[iron_ball]

Peremptory answer: Dogs are our pets. Sheep are our dinner.

Peremptory answer redacted for inherent biases: Dogs are our slaves. Sheep are our murder victims.

Somewhat sympathetic answer: Sheep naturally flock together. The dogs just reshape and redirect the flock. "Dog-broke" sheep, as mentioned in the article, are used to the dogs and know they are not to be feared.

Sympathy-trumping counter-answer: given the steady destruction of sustainable farming practices in the face of agribusiness hegemony, why begrudge the local shepherds any extra source of income? At least these sheep aren't growing up in a tiny stall in a factory farm.

[noidi]

Here's an upvote for taking the time to answer instead of just clicking on an arrow.

Re: Somewhat sympathetic answer: I thought the reason sheep can be herded by a dog at all is that they are timid and easily frightened, and think of the dog as a predator. If they weren't afraid, they wouldn't defend themselves by flocking.

Re: Sympathy-trumping counter-answer, economic argument: In my opinion moral concerns outweigh economic concerns. Your mileage may vary.

Re: Sympathy-trumping counter-answer, factory farm argument: Harming animals is not justified by the fact that they could have been harmed even more. (Replace "animals" with "people" for plenty of potential analogies. I resist the temptation to write any of them out for the fear of sounding like a troll.)

[philwelch]

Harming animals is not justified by the fact that they could have been harmed even more.

For the most part, moral consideration to animal suffering is a consequence of utilitarianism--the idea that all moral duties revolve around minimizing the amount of suffering and maximizing the amount of pleasure in the world[1]. Most moral philosophers who take animal rights seriously (chiefly among them Peter Singer, if you're familiar with the name) are utilitarians. But a utilitarian is absolutely willing to cause small amounts of suffering to alleviate larger amounts of suffering, because it's a net positive in the "pleasure calculus".[2]

If you're not a utilitarian, then suffering isn't a morally relevant concern and you base your morality on something else, usually some set of universal rules and principles governing interactions between people.[3] These rules and principles tend to be reciprocal by design, only governing how moral agents treat other moral agents. Sheep aren't capable of moral agency, so even from a deontological perspective you are unlikely to come up with any sort of moral duty not to herd sheep with dogs.

Let's be clear here: I'm sure you could rationalize some type of moral system where it's wrong to herd sheep with dogs, and I'm wary of this discussion turning into an exercise to do just that. But I don't think that's the type of moral system you would ever naturally arrive at if you weren't being tendentious about that specific point.

[1] This is a naive kind of utilitarianism: Mill's utilitarianism also takes into account the quality, not merely the quantity, of pleasure or suffering involved, and there have been further philosophical refinements, none of which change the basic point here.

[2] http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=599

[3] The textbook example is Kant's categorical imperative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

[noidi]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Don't worry, I'm clearly out of my depth here, so I'm not going to debate you on this particular point any further -- you win. :-) (I still stand by my original statement, but I'm unable to put my point to words as well as you can yours.)

What bothered me about the article, and prompted my original, poorly worded, reply was the fact that dogs are treated with more empathy and respect than other kinds of animals (even to the extent of harming other animals to bring them joy). To me this humane attitude seems so intuitive that I feel like it is not so much consciously learned to be felt for dogs as suppressed for all other beings. I don't think there's anything special about dogs in particular since they are not given the same status in all cultures. It's not about their utility either (anymore): most people get dogs because they feel sympathy for them, and not the other way around.

As you seem to be knowledgeable about ethics, do you happen to know of any books that deal with this tendency of humans to strongly empathize with some animals while having no trouble harming others? I'd like to read more about the issue from any viewpoint, be it ethical, psychological, or cultural. I'd like to better understand my own, intuitive worldview, which departed from mainstream when I started thinking about these issues, as well as that of people who do not share it.

[philwelch]

It's not an ethical thing, more a cultural thing. White middle-class Americans are affectionate towards dogs. Other cultures eat dogs, or have the dogs fight for sport. Why the difference? That's actually an interesting question. Not one I'm equipped to answer, though.

I'd investigate your assumption that being herded by dogs causes sheep any harm or suffering, though. It doesn't really seem that obvious to me that it would.