# Ethical Breeding.



## Fraction

Lately I've been thinking a lot about the ethical/unethical aspects of mouse breeding. There are some varieties which, it seems, predispose the mice to certain illnesses/defects, or can even cause them to die. I'm thinking of the lethal yellows (health abnormalities, often infertile), american brindles (heart problems, obesity, etc), english brindles (anemia in males--causes death); and there's probably others, too.

Would you ever breed mice from these varieties, if you knew that they were so predisposed to such problems?

In the dog world, breeding two merle dogs will result in 25% chance of double merles; which have huge problems, are often blind and/or deaf, and some even die very young. Breeding double merles is seen by most people as deliberately and needlessly cruel.

I'm just curious as to whether such things are frowned upon in the mouse fancy, too. Obviously this is not intended to start any wars or provoke anyone; I'm just wondering about the ethical implications of purposefully creating animals that could very well have shortened lifespans or serious health problems.


----------



## AyJay658

I know double variegated mice are born anemic. And they die too.


----------



## Laigaie

In the dog breeding world, culling by euthanasia is considered unacceptable breeding practice. I feel like this is the major difference between the two. In the dog breeding world, you DO breed breeds that are known to have health problems, though ethical breeders do breed toward healthier animals, and those in show rings are almost always by far healthier than any members of the breed you could find through the paper. The physical characteristics required by the show standard requires a physique that's often quite demanding on the dog. Show me a Great Dane or an Irish Wolfhound who lives as long as a Dachschund, and you've shown me a very short-lived Dachschund. Then again, both the Wolfhound and the Dachshund will be taking medication for their hips well before they leave us. You just don't breed in ways that will knowingly make animals that need to be put down.

With mice, because it's considered perfectly ethical to euthanize animals that will not be used for breeding, knowingly creating animals which need to be put down is nothing different from any litter. I honestly never believe when I see a pregnant doe that she will only have exactly six female babies. I put buck and doe together knowing she'll produce male pups, and knowing that she'll probably produce more female pups than she'll keep, to. Am I being unethical by using good breeding practices? Does this make it unethical to breed mice at all? I don't think so. Some people do, but I don't. Once you've accepted that half the litter is going to be pts upon birth, knowing that you're going to have to pts some animals because of a genetic condition is really nothing different. Being male is a genetic condition, too.

Also, American brindles have heart problems? Some of your listed abnormalities are new to me. The health abnormality of lethal yellows with which I'm familiar is the re-absorption of Ay/Ay fetuses. Then again, I don't breed either variety.


----------



## Frizzle

I typed to slow, laigaie worded it pretty much perfect.


----------



## Fraction

Interestingly, Laigaie, you actually highlighted a lot of problems I have with the dog show world too. I'm not a huge fan of show breeders (though they are, I guess, a cut above BYBs and puppy mills), and I do think a lot of them are unethical. For instance, using my double merle example, there was a show breeder quite recently who purposefully bred a double merle dog in order to use him as a sire for other merle dogs. She barely received any flak for it in the show world--which is disgusting IMO.

The comparison between dogs and mice in the acceptability of euthanasia is interesting. I think the rat fancy lies somewhere between these; some vehemently against euthing babies at birth, others doing it as par for the course as in mice litters. You've given me something interesting to think about though!



> Also, American brindles have heart problems? Some of your listed abnormalities are new to me. The health abnormality of lethal yellows with which I'm familiar is the re-absorption of Ay/Ay fetuses. Then again, I don't breed either variety.


I couldn't remember the specific varieties that I knew were linked to illness/death, so I got the ones I used off of thefunmouse.com variety information pages. Their health subsections, specifically.


----------



## Jack Garcia

I currently breed or have bred those varieties. Animals are legal property and by-and-large are treated as such. Excepting cases of extreme cruelty to some specific species (such as setting a kitten on fire or microwaving a puppy) but not most others, we are free to do what we please with our own animals, including killing them, eating them, and turning them into clothing. The vast majority of animals have little or no legal standing and few or no legal rights. Few cry when you swat a fly because we understand that flies are not people. The issue as I frame it is thus not about the individual animals themselves and their predisposition to X, Y, or Z, as much as my legal right to do as I please with my own property, my own livestock.



> In the dog breeding world, culling by euthanasia is considered unacceptable breeding practice.


Really, it's not. _Talking about it_ is considered unacceptable. People still do it and have for a very long time.



