Moral Compasses 2

People are passionate creatures – we were created that way. Harness that passion and you have created a powerful force. Focus that energy through the lens of moral outrage and you have created a very potent tool. In this state of mind, reason and logic are all but irrelevant as those involved are concerned only with the “rightness or wrongness” of the cause they face; and as long as passions remain inflamed, there can be no meaningful dialogue or resolution. None are more determined (sometimes even dangerous) than those whose passions are driven by misguided religious or moral zeal. Throughout history, this dynamic has been known and often exploited by those who understand it’s power.

A dog-training group to which I once belonged had a convention called “MCS” which stands for Moral Considerations Suspended. The idea was to encourage participation in discussion without the harsh judgments and condemnations that usually flow from moral outrage. This convention was only partially successful; some were able to abide by the request for MCS, while others could not or would not. There is no doubt that a number of topics – including the animals we keep – are often the subject of intense feelings and sometimes heated debate.

After a particularly passionate debate had devolved into arguments over whether certain books should be banned, I decided to withdraw from active participation in that particular group. In that instance what had happened was that those who wanted to simply discuss the topic at hand found themselves (and their own personal viewpoint) under attack. Specifically others responding with passions inflamed, were critical of anyone who would even read such a thing let alone express such opinions. Such viewpoints, they proclaimed, should be banned along with any such books promoting such ideas.

At this point, rather than continuing to discuss the topic under consideration, I found myself getting ready to engage in a debate on censorship. I did not want to possibly end up spending more time and energy than I could afford, trying to reason with people that did not want to be reasoned with as they were already convinced of the moral rightness of their “cause.” Such people would not be open to listening to me or anyone else who held a view other than the one they held. Also, I did not wish to be associated in any way with a group that advocates banning books and censoring speech.

It was ironic that the timing of this particular discussion had taken place just a short time before the eleventh of November. Here we were, on the eve of Remembrance Day, talking of censorship. Had (have) we forgotten those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who willingly gave their lives in battle for our country. They fought in the name of freedom and recognized it for what it is – our most sacred and precious possession. They had valiantly faced tyranny and oppression so that we could speak, think and share ideas freely. Theirs was the expression, “I might not agree with what you say but I’ll fight to my last dying breath for your right to say it!”

I thought back to one of my high school teachers whose favourite expression was, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” and I realized how true this is. Tyrants, despots and dictators always start by removing people’s rights “for the common good.” It seems that in Canada we are being conditioned to gradually give up our individual rights and lose our freedom in order to further the causes of social engineering and political correctness.

In the discussion referred to above, the training methods and books written by William Koehler, “The Monks of New Skete,” and Carol Lee Benjamin were the focus of such “moral” outrage; though various works by other writers were also proclaimed undesirable and acceptable only for the “censor’s pit.” Would today’s “enlightened” authors – those whose views were held to as gospel (today) – be similarly destined for banning tomorrow by a new class of zealots? Once censorship starts, where does it stop?

There is an attitude prevalent, among some of the most zealous that precludes them viewing anything through the “lens of history.” They refuse to acknowledge the valuable contributions of those who have gone before and insist on making groundless and foolish accusations. To make this point clear, I will draw on my many years of experience in the dog training business...keep in mind however, this example can be applied today to most of the current “social justice” causes.

As it pertains to dogs, some of the most experienced and highly respected trainers, in our midst today, learned and practised the techniques of Saunders, Persall, Koehler, Self, Godsell and many, many others – and here’s a news flash – THE DOGS GOT TRAINED. For a group of neophytes to sit around and say it doesn’t work: that it will cause aggression, that it will ruin your relationship with your dog, etc., etc., etc. is foolish. It’s foolish simply because it does not acknowledge that the methods have already been proven to work on tens of thousands of dogs. Some may even argue the dogs were better behaved and more reliable (this would probably be the basis for a good study – if anyone were ambitious enough). This is not to say that methods cannot be developed and improved upon – but they had to start somewhere.

