]

Seems legit. I feel like sentience and all that goes with it has got to be a continuum across species. I mean, why wouldn't it be?

I recently read Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? by Frans de Waal, and it was a fascinating look at how we define intelligence, how we evaluate it, the different forms it can take, and more. Highly recommended if you're interested in the topic.
posted by Orlop at 1:34 PM on June 23, 2018 [3 favorites]

Whenever the topic of animals and morality comes up, I have to think of this short TED clip about the sense of justice in capuchin monkeys (and according to the presenters also dogs, birds and other animals?).

Now I know that this does not equal morality but it's not unthinkable that there's a lot more going on in the brains of those wonderful creatures that we might like to think.
posted by bigendian at 1:36 PM on June 23, 2018 [8 favorites]

They're all moral agents, Bront.
posted by 1adam12 at 1:37 PM on June 23, 2018 [4 favorites]

Dog, sometimes I suspect you of holding with the Arminian schismatics.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:47 PM on June 23, 2018 [6 favorites]

I don’t think Kant meant that dogs don’t grasp concepts such as disobedience. He meant, approximately, that ideas like fining a dog for failing to file its tax return on time don’t make sense because these are matters that only humans grasp.

I don’t really think there’s a significant philosophical disagreement here, only a difficult scientific one about the detailed scope of animal cognition.
posted by Segundus at 1:50 PM on June 23, 2018 [4 favorites]

Guys, I've never really understood the concept of choice (and thereby "morality"?) :( No one chooses how they choose (how they choose), right? It's all inevitably conditioned, whether there's a static of felt indecision preceding it or not.

So in that sense I don't really see much of a distinction between dogs and humans. And I think dogs are clearly capable of something like felt indecision, inner conflict, etc.

I could maybe accept that if "God" etc exists, somehow God makes "freedom" possible in way that I can't actually understand, the way rocks can't understand perfume, but otherwise I'm confused :(
posted by CharlieCitrine at 1:54 PM on June 23, 2018 [3 favorites]

I know who I trust more to lead the country.
posted by adept256 at 1:56 PM on June 23, 2018 [6 favorites]

When I first viewed this video, I knew our current theories of animal cognition were inadequate.
posted by ambulocetus at 3:02 PM on June 23, 2018 [6 favorites]

My dog is fucking asshole. She very bright, strong willed, independent, and not particularly interested in making her humans happy. She’s part Basenji, sometimes called “the cats of the dog world,” and is she ever.

There is no question in my mind that she knows “good” from “bad.” She’s a damn genius at only doing the things that aren’t allowed when no one can see her do them. More often then not she gets caught because dogs, much like toddlers, don’t seem to realize that sound can travel around corners.

Still love her tho. And I’m as sure as I can be that she loves me and my family.
posted by Frayed Knot at 3:02 PM on June 23, 2018 [4 favorites]

FYI, the Kindle edition of Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are is on sale for $1.99 today.
posted by COD at 3:25 PM on June 23, 2018 [2 favorites]

My dog, Shaakedown, is the best part of my life. I'm never as at peace as I am when we're on our morning walk.

It's a very green, very large dog park and for most of the walk, I have no idea where she is. "Where's your dog?" people ask. "Wherever," I say. "Is she lost?" they ask. "Never. But sometimes I am," I answer. "Don't you worry?" they wonder. "Yes, but not about her." "So, she'll just find you?" "We have agreed upon meeting places," I say, and sit to wait until all the woodland creatures are simultaneously safe in their trees, or beneath the ground, and Shakes' work is done.
posted by dobbs at 3:25 PM on June 23, 2018 [14 favorites]

I realise this is a dog conversation, and I am a big dog person (Boxers, Alsations, Huskies, etc) but having a dog like that in the small place I live in now is unpractical, and would be cruel and unusual punishment for both the dog and me. So I have a cat. She's smarter than I thought she'd be. I can tell whether she's in "love me" mode or "I'm gonna scratch the hell out of your hand" mode just by looking at her eyes (expanded pupils means she wants to play-fight and draw blood). And just in the last week or so, we've had to teach her that she can't go outside at night anymore (after a neighbour complained to the council about her ... being in their yard, or something), but she's getting the hint and is not following me outside after dark anymore. So in summary, I think cats can be more intelligent than people give them credit for. Also, they can be complete arseholes.
posted by Diag at 3:42 PM on June 23, 2018 [3 favorites]