> The health abnormality of lethal yellows with which I'm familiar is the re-absorption of Ay/Ay fetuses.


Ay/Ay mice do die in utero and are re-absorbed, but _all_ Ay/* mice are, qua Ay/*, prone to diabetes, obesity, reproductive abnormalities (sometimes including cannibalism and infertility), and facial deformities affecting mandible size, shape, and function (see here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19644225). These are well-documented in the scientific literature and are some of the reasons why they're considered _Qualzuchten_ (literally "the suffering breeds") in German-speaking countries and most people there stay away from them.


----------



## Jack Garcia

If you read High German, this is an interesting page about "the suffering breeds:" http://www.farbmaus-rassezucht.de/farbm ... rbmaus.htm

And here is a piece of literature discussing the Ay-linked tumors, diabetes, obesity, and so on: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 7-0017.pdf

Keep in mind that many of the problems science has found would not necessarily be easily seen by us (hobbyists), because we don't routinely run blood panels, check cholesterol, do vision tests, listen to heartbeats, and so on. But they're there and can't be bred away from without losing the allele in question altogether (that's unfortunately what they're doing in Germany, by slowly replacing Ay/* with dark e/e).


----------



## Rhasputin

I believe recently the UKC put into act, a rule about not culling pups for cosmetic reasons. I don't know the specifics, or if it is a club rule, or law, but just throwing that out there.


----------



## SarahY

I also keep a "suffering breed", my marten sables which are dominant red based. The problems scientists have highlighted with dominant red are not a problem for me as a suffering mouse is dispatched as soon as it's found to be suffering. Although saying that, my martens have no more difficulty reproducing (or indeed living) as my other varieties.

I do consider the pet homing of these types of animals unethical though. It is sad to think that an unsuspecting pet owner would lose their much loved pet earlier in life than if they had a mouse of a different variety. Actually, I consider pet homing of any of my own mice unethical though simply because I don't know the long term health. I don't keep my mice into old age, so I can't say to a prospective pet owner "the mice in this line regularly live to over two years old".


----------



## Jack Garcia

Casey, those types of club rules don't really mean anything because the birth and the dispatch of unwanted puppies takes place inside people's homes, behind closed doors. Nobody from the club is there watching to see if the baby was dead at birth, or if Fluffy really had 6 puppies instead of 4.

Rhodesian Ridgebacks are one breed where culling is actually not uncommon. Babies born without ridges are often euthanized rather than adopted by pet owners who don't understand the breed, or rather than kept and not wanted or loved. Framed in those terms, I support a person's right to euthanize their own animals because they're doing it for legitimate reasons that ultimately further the breed while keeping unwanted dogs from being adopted out willy-nilly.

I had a breeder of dogs (I won't say which breed, because it would undoubtedly cause a flame war) who knew that I bred mice discuss mouse culling with me once, and she said she had never euthanized a healthy puppy but knew others who had. It's just kept _really_ quiet because people love dogs so much and emotions surrounding the issue can so easily get out of control.


----------



## Stina

> Interestingly, Laigaie, you actually highlighted a lot of problems I have with the dog show world too. I'm not a huge fan of show breeders (though they are, I guess, a cut above BYBs and puppy mills), and I do think a lot of them are unethical. For instance, using my double merle example, there was a show breeder quite recently who purposefully bred a double merle dog in order to use him as a sire for other merle dogs. She barely received any flak for it in the show world--which is disgusting IMO.


Just b/c someone breeds for show, does not make them an ethical breeder. There most certainly are unethical show breeders out there with champion dogs....and believe me, the rest of the people in the breed know who they are, but may "play nice." I imagine the situation with the double merle you are referring to was such a case of people "playing nice." There is SOOOOOO much drama in the dog world already, that a lot of times people just don't want to add to it publicly.....a lot of things get said behind the scenes to other breeders and people involved in the breed that never make it public.

I have not (as of yet) bred dogs myself....but my husband and I have 2 show dogs of different breeds, and are friends with some good breeders, so we see/hear a lot of behind the scenes stuff. One of our dogs we have pretty much decided not to breed (she has food allergies and her temperament is not 100% what we'd like to see)....the other we hope to breed eventually, but it will depend on how she matures.