Discussions such as these serve to highlight an even bigger problem we are faced with...the suppression of truly open discussions in which all viewpoints are welcomed. One competent and able trainer came forward and confirmed that she is one (and I suspect there are many) who feels they must be careful about expressing certain viewpoints. She felt she had to qualify everything she said and worried about the fallout and criticism that she would face if she were to, ‘tells it like it is.’ This dynamic (where people feel they must explain and qualify in order to avoid rejection by their peer group) represents a very important discussion that, in my opinion, has to occur if we, as a group, are to ever acknowledge and benefit from the experiences of others. However, to this point, the idea of having frank open discussions (where all possibilities can be examined and all judgment confined to the question and not the participants) seems to be too threatening to some.

While reviewing that particular debate it occurred to me that this could go on for a very long time and possibly accomplish nothing. Perhaps we are not yet ready to really listen to each other. If so, maybe it’s time to become a bit more pragmatic and a little less consumed by ideology.

How we view our relationship with the animals in our care, and what we consider as our moral obligation to them, will be reflected in our beliefs about life in general. Whether or not one is a member of any particular religious group (for example) it seems to me that central to ones philosophy on life is the question of whether or not one believes in an intelligent, creative power that is greater than themselves. If you believe all life is here because of some giant explosion followed by just the right combinations of random acts, you might have radically different views than if you believe there was some intelligent design and creative force at work.

In the first instance you might view all life as equal, all actions as motivated strictly by self-gain and the concept of “rights” as something to which all ‘combinations of DNA’ are equally entitled. Since that philosophy does not include God, or any higher power, it would state that there is no ultimate moral authority and moral considerations, like all other motivations, stem from the self. On the other hand, if all life flows from a higher power (God), if life is somehow connected with and subject to that creative force, then our rights and responsibilities – our understanding of right and wrong – flow from that same higher power. Just to be clear, my personal beliefs put me within this second camp.

If one’s view is that there is no ultimate moral authority (outside of themselves) than all their moral considerations like all other motivations are self-determined and come from within. Under such circumstances the very foundation of their worldview and their whole value system would be very unstable and vulnerable. It seems to me that such an individual’s ‘moral compass’ could quite easily fall under the influence and control of any group or individual that is able to manipulate their emotional state and/or apply meaningful social pressure. As such groups or persons become (in effect) the moral authority, they gain tremendous power and control over the individual.

Such dynamics work in a similar manner at the group level as well. In larger groups of people, not everyone needs to be convinced, simply get enough people onside with your aims and you have the means to impose the control on everyone else. The best defence against this process is to insist in pursuit of the the truth and open honest discussion. Allowing all relevant facts and actual experiences (ie., the truth) to be discussed is threatening to those who desire to replace ‘freedom of choice’ with ‘freedom from choice.’

Believe it or not, this does have something to do with dog training! Dog training practices and discussions have been subjected to the same passionate focus as anything else having to do with the care and keeping of animals. This fact alone has made dog training vulnerable to the manipulations and subversive activities of various agendas and causes – not the least of which is the Animal Rights movement. If you think the Animal Rights agenda has confined itself to helping cute little fur seals on the ice flows off Newfoundland, you are mistaken.

The Animal Rights movement opposes all who value human life (above other forms of life) as well as anyone whose religious beliefs place man above the animals. Such individuals, groups and movements (in contrast to the Animal Rights movements that view human kind as blight upon the planet) see mankind as having a rightful place on this earth. These groups are, in fact, seen as the greatest threat to the successful conclusion of the AR agenda. It is interesting to note that a great many of the world’s major religions hold both the concepts of ‘dominion over’ and ‘stewardship for’ all that was created. It is also worth noting that most folks within the Animal Rights movement reject the concept of “intelligent design” and opt for “random chance.” They add their voice to all who attempt to deny, discredit, denounce and abandon the concept of any higher power. Acceptance of such a higher creative power makes their objectives illegitimate for it removes from them the moral authority that they covet.

It is my belief that man was created as a free moral agent – free to choose and responsible for his choices. In a free society, government receives any authority it may have, from the citizens and that authority is restricted with very definite limits. Government has no authority to shift those limits and take on more power and control for itself. Our rights, our freedom does not come from the good graces of the government. Allowing government any more than a very limited role - with clearly defined areas of responsibility - in a free society, will almost certainly lead to a gradual but progressive loss of individual freedom. Allowing special interest groups and social causes to gain their objectives through government legislation can only lead (ultimately) to friction and strife. I don’t want governments making moral choices for me and I certainly don’t want any Animal Rights group dictating laws and moral policy.