Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Orlanth wrote:
I can see both sides here. Yes dogs are not human, but I see no reason there cant be shared custody of a dog. So long as the custody law is clear it applies here to property not people.

Exactly.

Except the point of divorce law is to divide the assets of the divorcing couple. Not how to create a timeshare for their belongings. A literal, legal comparison would be dividing a cottage. Either the couple could determine how to divide the asset's use during divorce, or they can't. They can either agree on how to share it during separation settlement...

"We each get alternating access every two weeks, starting in January of this year. Ok? Yes? Good. Moving on."

or they can't, in which case they must sell the property and split the proceeds. [Assuming no pre-nup, etc]

"Up yours! If I can't have it, neither can you! Sell it for fair market value!"

So in the case of the dog, they can either agree how to split the time themselves, or they can agree to the financial value of the dog [say, $2000] and that value would come out of one party's settlement value.

Seems to me the judge is missing just one tiny little point:

Dogs (or wauw-wauw, as the wee 'un calls them), by and large, are better people than most, well, people.

(No, I'm not generally very sociable. Why do you ask?)

Dogs are incapable of moral behavior, and thus can't be "better" people than people. Humans invest our sense of loyalty and love into our pets, because they act in ways that remind us of how we act when loyal / expressing love for each other.

A human can love you, or hate you. A dog can only follow it's internal instinct cues and training. Dogs have instincts to be pack animals, so they share our "loving" behaviours. Cats don't. That's why cats are donkey-caves. Just jokes.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Dogs are incapable of moral behavior, and thus can't be "better" people than people. Humans invest our sense of loyalty and love into our pets, because they act in ways that remind us of how we act when loyal / expressing love for each other.

A human can love you, or hate you. A dog can only follow it's internal instinct cues and training. Dogs have instincts to be pack animals, so they share our "loving" behaviours. Cats don't. That's why cats are donkey-caves. Just jokes.

Er...dogs are pack. Their pack behavior is morality, and are infinitely better than most people.

I've seen a divorcing couple argue over the ashes of a cremated dog that neither wanted but just really didn't want the other to have. People can get quite petty and/or odd in a divorce.

 Orlanth wrote:
I can see both sides here. Yes dogs are not human, but I see no reason there cant be shared custody of a dog. So long as the custody law is clear it applies here to property not people.

Here in the States, in most jurisdictions, there is no "custody" of property.


In so-called "common law" States (when it comes to divorce and disposition of property), property acquired during the marriage is either divided up by the courts (if there is no agreement on who gets what beforehand between the two parties), or sold and the proceeds divided up between the two parties (usually in the case of real estate or high value property). In other States,unfortunately, one party can end up shafting the other by getting most or everything, leaving the loser (for lack of a better term) with little to nothing.


If this happened in North Carolina, for example, the judge would award the pet(s) to one party or another, or each party would get one of the dogs (once again, if there is no agreement between the two parties beforehand).


But it's good to see common sense is still valued by some in Trudeau's "It's the (insert current year here)" Canada. They haven't gone off the deep end yet.

There is a distinct difference between instinct and morality. A dog's instinct is to work as a pack. They benefit from this, and exhibit behavior similar to humans in that they make each other's lives easier. However, they have no moral compunction about tearing their prey limb from limb. They are incapable of empathy for the animal they shred, and may very well eat while it is still alive.

Extending this to "canines", in the wild an Alpha pair will kill the offspring of the non-alphas. If I'm the boss, I can't kill my employees' offspring to ensure better odds of survival for my own children.

A dog is incapable of morality. I can choose to not eat an animal, because I don't feel like it's the moral thing to do. I mean, I do eat animals. They're delicious. But that's a moral issue I am able to decide for myself. A dog can't do that. Dogs engage in behaviors that are similar to the behaviors of loving humans, but that does not equal love. Love is chosen, and directed. Love can change. A dog is a pack animal. It's instincts cause it to act that way. Not a chosen behavior.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Dogs are incapable of moral behavior, and thus can't be "better" people than people. Humans invest our sense of loyalty and love into our pets, because they act in ways that remind us of how we act when loyal / expressing love for each other.

A human can love you, or hate you. A dog can only follow it's internal instinct cues and training. Dogs have instincts to be pack animals, so they share our "loving" behaviours. Cats don't. That's why cats are donkey-caves. Just jokes.

You sure fellow collection of chemical reactions that morality is more than instincts given various extra labels in order to maintain pack mentality?

 greatbigtree wrote:
There is a distinct difference between instinct and morality. A dog's instinct is to work as a pack. They benefit from this, and exhibit behavior similar to humans in that they make each other's lives easier. However, they have no moral compunction about tearing their prey limb from limb. They are incapable of empathy for the animal they shred, and may very well eat while it is still alive.