----------



## SarahY

I could never breed dogs; I value dogs far above people and I am SOOOO mistrustful and suspicious of people wanting puppies. I can never believe that someone who wants a cute little puppy really wants an adult dog for the next 10-15 years :lol: I am grateful for people who do breed dogs (properly and ethically!) though, because without them we wouldn't have any dogs!


----------



## Jack Garcia

Stina said:


> Just b/c someone breeds for show, does not make them an ethical breeder. There most certainly are unethical show breeders out there with champion dogs....and believe me, the rest of the people in the breed know who they are, but may "play nice." I imagine the situation with the double merle you are referring to was such a case of people "playing nice." There is SOOOOOO much drama in the dog world already, that a lot of times people just don't want to add to it publicly.....a lot of things get said behind the scenes to other breeders and people involved in the breed that never make it public.


Replace "dog" with "mouse" and the above statement is still 100% true!


----------



## Shadowrunner

I believe that culling a healthy animal is perfectly fine for any reason so long as tt's done humanely, with respect.

But that's my opinion. Other people will think differently.

I have been told that blacks on the other side of the world are known for being weak, and dropping dead.
Indeed I have had a few do that. But I had assumed it was something I just couldn't see on the necropsy.

I wonder what that's about.

In any case your merle/merle example.
Maybe it does suck, that the dog may suffer. But I'm not sure if deafness(I think that was a listed symptom)
is something that causes suffering. It might be a hindrance but it's not painful. That would be the most effective way to make sure you have a litter of merles. *shrug* But I'm not a dog breeder, and never have been so I'm not familiar with the nuances.


----------



## Fraction

Shadowrunner said:


> In any case your merle/merle example.
> Maybe it does suck, that the dog may suffer. But I'm not sure if deafness(I think that was a listed symptom)
> is something that causes suffering. It might be a hindrance but it's not painful. That would be the most effective way to make sure you have a litter of merles. *shrug* But I'm not a dog breeder, and never have been so I'm not familiar with the nuances.


There's a blog post on the case in question here. He is blind and deaf and has poor movement, but they bred him deliberately and have used him as stud. IMO it borders on cruelty to purposefully breed something that will have compromised eyes and/or ears, and therefore a reduced life experience, just to win some ribbons.

It's actually not the most effective way, iirc even breeding a double merle to another merle only gives a slighttt increase in percentage of merles in a litter. It also doesn't increase/strengthen the merle markings on puppies.

The double merle example is close to my heart, as my friend accidentally got a double merle which was half blind, deaf, and would bleed randomly. They had to have him pts on boxing day, at just a couple months old, because of the pain he was in.


----------



## MojoMouse

When it comes to ethics, I think one of the essential moral responsibilities a breeder has is not to inflict unneccessary pain on an animal, or to subject it to a life that involves physical suffering and/or emotional distress.

Humanely euthanising an animal that you've bred, for whatever reason, is a very different issue. There's actually nothing wrong with the state of "being dead". An animal was "dead" forever before it was concieved and born. When it's dead again, either after a long healthy life or a short life after being culled, it doesn't care.

_Being dead is not a sentient state._

Another thing to keep in mind is how many people anthropomorphise their animals. Yes, animals can feel pain, and yes they can learn to associate pain and suffering with certain treatment. This is a different issue.

BUT - an animal such as a mouse doesn't "fear" death. It doesn't contemplate it's impending death like we can, and sometimes do. It simply lives in the moment, and is "happy" if its basic needs are met. If it suddenly and painlessly it ceases to live, this is not an inhumane outcome.

Intentionally breeding an animal _in a hobby situation_ and letting it live in distress or pain/suffering is unethical, in my opinion, and morally reprehensible.


----------



## Fraction

MojoMouse, I think you've pretty much summed up my feelings on it. Good post.


----------



## sys15

mojo, i'm not sure what an animal such as a mouse or a dog understands of death, or what/if it thinks of the state of death. i do know that mice, dogs and every other vertebrate i have ever encountered resists death as long as it possibly can, oftentimes choosing to undergo enormous pain in doing so. i do not agree that it is humane or even fair to substitute our own thoughts on what an animal should desire over the obvious and unmistakable preference that they actually manifest.

none of which is to suggest that i am against culling or euthanasia. i simply argue that it is an act of self deception when we tell ourselves that killing our captive animals, healthy or otherwise, is humane. in most cases, our primary motivation is our own convenience.