Yeah, dogs (at least the dogs I've known) don't seem to get lost in the woods very easily. Certainly less easily than me. They come back eventually, the only thing I worry about is being judged by other people for not controlling my dog. That's why when I walk the dog I tend to go to places where I'm unlikely to run into anyone else.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:52 PM on June 23, 2018 [1 favorite]

MY dog is a very good dog.
posted by Grandysaur at 4:02 PM on June 23, 2018 [1 favorite]

Leaving out mental illness like rage disorder, there are two kinds of dogs:

1. Good dogs with good owners
2. Good dogs with bad owners
posted by middleclasstool at 4:15 PM on June 23, 2018 [9 favorites]

probably dogs cannot be moral, by Kant's very rationalistic idea of morality
posted by thelonius at 4:51 PM on June 23, 2018 [1 favorite]

Unless they're purely theoretical, our ideas of ethics and morals are built around how we interact with other humans, i.e., in society. I don't think ti's much of a stretch to say that any animal that can act with deliberation, and can exist in a community, will have morals. Those morals might not look quite like ours, but why wouldn't we call them an ethos?
posted by pykrete jungle at 5:31 PM on June 23, 2018 [2 favorites]

We added a third dog to our household recently, and I've seen her intentionally apologize to one of our other dogs twice so far (her play is rougher than his and she accidentally freaked him out--though she's also learning and adapting her play style to the other two). It's one of the sweetest things I've ever seen in my life.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:49 PM on June 23, 2018 [12 favorites]

Mu—whose full name is Tao Pi Mu—got her moniker from a Zen koan known as “the Mu koan.” It’s a philosophical riddle which has been around since the 9th century and asks, “Does a dog have Buddha nature?” According to Buddhist lore, a student asked this of Zen master Zhao Zhou and he replied, “Mu!” This reply (無) is alternately interpreted as Chinese for “no,” or “nothingness,” or the sound of a dog barking, in which case it might mean “yes.”


... and now, criminy, forty years later, I know why Clarus the dogcow goes "moof".
posted by mwhybark at 7:46 PM on June 23, 2018

I think an argument can be made that in order to make moral judgments that have value, one has to be able to have thoughts about their own thoughts and reason whether or not they are appropriate. Most examples I've seen in animals show that they mimic something that we associate as being moral or immoral; but I'm curious whether we could ever show that animals have second-ordered thoughts that reason to certain conclusions aside from a first-order desire to act in a certain way, given a certain natural stimulus and perhaps their wiring as that particular type of animal.

The distinction is pretty important. The distinction is between an animal that seems to act good, but is doing it because they have a conflict between first-order desires (namely, wanting to go to the bathroom on the floor, but also not wanting a consequence -- so the stronger of the first-order desires wins), and humans being able to have thoughts about their first-level thoughts.

For example, I think one necessary condition for moral reasoning in humans is that when we come up against a desire in ourselves that we do not like, we can desire that that desire be different. This second-order ability leads us down a path or reasoning that thinks about whether and how I can interact with a propely basic desire such that I can change for the better, rather than just fundamentally struggling between competing desires, and the strongest desire wins.

What's even weirder, though, is that humans can also have tertiary desires (and even higher) that thinks about how I'm thinking about my desire. For example, as a thought experiment: is it possible that if I have a second-order desire that a first-order desire be different, I can act on it? This is a philosophical question of meta-ethics and is an example of having a thought about my second-order desire which is itself directed at a first-order desire. While it gets a little silly when you scale this indefinitely, it is enough to show that we can think such that it goes on even higher. For example, this comment itself is a fourth-level thought that is thinking abstractly about the possible value of having an opinion about my desire to change my first-order desire!

I find some higher level of reasoning about desires important to confer moral responsibility in humans. But an important distinction is whether there are times that we act morally intrinsically or whether we come to moral conclusions outside of their first-order desires. The second is important to our sense of justice and moral self-improvement as people, although we still find the first valuable when it shows up unbidden in humans apart from rational thinking. As such, some distinction between how we understand the word "moral" is undoubtedly important, and where any important overlap exists between those two possible senses and our animal friends.
posted by SpacemanStix at 8:01 PM on June 23, 2018 [12 favorites]

Flagged as fantastic, SpacemanStix. Thanks for that.