Extending this to "canines", in the wild an Alpha pair will kill the offspring of the non-alphas. If I'm the boss, I can't kill my employees' offspring to ensure better odds of survival for my own children.

A dog is incapable of morality. I can choose to not eat an animal, because I don't feel like it's the moral thing to do. I mean, I do eat animals. They're delicious. But that's a moral issue I am able to decide for myself. A dog can't do that. Dogs engage in behaviors that are similar to the behaviors of loving humans, but that does not equal love. Love is chosen, and directed. Love can change. A dog is a pack animal. It's instincts cause it to act that way. Not a chosen behavior.

You assume all behavior is instinctual and that we are somehow more advanced. I'd disagree strongly on both fronts, but thats not relevant here and would only eventually demonstrate why view dogs as better than 99.9% of people.

 greatbigtree wrote:
There is a distinct difference between instinct and morality. A dog's instinct is to work as a pack. They benefit from this, and exhibit behavior similar to humans in that they make each other's lives easier. However, they have no moral compunction about tearing their prey limb from limb. They are incapable of empathy for the animal they shred, and may very well eat while it is still alive.

I think all of human history would show that morality is the thinnest of paper barriers. Otherwise we wouldn't tear each other apart for morale causes. Humans eat are rend animals while still alive without empathy daily. Humans murder humans without empathy daily.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Extending this to "canines", in the wild an Alpha pair will kill the offspring of the non-alphas. If I'm the boss, I can't kill my employees' offspring to ensure better odds of survival for my own children.

Humans will sell each other out daily without even giving it a second thought. "Our children before them", "our country before their's", "not my taxes"....etc etc etc

 greatbigtree wrote:
A dog is incapable of morality. I can choose to not eat an animal, because I don't feel like it's the moral thing to do. I mean, I do eat animals.

Can you actually?

 greatbigtree wrote:
They're delicious.

I'm guessing no you do not actually make an conscious decision in light of morality. Your just following you drive to eat the easiest way possible.

A dog is incapable of engaging in a hunger strike.

A dog is incapable of suicide bombing... technology issues aside... a dog is incapable of destroying itself to achieve a "moral" objective.

A dog is incapable of charity, outside it's own pack.

A dog is incapable of choosing an action that would self-terminate.

A dog could not choose to end the suffering of another animal by killing it, simply to end it's suffering.


Morality is not a barrier. But it is a choice. A conscious decision that a dog is incapable of making. Some humans murder each other, yes. Some dogs murder each other. But a human makes a conscious choice. A dog kills to eat or for defense. Or to practice hunting.

I do, in fact, eat animals despite a small moral objection. It is a moral decision I've made. I consider the impact of ending other lives to facilitate my own. I'm currently thinking about it a fair deal. I've recently made the acquaintance of a non-donkey-cave vegetarian, and can possibly see myself changing my decision to eat meat, and attempt a vegetarian lifestyle. It certainly wouldn't hurt my health.

A dog can not decide to stop eating meat. It will eat non-meat out of necessity, or convenience, but it would not willingly suffer health issues at the expense of eating meat. A human can do that.

Ok lets go there.

 greatbigtree wrote:
A dog is incapable of engaging in a hunger strike.

So am I. I've not seen a dog run a van into a crowd in Berlin. Never saw dogs herd other dogs into ovens.

A dog is incapable of suicide bombing... technology issues aside... a dog is incapable of destroying itself to achieve a "moral" objective.

So a dog is more morale than a person. Excellent. you admit it already.
Of course Russian dogs blew up Hitlerite tanks.

A dog is incapable of charity, outside it's own pack.

I'm incapable of charity outside my own pack. How exatly would it provide larger charity? Dog treats for the poor?

A dog is incapable of choosing an action that would self-terminate.

Except for Russian dogs.
Statistically dog pairs, when one dies it is highly likely the other will die within 3 months.

A dog could not choose to end the suffering of another animal by killing it, simply to end it's suffering.

Sure it could choose that. UNless you have dog esp and TBone's big book of the history of dogs your statement is utterly unproveable.

Morality is not a barrier. But it is a choice. A conscious decision that a dog is incapable of making.

Opinion based on facts no in evidence your honor.

Some humans murder each other, yes. Some dogs murder each other. But a human makes a conscious choice. A dog kills to eat or for defense. Or to practice hunting.