----------



## Stina

I agree with Mojo. Very very very very few animals have the consciousness that we do to understand death. They also don't "choose" to resist death....animals have an ingrained instinct to survive, it is not a decision to do so...its just what the body does. They don't understand that death can be a way out of pain...so yes, they will undergo enormous pain to "stay alive" b/c their instincts make them. You talk about it not being humane or fair to substite our own thoughts...but that is just what you are doing. When any animals life is in danger (including humans), instinct takes over and the "flight or fight" response, or flat out "system shut down" occurs....even humans do not have much (if any) conscious control over this response...and most people put into a situation where their life is in immediate danger will not even remember the experience clearly b/c it is almost entirely instinct.

I will also add that I breed manx, x-brindle, A^y (though I am only breeding them to darken e/e), and have bred A^vy. I've never felt any of my animals had any sort of chronic suffering/distress/reduced life experience due to their genetics (I cull male x-brindles before they begin to suffer).


----------



## Jack Garcia

MojoMouse said:


> When it comes to ethics, I think one of the essential moral responsibilities a breeder has is not to inflict unneccessary pain on an animal, or to subject it to a life that involves physical suffering and/or emotional distress.


What is unnecessary, though, and where do you draw the line? Is it unnecessary to kill a wolf that's attacking you? To kill a puppy that's the wrong color? To kill a cow that you want for dinner? What standard do you use to judge the necessary?

I'm not saying that there isn't a standard--there is--I'm saying you have to know what standard you're using in order to apply it consistently.

Is it necessary to breed mice?



> An animal was "dead" forever before it was concieved and born. When it's dead again, either after a long healthy life or a short life after being culled, it doesn't care.


Ontologically, "life" precedes "death," and "death" precludes "life." Something cannot be dead without first having lived (i.e. it was not dead before it was conceived; it did not exist). This is basic Law of Identity stuff. Ontology is fun. 



sys15 said:


> in most cases, our primary motivation is our own convenience.


This is correct. And our own convenience is a legitimate standard by which to judge animals' (qua animals) lives, so long as we do not kid ourselves that in eating a steak, wearing leather, breeding mice for fun, or putting a dog to sleep that we're acting on some moral high ground on behalf of the animal. It doesn't matter if the cow is organic or factory farmed; it doesn't matter if the dog is sick or not; it doesn't matter if the mice are suffering breeds or not; tautologically what we're doing is the same--we're taking control and responsibility over an animal's life and making decisions about how and whether it continues, based on our own standards (and not the animals').


----------



## AyJay658

Jack Garcia said:


> MojoMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to ethics, I think one of the essential moral responsibilities a breeder has is not to inflict unneccessary pain on an animal, or to subject it to a life that involves physical suffering and/or emotional distress.
> 
> 
> 
> What is unnecessary, though, and where do you draw the line? Is it unnecessary to kill a wolf that's attacking you? To kill a puppy that's the wrong color? To kill a cow that you want for dinner? What standard do you use to judge the necessary?
> 
> I'm not saying that there isn't a standard--there is--I'm saying you have to know what standard you're using in order to apply it consistently.
> 
> Is it necessary to breed mice?
Click to expand...

Jack I think you misunderstood what Mojo was getting at. She (and I) do not believe humanely killing and animal is causing unecessary pain, the pain is caused by the alternative, living with a painful and known condition. I believe what Mojo is saying is that If you know an animal is going to suffer in life, it is your responsibility to either choose not to bring the animal into the world, or to humanely kill the animal before it begins to suffer.

We are discussing two different issues here, the welfare of the animals and the moral ethics of putting them to sleep. In this case the welfare of the animals does not come into play when culling if it is entirely humane, as Mojo said, death itself is not a welfare issue. It is humans who feel uncomfortable with it and so have made it an ethical issue. A person arguing ethics and a person arguing welfare can never conclude the argument because it is two different topics. Welfare is how you can personify an animals suffering, pleasure and experiences, and a lot of it is down to anthropomorphism because we cannot read their minds. Of course this is reduced wherever possible but I dont believe animals think of dying like we do. I am not sure they even realise that when you die, you cease to exist. They only know that if they do not pass on their genes, their characteristics will not be passed on to future generations. And as this is the fact driving evolution, this is what all animals strive to do. If they dont, their genes die out, simple as that. Ethics on the other hand are your own personal beliefs and everybody has different ones. If you think killing a healthy animal is wrong, that is what you believe because of ethics, not because of how it is done or because the animal suffers in anyway. If you think killing a healthy animal in an inhumane way is wrong, this is a welfare problem and, although it is your ethical belief that we shouldn't cause unnecessary pain to an animal, MOST people share this view and so it is the welfare and suffering of the animal that is of concern. So upon the ethical issue, as animals cannot think like that about their death, there is no welfare issue in culling providing it is humane. Obviously it is hard to find a culling method that is completely humane but the more we work to reduce the time the animal suffers, the more ethically sound it becomes.