MetaFilter: thinking abstractly about the possible value of having an opinion
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:22 PM on June 23, 2018 [1 favorite]

I had a perfect dog conversation on the way to work a few weeks ago.

A young woman was out walking a young Shiba Inu. They got to the corner, the Shiba spotted me, adopted "the stance", and refused to move until I identified myself.
I let him sniff my fingers, then I stroked his chin and the nape of his neck.
"Good dog!", I said.
"He is", she agreed.
"Shiba Inus are really smart, aren't they?"
"He is... He is starting to think he can get away with things that he shouldn't."
posted by Multicellular Exothermic at 9:16 PM on June 23, 2018 [1 favorite]

cannot BELIEVE no one has done this properly yet

They're good dogs, Kant.
posted by nonasuch at 10:25 PM on June 23, 2018 [22 favorites]

I could maybe accept that if "God" etc exists, somehow God makes "freedom" possible in way that I can't actually understand, the way rocks can't understand perfume, but otherwise I'm confused :(

I hate to break it to you, but "dog" is "god" spelled backwards.
posted by mikelieman at 1:36 AM on June 24, 2018 [1 favorite]

The distinction is pretty important. The distinction is between an animal that seems to act good, but is doing it because they have a conflict between first-order desires (namely, wanting to go to the bathroom on the floor, but also not wanting a consequence -- so the stronger of the first-order desires wins), and humans being able to have thoughts about their first-level thoughts.

First level thought: I want to eat those meatballs.

Is a "Second level thought" like,

"Is he coming back soon, so I'd get caught eating meatballs?"

"He hasn't come back in [doggie timescale], so let's eat some meatballs?"

( example from the time I THOUGHT the meatballs cooling on the rack were far enough back on the stove for the dog not to get. I was obviously incorrect. )

( She's STILL a good dog. I screwed up and forgot that dog == "Stomach with Legs"... )
posted by mikelieman at 1:41 AM on June 24, 2018 [2 favorites]

> I find some higher level of reasoning about desires important to confer moral responsibility in humans. But an important distinction is whether there are times that we act morally intrinsically or whether we come to moral conclusions outside of their first-order desires.

So you're saying a good dog is not doing so out of goodness.
posted by ardgedee at 3:05 AM on June 24, 2018

Who's a good dog?
Whoah, that's a hell of a question.

posted by zamboni at 3:14 AM on June 24, 2018 [14 favorites]

I think an argument can be made that in order to make moral judgments that have value, one has to be able to have thoughts about their own thoughts and reason whether or not they are appropriate.

This seems to define morality only in terms of self, or meta-cognition; to me, a large component of moral behavior is that it’s behavior, i.e., things we do, rather than think, that affect other people.

My dogs don’t appear to meta-cognize at all—they do think, but I’ve never seen evidence of thinking about thinking. But that lack of meta-cognition also makes them profoundly other-aware, and they do notice and behave in ways that demonstrate concern about how their behavior affects the humans and other dogs around them.

I don’t think that Dog 3 apologized to Dog 1 because she was feeling regret after considering her actions, I think she saw that Dog 1 yelped, got scared and ran away, she didn’t like that, and went to him very gently and tentatively to offer back the toy she had snatched from his mouth. That awareness of and concern for other, to me, is a more clear sign of the emotional intelligence that is foundational for morality, moreso than thinking.

Assuming that morality or moral behavior can only come from or be made of meta-cognition seems to me to be observer bias, human beings projecting our mode of knowing the world outward.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:04 AM on June 24, 2018 [7 favorites]

Assuming that morality or moral behavior can only come from or be made of meta-cognition seems to me to be observer bias, human beings projecting our mode of knowing the world outward.

I would agree with this. I was hoping to summarize at the end (although I don't think I was very clear), that meta-cognition is one aspect of morality, and innate moral actions are also super valuable, for humans and for animals (for example, doing the right thing as a natural outflow of a rightly-directed affect is almost always superior than needing to be reasoned into it). So the thesis that there is moral behavior in animals is certainaly correct.