Which means they are obviously superior.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Dogs are incapable of moral behavior, and thus can't be "better" people than people. Humans invest our sense of loyalty and love into our pets, because they act in ways that remind us of how we act when loyal / expressing love for each other.

A human can love you, or hate you. A dog can only follow it's internal instinct cues and training. Dogs have instincts to be pack animals, so they share our "loving" behaviours. Cats don't. That's why cats are donkey-caves. Just jokes.

I remember when people believed dogs were not self-aware. This fact justified our treatment of them as property. Then we discovered they actually are sentient, as are many other animals. Now it is human intelligence that justifies our superiority.

Ever think that maybe all of human civilization is simply the natural result of human instinctual behavior?

We use tools better. thats it.

 greatbigtree wrote:
A dog is incapable of engaging in a hunger strike.

Use Google

 greatbigtree wrote:
A dog is incapable of suicide bombing... technology issues aside... a dog is incapable of destroying itself to achieve a "moral" objective.

Neither do terrorists, in fact in studying terrorism you would learn that the dying part of a suicide attack is rarely on the mind of the attacker. They don't even see it as suicide, even remotely. They are not even choosing self termination. In fact it is exactly the same as when a Chihuahua charges the burglar in your home. A suicide attack is not a suicidal terrorist, they are just using the best method they know for protecting their....pack. With some suicide attacks the attacker isn't even aware they will die and even attempt to survive the attack.

 greatbigtree wrote:
A dog is incapable of charity, outside it's own pack.

Prove that.

 greatbigtree wrote:
A dog is incapable of choosing an action that would self-terminate.

Prove that.

 greatbigtree wrote:
A dog could not choose to end the suffering of another animal by killing it, simply to end it's suffering.

Prove this one too.

 greatbigtree wrote:
A dog can not decide to stop eating meat. It will eat non-meat out of necessity, or convenience, but it would not willingly suffer health issues at the expense of eating meat. A human can do that.

Dogs are omnivorous they choose to not eat meat all the time. It like you eats out of convenience. There are vegan dogs lol. Until you are vegan, you will never be able to know if you are actually making a choice or a constructed illusion of choice.

There are vegan dogs lol.

I don't buy that. I do believe a dog can be trained in such a way, either on purpose or just mimicing their owner, but I don't believe dogs are born that way.

Until you are vegan, you will never be able to know if you are actually making a choice or a constructed illusion of choice.

Being a vegan is no more an illusion than any other choice. If one wants to be one fine but it doesn't do well to just just make gak up to feel better about the choice.

 Ahtman wrote:

There are vegan dogs lol.

I don't buy that. I do believe a dog can be trained in such a way, either on purpose or just mimicing their owner, but I don't believe dogs are born that way.

Nobody is born that way. It is a specific diet style. The point was they can be vegan an live very long lives without complication or resentment.

PS Vegan dogs are tasty.

 Ahtman wrote:

Until you are vegan, you will never be able to know if you are actually making a choice or a constructed illusion of choice.

Being a vegan is no more an illusion than any other choice. If one wants to be one fine but it doesn't do well to just just make gak up to feel better about the choice.

I hadn't the need to go into that. My eventual point would have been only people capable of choosing to be vegan can be vegan. In other words humans don't actually make morale choices just morale illusions.

 Ahtman wrote:

There are vegan dogs lol.

I don't buy that. I do believe a dog can be trained in such a way, either on purpose or just mimicing their owner, but I don't believe dogs are born that way.

What choices do you believe that humans are born having made?

 Pouncey wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Dogs are incapable of moral behavior, and thus can't be "better" people than people. Humans invest our sense of loyalty and love into our pets, because they act in ways that remind us of how we act when loyal / expressing love for each other.

A human can love you, or hate you. A dog can only follow it's internal instinct cues and training. Dogs have instincts to be pack animals, so they share our "loving" behaviours. Cats don't. That's why cats are donkey-caves. Just jokes.

I remember when people believed dogs were not self-aware. This fact justified our treatment of them as property. Then we discovered they actually are sentient, as are many other animals. Now it is human intelligence that justifies our superiority.

Ever think that maybe all of human civilization is simply the natural result of human instinctual behavior?

There is a difference between self-aware and sentient. Dogs are sentient. They are not self-aware.

Good ruling by the judge. If shared custody is so important they should be able to have a contract drawn up and notarised, to make it binding.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Dogs are incapable of moral behavior, and thus can't be "better" people than people. Humans invest our sense of loyalty and love into our pets, because they act in ways that remind us of how we act when loyal / expressing love for each other.