Sorry if this is complete rubbish, I havent slept :lol:


----------



## Fraction

Jack Garcia said:


> What is unnecessary, though, and where do you draw the line? Is it unnecessary to kill a wolf that's attacking you? To kill a puppy that's the wrong color? To kill a cow that you want for dinner? What standard do you use to judge the necessary?
> 
> I'm not saying that there isn't a standard--there is--I'm saying you have to know what standard you're using in order to apply it consistently.
> 
> Is it necessary to breed mice?
> '


By killing an animal that is attacking you, you are defending yourself against potential death. IMO there is a vast difference between culling an animal you have bought or bred for personal reasons (because it's the wrong colour; because it's food; because it's convenient for you if it is dead) and defending yourself against an attacking animal. As long as you aren't cutting little chunks off of the animal or otherwise torturing it, I see no problem with it.

It isn't necessary to breed mice. People do it primarily because they want to win shows, or because they want to produce animals for the pet trade. If you (general you) breed animals, you have the responsibility to make sure they are correctly homed and correctly fed, and that they do not suffer.

By the way Jack, why do you choose to breed the varieties that do have the health problems attached? Do you cull animals that show symptoms of the various health problems? Do you sell animals on to pet owners, and if so do you make sure that they are aware that the varieties you choose may have health problems?


----------



## Jack Garcia

Ah. So, with this quote:



AyJay658 said:


> the pain is caused by the alternative, living with a painful and known condition.


And this one:



MojoMouse said:


> Intentionally breeding an animal _in a hobby situation_ and letting it live in distress or pain/suffering is unethical, in my opinion, and morally reprehensible.


...I'm curious. Does the "painful and known condition" or "pain/suffering" include breeding varieties demonstrated to have diabetes, high blood pressure, vision problems, and insulin resistance? That's what we breed with reds (and a few other varieties), and unlike obesity or tumors (which are obvious) all the other conditions are not visible unless you run regular blood tests on your mice.


----------



## Jack Garcia

Fraction said:


> By the way Jack, why do you choose to breed the varieties that do have the health problems attached?


Because I find them pretty.



Fraction said:


> Do you cull animals that show symptoms of the various health problems?


For tumors, always. For obesity, sometimes but not always (it depends what else is going on with the mouse). For diabetes, hypertension, high blood pressure, insulin resistance, vision problems, numbness in the limbs, and other similar problems, no--because they're not easily visible. As hobbyists we know that red and red-based mice are demonstrated to go through these things, but they're not always easily detectable without running blood tests on every mouse every couple of months. That's not realistic.



Fraction said:


> Do you sell animals on to pet owners, and if so do you make sure that they are aware that the varieties you choose may have health problems?


I don't sell mice, I only give them away. For pet owners I try to persuade them to take cinnamons as opposed to reds (because cinnamons are healthier) but if they want red and I have it available I let them know of the associated "invisible" health problems they could have. That honestly turns most pet owners away--they want a healthy animal.


----------



## AyJay658

Well it would include anything that caused significant pain or suffering to greatly reduce their quality of life. Some things are less torturous to an animal than others. But you have to do a cost/benefit analysis. If the gain you get from breeding these animals is less than the suffering they go through in life, you have to ask if it is morally right to bring them into the world in the first place. I dont agree that animals are property and so we can do what we like with them. In the UK at least we have welfare laws that prohibit cruel treatment of animals. I cant speak for the USA but I imagine you have similar laws. I believe we should respect animals that we keep and do what we feel is morally acceptable. I have no issue with humane culling because it is not causing the animal suffering. If it was causing more suffering than it ended, then I would have a problem with it. But it doesnt so I believe its a good thing.

As another example, I am strongly against No Kill policies in rescue centres. If the place is so full that you cant take anymore dogs/cats/horses/whatever, it is more humane to put some of the animals to sleep than keep them in small enclosures without the companionship of an owner, or to refuse to take them in at all because you have no space.


