Man and his (or hers) best friend?

[LetThereBe]

No, but why would anyone want to?

Sadism?

Anyway, yeah, if you don't see any kind of ethical problem with intentionally causing harm and suffering to others I don't think I can come up with any situation where this would be problematic.

[Angry Citizen]

Who would create life for the sole purpose of causing it pain? There would have to be other reasons behind it. Sadism just doesn't cut it for motive.

[Sean989]

I am glad you wish to say 'fuck you' to gravity but it has been doing that to us for a much greater length of time...your consolation seems hollow almost pathetic. Genetic science maybe doing the same in a few decades but it doesn't really challenge nature. On that note I would like to see you try say fuck you to a cyclone.

You concede that somethings may be beyond human ingenuity? I also don't believed I asked if artificial breeding was beyond us...I believe I pondered it's ethical implications and what it says about humanity.

[Angry Citizen]

On that note I would like to see you try say fuck you to a cyclone.

Sure, it's called concrete. The only reason we can't cyclone-proof an entire city is, well, cost. It's not above our ingenuity.

You concede that somethings may be beyond human ingenuity?

Not morally, but maybe technically - maybe.

[LetThereBe]

Who would create life for the sole purpose of causing it pain? There would have to be other reasons behind it. Sadism just doesn't cut it for motive.

I don't see what it matters. If there is no ethical problem even with that completely unrealistic motive of sadism, surely it won't suddenly become unethical if we introduce some other. I have trouble thinking of a motive that is worse than intentionally causing pain and suffering.

[Sean989]

It isn't ingenuous if you can't do it. Nature continually repeats processes that would cost billions and does it for free...is that not ingenuity?

You seem not to wish to discuss the questions I am asking but discuss humanity and it's 'growing' capabilities.

[barts]

Who would create life for the sole purpose of causing it pain? There would have to be other reasons behind it. Sadism just doesn't cut it for motive.

Fighting bulls for Spanish bull fights are raised to cause them pain, as are pit bulls for dog fights.

[barts]

Sadism just doesn't cut it for motive.

Sadism is, indeed, the motive in most sport and trophy hunting.

[brendand]

The dogs with the health problems may not have ever existed were it not for human intervention.

So, is it better to exist with a handicap or potentially not at all? I think society generally leans towards the former, particularly in cases of humans (with some exceptions, obviously). And since we can relate less with dogs' experience, we value genetic mutations that give us aesthetic pleasure at the expense of their ideal health (sometimes I look at a bull dog or chihuahua and wonder how those ever evolved from wolves).

I do not have any moral qualms as a dog's (or mutated wolf's) existence is not to the detriment of any other living being, including themselves. There is no reason to believe that they would have otherwise come into being as wolves anyway, so what exactly is the point of comparison with regards to quality of life?

[Sean989]

We genetically engineer these dogs with no thought of their health or quality of life for our own aesthetic purpose. Some have difficulty breathing, some have joint problems and in severe case some have their brains crushed which leads to impaired functions and eventually death. In these cases I believe it would be better the dog didn't exist at all.

Are we not picking and choosing what we see as acceptable and disregarding what we 'dislike'? Changing the very nature of our friends to suit us? What gives us the right to do so? And what does it say about humanity and it's 'love' of our canine friends?

[brendand]

We genetically engineer these dogs with no thought of their health or quality of life for our own aesthetic purpose.

While that may be true, the average dog lifespan is years longer than the wolves.

Some have difficulty breathing, some have joint problems and in severe case some have their brains crushed which leads to impaired functions and eventually death. In these cases I believe it would be better the dog didn't exist at all.

If the pronoun "some" referred to humans, I am guessing that your position would be different. I know my argument has shades of a straw-man, but it is predicated on my belief that dogs, like humans, should be allowed to exist regardless of the reason they were conceived, or on the basis that any family history that has shown a trend of a susceptibility to certain diseases. Most humans would not be able to exist without medical intervention in their lives at some point either...

Are we not picking and choosing what we see as acceptable and disregarding what we 'dislike'? Changing the very nature of our friends to suit us? What gives us the right to do so? And what does it say about humanity and it's 'love' of our canine friends?

It's true. We value aesthetics over other factors in some cases (even some humans procreate for purely aesthetic reasons). But let's face it, we wiped out the wolf population, and if all dogs were still wolves, what would their chances of co-existence be?

[Sean989]

I am not really concerned with the lifespans of dogs or wolves or even the breeding of dogs for human companionship. I am talking of the extreme breeding of certain types of dogs for their qualities in specific fields i.e. fighting and show dogs.

All human need medical attention every now and then and so do dogs...I am not trying to argue the opposite. I am saying some dogs are bred so extremely that their nostrils cannot take in the necessary amount of oxygen for more strenuous functions (which most dogs love to partake in) often bringing more health concerns. I attach this link to explain further what I mean:

BBC NEWS | UK | Pedigree dogs plagued by disease

Some humans may procreate for aesthetic reasons but in most (legal) cases THEY have the choice. I am not trying to say humans should have had no involvement in the breeding of dogs. It was necessary for the breeding of working dog but with working dogs in decline we continue to breed dogs for no other reason than our pleasures. Is this not wrong? And a blind spot for our morality and ethics? Or am I mad?