What I find to be pretty interesting is wheter there is a necessary condition for being moral as a human that may not find overlap with animals, and is qualitatively important. This is perhaps a different question that the aritcle was inititally addressing (and as such, something of a side dicussion), but I find the question to be supermely interesting. But for sure, the first is still an interesting question.

I love seeing virtuous activity lived out through animals. I know it's affected me in ways that I haven't been influenced by people or ideas. I've learned much about caring more for my fellow humans through having pets -- by experiencing both their altruism and vulnerability -- and it's something that totally took me by suprise.
posted by SpacemanStix at 4:13 PM on June 24, 2018 [3 favorites]

Anybody who has ever seen a Border Collie or heeler work knows that some dogs have an incredible work ethic.
posted by BlueHorse at 8:26 PM on June 24, 2018 [1 favorite]

CharlieCitrine's comment above, on choosing how to choose, is getting at the same thing Raymond Smullyan's classic "Is God A Taoist?" gets at.

To oversimplify a little, Smullyan's argument is that free will and sentience are the same thing. There is also recent research (which I can't find to link here) that indicates that sentience is more like a continuum than a binary (for example, many animals can feel pain, and many of them may be able to feel that they're feeling pain, and there is more of a gradual buildup of more and more complex feelings all the way to human perception, rather than an on/off switch). Combining those two (and connecting 'free will' to ethics generally), I think you could make a decent argument that dogs are capable of ethical acts, at a somewhat smaller scale than humans, but ethical acts nonetheless.
posted by acroyear2 at 8:33 PM on June 24, 2018 [2 favorites]

Who's a good dog?
Whoah, that's a hell of a question.

I printed a hardcopy of that cartoon when it came out four years ago, and it's still on my bulletin board. I utterly adore it.

And I just noticed, thanks to your link, that one can order a print. And so I shall. Thank you.
posted by Celsius1414 at 12:20 AM on June 25, 2018 [2 favorites]

I've learned much about caring more for my fellow humans through having pets -- by experiencing both their altruism and vulnerability -- and it's something that totally took me by suprise.

This, so much. I learn from my dogs nearly every day, and I had no idea that would happen.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:59 AM on June 25, 2018 [2 favorites]

I recently adopted a cat after being catless for over a year after my beloved Maine Coon died. That was tough and needed time to grieve. But in contrast to Maggie, who was endlessly tolerant, gentle and loving, Lacey is big and aggressive and full of intense energy, and is by far the most catlike cat I've ever had. She's very picky about when and where she wants petting, unlike Maggie who was shy but just loved being touched. She has no odd doglike traits that cat people love to go on about. Well, except she is fixated on me, but in a very intense way, like she isn't looking for approval but must know where I am at all times- that obsessive fixation is actually a cat thing, I guess. She talks but not meowing at me. She mostly talks in response to my talking to her, but with an earnestness like she's really trying to tell me something. She has something to say.

Like many cats her superpower is judgment, which is not a constant state with her but rather in response to what she perceives as a great injustice. Done by me. Like when I had to put away my copies of car insurance records she discovered and was triumphantly carrying around like she killed it. She brought it to me and was truly offended when I took the paper from her and put it out of reach, looked at me silently with big wide eyes like I was the parent who betrayed her. I've lived with a lot of cats over the years, but this one is so expressive and deeply troubled by perceptions of unfairness. She's pretty intense in general, and you feel her eyes burning your soul.

She had been in a couple different shelters for a while by the time I adopted her though, and she's only a year old and still adjusting to this life without overstimulation and chaos. Listed as not compatible with kids or other pets, which was true, and she's big and aggressive, but I think she was initially kept as a kitten by someone who didn't nurture or offer her much affection, possibly with many other larger pets or animals who were allowed to over-aggressively dominate and overpower her. Not totally sure, but unfortunately, that kind of neglect is pretty common out here, and she was probably given up pretty young. Then living in two different shelters for a while only made it worse. She is quickly adjusting and getting to trust much more easily, but she craves affection and human contact, and she has the traits of a cat who lived with many other animals from a young age and defended herself out of necessity from the beginning. Naturally, she's not afraid to call out injustice whenever she encounters it. Name and shame. Always me. But I get it.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:59 PM on June 25, 2018 [2 favorites]