----------



## sys15

Jack Garcia said:


> It doesn't matter if the cow is organic or factory farmed; it doesn't matter if the dog is sick or not; it doesn't matter if the mice are suffering breeds or not; tautologically what we're doing is the same--we're taking control and responsibility over an animal's life and making decisions about how and whether it continues, based on our own standards (and not the animals').


well said.


----------



## sys15

Fraction said:


> Do you sell animals on to pet owners?


 :lol:

sorry, that was funny to me.


----------



## Jack Garcia

sys15 said:


> Jack Garcia said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if the cow is organic or factory farmed; it doesn't matter if the dog is sick or not; it doesn't matter if the mice are suffering breeds or not; tautologically what we're doing is the same--we're taking control and responsibility over an animal's life and making decisions about how and whether it continues, based on our own standards (and not the animals').
> 
> 
> 
> well said.
Click to expand...

Thank you!



sys15 said:


> Fraction said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you sell animals on to pet owners?
> 
> 
> 
> :lol:
> 
> sorry, that was funny to me.
Click to expand...

Me, too, actually. lol

The funny thing is that despite my glorious image, I _do _give animals as pets. On this forum I've adopted as pets to Ann and a couple other people, and on the other forum I've adopted as pets to a few users. I just don't do it very often, because I have very high standards and most "pet quality" mice are culled to make room for better examples. I also live hundreds of miles from the next closest breeder.


----------



## Fraction

Jack Garcia said:


> Because I find them pretty.
> 
> For tumors, always. For obesity, sometimes but not always (it depends what else is going on with the mouse). For diabetes, hypertension, high blood pressure, insulin resistance, vision problems, numbness in the limbs, and other similar problems, no--because they're not easily visible. As hobbyists we know that red and red-based mice are demonstrated to go through these things, but they're not always easily detectable without running blood tests on every mouse every couple of months. That's not realistic.
> 
> I don't sell mice, I only give them away. For pet owners I try to persuade them to take cinnamons as opposed to reds (because cinnamons are healthier) but if they want red and I have it available I let them know of the associated "invisible" health problems they could have. That honestly turns most pet owners away--they want a healthy animal.


When breeding animals of these "problematic" varieties, do you have health in mind when choosing who to breed? Have you ever had to end a line because offspring all became too ill in general?

I understand that you can't run (expensive) tests on every mouse, though I assume if somehow you did become aware of it, such as a mouse having a seizure because of some problem inside, that you would cull?

Would you consider it unethical to ask for money for animals that may have a reduced lifespan, or do you simply prefer not to charge money for pets? And would you consider it unethical if a person bred the same varieties as you, and gave away pets, but failed to inform owners of the health problems associated with the varieties?



sys15 said:


> Fraction said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you sell animals on to pet owners?
> 
> 
> 
> :lol:
> 
> sorry, that was funny to me.
Click to expand...

I think I'm missing something, why's it funny?


----------



## MojoMouse

sys15 said:


> i do know that mice, dogs and every other vertebrate i have ever encountered resists death as long as it possibly can, oftentimes choosing to undergo enormous pain in doing so..


This is instinctive behaviour - the strong desire to live. It's not a choice an animal makes. Ethical breeding practices in relation to culling require that an animal is not put in a position when they have time to be aware of their impending death, and therefore suffer fear. Nor should they have to experience a painful death process.

I would go even further and say, in many cases of euthenasia, it's the very fact that we can save an animal from the painful consequences of it's survival drive that makes humane culling a moral necessity.



sys15 said:


> i do not agree that it is humane or even fair to substitute our own thoughts on what an animal should desire over the obvious and unmistakable preference that they actually manifest.


There's no substitution of thoughts. You're anthropomorphising again. They don't "prefer" life. They are instinctively driven to prolong it, even to their own detriment if this cause them pain and suffering without any hope of recovering or surviving.

In relation to what's "fair", well, in the animal kingdom, life isn't fair. It never has been. "Fair" is not relevant in relation to the question of unneccesary suffering.



sys15 said:


> i simply argue that it is an act of self deception when we tell ourselves that killing our captive animals, healthy or otherwise, is humane. in most cases, our primary motivation is our own convenience.


This is emotive, and not a valid argument because you move from one questionable premise (self deception) to another, then draw a long straw with your conclusion. There's no self deception in our understanding of a humane death. Also, there's nothing innately unethical or immoral about convenience, in my opinion.