A human can love you, or hate you. A dog can only follow it's internal instinct cues and training. Dogs have instincts to be pack animals, so they share our "loving" behaviours. Cats don't. That's why cats are donkey-caves. Just jokes.

I remember when people believed dogs were not self-aware. This fact justified our treatment of them as property. Then we discovered they actually are sentient, as are many other animals. Now it is human intelligence that justifies our superiority.

Ever think that maybe all of human civilization is simply the natural result of human instinctual behavior?

There is a difference between self-aware and sentient. Dogs are sentient. They are not self-aware.

Good ruling by the judge. If shared custody is so important they should be able to have a contract drawn up and notarised, to make it binding.

Being self-aware is a component of sentience, actually.

 Pouncey wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Dogs are incapable of moral behavior, and thus can't be "better" people than people. Humans invest our sense of loyalty and love into our pets, because they act in ways that remind us of how we act when loyal / expressing love for each other.

A human can love you, or hate you. A dog can only follow it's internal instinct cues and training. Dogs have instincts to be pack animals, so they share our "loving" behaviours. Cats don't. That's why cats are donkey-caves. Just jokes.

I remember when people believed dogs were not self-aware. This fact justified our treatment of them as property. Then we discovered they actually are sentient, as are many other animals. Now it is human intelligence that justifies our superiority.

You remember all the way back to 2012, good for you.
Until 2010 the official position of the AVMA was that displays of pain by animals are not corollary to mental events of pain.
The first official position of scientists stating that at least a very large portion of 'higher' mammals are conscious is the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.

Concerning the OP, I think this is a wasted opportunity to elevate the degree of protection given to companion species, and create a secondary category, somewhere between familial rights and property rights, which covers them. If the judge had not been so busy going reductio ad absurdum on everyone's asses, he might have noticed that the decision of allocating custody in the context of a familial dispute is to find the most advantageous position for the child, the one person who CAN'T look after his own interest. Well guess what, dogs and kids have that in common, parents are going to gak all over their future out of spite.

Sentience refers to perception-pain, etc-dogs feel pain, are sentient.
Self-awareness is the recognition of self as an individual-dogs do not do this by our current metrics, very few animals do.
Thus, not self aware.

EDIT: apparently new tests are indicating dogs may have a measure of self-awareness. Still preliminary.

Well, let me know when scientists confirm the latest justification for treating other species as lesser beings based on arbitrary human-centric criteria. I'm pretty sure those goalposts are just gonna keep being moved forever.

Oh the foolishness one feels when remembering who they are responding to then realizing how silly it is to do so.

 Pouncey wrote:
Well, let me know when scientists confirm the latest justification for treating other species as lesser beings based on arbitrary human-centric criteria. I'm pretty sure those goalposts are just gonna keep being moved forever.

Welcome to having a functioning society. You can not give a cockroach the same moral rights as a person and still have anything resembling a viable system.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Well, let me know when scientists confirm the latest justification for treating other species as lesser beings based on arbitrary human-centric criteria. I'm pretty sure those goalposts are just gonna keep being moved forever.

Welcome to having a functioning society. You can not give a cockroach the same moral rights as a person and still have anything resembling a viable system.

Of course not. That'd be absurd and most other species wouldn't understand what the hell was going on anyways.

Most other species on the planet treat their own species as their own. A lion pride doesn't expect a tigress to fit in, after all.

But really, it's possible to say, "Human rules are for humans, not for other species, thus we do not treat other species the same way we do humans" and not also imply, "Non-human species are inferior."

 Pouncey wrote:
But really, it's possible to say, "Human rules are for humans, not for other species, thus we do not treat other species the same way we do humans" and not also imply, "Non-human species are inferior."

It's possible, but why would I want to do it? A cockroach is inferior to me, and I don't feel any need to believe otherwise.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
But really, it's possible to say, "Human rules are for humans, not for other species, thus we do not treat other species the same way we do humans" and not also imply, "Non-human species are inferior."

It's possible, but why would I want to do it? A cockroach is inferior to me, and I don't feel any need to believe otherwise.

Kinda why I hate humans, really.

We're extremely arrogant and self-important, believing ourselves the universe's finest creations.

The universe might be better off if we went extinct before starting to spread beyond our own planet.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
But really, it's possible to say, "Human rules are for humans, not for other species, thus we do not treat other species the same way we do humans" and not also imply, "Non-human species are inferior."

It's possible, but why would I want to do it? A cockroach is inferior to me, and I don't feel any need to believe otherwise.

I find it interesting that you believe your superior to a cockroach. What is it about you that makes you superior exactly? Is it your ability to determine that you are not contributing anymore to the world than a cockroach is?