----------



## AyJay658

Fraction said:


> I think I'm missing something, why's it funny?


Yeh me too :lol: Glad Im not alone!


----------



## MojoMouse

OMG so many more posts! I'm really not keeping up here! :lol:


----------



## sys15

Fraction said:


> I think I'm missing something, why's it funny?


jack has been criticized in the past for having highly desirable animals that he doesn't share with as many people as many would like.


----------



## AyJay658

Ohh yes I believe I read something about that =P You are the only one with proper reds arent you? Or used to be


----------



## Jack Garcia

> I think I'm missing something, why's it funny?


It's funny because people have accused me of never adopting out to others. But I imported my mice myself, with my own money and my own resources, and have a list with sixteen names on it of people to whom I've adopted mice since 2008 (which is when I started the list). I only adopt to people with very high standards, however, so those to whom I have refused to give my mice don't meet those standards, and they've gotten upset about it.



> When breeding animals of these "problematic" varieties, do you have health in mind when choosing who to breed? Have you ever had to end a line because offspring all became too ill in general?


I always have health in mind, but the only hard-and-fast rule I have is that I always cull mice with tumors. I've only bred red since early 2010 (so about 2 and a half years, I guess) so I haven't had to. If I felt that the health problems (visible or invisible) were too great to justify continuing, I would stop. I am trying to breed away from satin, but not for health reasons.



> I understand that you can't run (expensive) tests on every mouse, though I assume if somehow you did become aware of it, such as a mouse having a seizure because of some problem inside, that you would cull?


Yes.



> Would you consider it unethical to ask for money for animals that may have a reduced lifespan, or do you simply prefer not to charge money for pets? And would you consider it unethical if a person bred the same varieties as you, and gave away pets, but failed to inform owners of the health problems associated with the varieties?


I think asking for money for most mice is inappropriate in general. You're never going to recoup the costs so there's no point in asking for money, unless you have very good mice (such as a few folks with the AFRMA) or if it's mandated by the venue. I will pay money for mice, but I don't like to ask for it because I don't need it. In some shows, for example, there's a $5 minimum that everyone has to charge. For my own mice, I prefer to give them free-of-charge to good breeders I know and trust. If any breeder fails to inform about any health issue, I find that to be bad practice but not necessarily _unethical_.

Edit: P.S. In the mouse world, I find that the word "unethical" is a buzz word that's thrown around a lot these days to describe anybody you don't like. I tend to reserve the word to describe people in the mouse community who knowingly lie, cheat, and/or steal from other people. We've unfortunately had a few cases of that in recent years. It's much better to breed a variety with a few associated health problems and be honest about it than to steal other people's supplies or animals, and lie about it. For most purposes, I think "unethical" describes how you treat and deal with other people, not what you do with your mice.


----------



## sys15

MojoMouse said:


> This is instinctive behaviour - the strong desire to live. It's not a choice an animal makes.


the distinction between instinct and choice is a false dichotomy. when i choose to consume a milkshake instead of a salad, am i evaluating which item is better for my immediate and long-term health needs? balancing between those and the costs of acquiring and consuming each item? choosing which will make me happier? or am i responding to my "instinctual" taste preferences for fats and sugars? would you deny that i am making a choice? what we like to consider our own capacity for logical thought is every bit as much a product of our evolution-shaped organic anatomy and physiology as what we regard as "instinct" in many other animals.



MojoMouse said:


> I would go even further and say, in many cases of euthenasia, it's the very fact that we can save an animal from the painful consequences of it's survival drive that makes humane culling a moral necessity.


why is it a moral necessity in animals but not in humans? are we less capable of experiencing pain? less enthralled by our survival drive?



MojoMouse said:


> There's no substitution of thoughts. You're anthropomorphising again. They don't "prefer" life. They are instinctively driven to prolong it, even to their own detriment if this cause them pain and suffering without any hope of recovering or surviving.


they do prefer life. there can be no debate about that - they evidence it by the strong survival drive you mentioned. it is not necessary to understand the nature of a choice, or to exhibit a capacity for logical thought to exhibit a preference. hummingbirds prefer nectar over blood. they provide us with evidence of that preference by consuming nectar and not blood. the overwhelming majority of living organisms exhibit a preference to avoid death.



MojoMouse said:


> There's no self deception in our understanding of a humane death. Also, there's nothing innately unethical or immoral about convenience, in my opinion.


the self deception enters when we ascribe motives that do not correspond with the reality of our actions. i agree with your second statement.


----------



## Jack Garcia

sys15 said:


> the distinction between instinct and choice is a false dichotomy.


This is true, but I hadn't thought of it in those terms. I like the way you think.


----------



## Stina

I disagree. Choice may be based on instinct....but that does NOT mean all instincts are choice. A dog can choose between one food and another...a person can choose to be with one person or another....a dog does not choose to breed, if an intact dog smells a bitch in heat...it will attempt to mate her, that's not a choice, its what its instincts and body chemistry make it do. A person does not choose who they are attracted to...their instincts and body chemistry do. Survival in animals is NOT a choice...attempts to survive are what their instincts and body chemistry make them do....they only give up when their body does.


----------



## MojoMouse

I think the issue over the term "prefer" is based on semantics.

I disagree that the distinction between instinct and choice is a false dichotomy. They are totally distinct. An animal, or a human for that matter, is often powerless to act against their strongest instincts. Choice involves the luxury of being able to evaluate options or behaviours for their merits, and decide on one over the other, independent of a compelling drive to pick one option or act in a certain way.


----------



## Stina

Agreed.


----------



## Jack Garcia

AyJay658 said:


> Ohh yes I believe I read something about that =P You are the only one with proper reds arent you? Or used to be


I'm pretty sure I've never been the only one with any variety, just the only one in this part of the country who also happens to be active in online communities. Most of the people I've adopted to (except Christina) aren't active on forums, but I've adopted mice to all sorts of people who meet my own standards. And that's the thing--there are people who breed varieties of mice in the US, but who don't post on forums or mailing lists, so people new to the fancy (like many people who post here) don't know they even exist unless they go to a show and meet them, happen to know them in person, or have been around long enough to remember.

The newly imported reds are good, so I'm excited to see their evolution over the next few years!


----------



## AyJay658

Yeah sorry thats what I meant haha. Not only reds in the world!


----------



## Jack Garcia

I know at least one person in Illinois who may still have fawns or other little-kept varieties, but she doesn't use online mouse communities at all anymore. Come to think of it, I might call her and see what she's up to...

And just a few years ago Jennifer H had some very gorgeous recessive reds which were related to the imported dominant ones, but she also is no longer active online so I don't know if she still keeps them or not. Some of them were really nicely-typed and nicely-colored.


----------



## sys15

MojoMouse said:


> I think the issue over the term "prefer" is based on semantics.


yes, no question, we do not mean the same things by prefer and choice.


----------



## Laigaie

There are quite a few folks with recessive red, and all of this has gotten rather off-topic, anyway. We seem to have come to an impasse, with some folks believing that there is such a thing as ethics in regards to the treatment of mice, and others believe that ethics are only for other humans. I'd be amazed if there's anywhere else to go from there. It's really down to a very basic difference in animal husbandry philosophy.


----------



## Stina

Jack is the only one who's said he doesn't believe ethics apply. I wholeheartedly disagree though. I have never seen any definition of ethics that suggests it only applies in interactions with other people. Ethics is basically a set of moral principles...what is believed to be "right and wrong." Not everyone is going to agree on what they morally believe is right or wrong...but that doesn't mean it isn't still ethics when you are not dealing with other people.


----------



## Jack Garcia

Stina said:


> Jack is the only one who's said he doesn't believe ethics apply.


I never said that.  I said I wouldn't necessarily call the behavior that was described as unethical, just as bad practice.


----------



## Stina

> For most purposes, I think "unethical" describes how you treat and deal with other people, not what you do with your mice


----------



## Jack Garcia

Those still don't match what you've said. I didn't say, "I don't think ethics apply," (which is what you're quoted as). You're painting with too broad a brush. When re-phrasing what someone else has said, stay true to what they've said, not what you interpret them as saying, thanks.


----------



## Stina

ok, so you said for most purposes you don't believe it applies. This thread is about what we do with our mice, not how we treat or deal with other people. I'm not sure how else you could mean that comment other than that you don't generally believe "ethics" applies to what we do with mice...


----------



## Jack Garcia

Mice and people are inseparable. They're commensals, after all.


----------



## MojoMouse

Laigaie said:


> ... We seem to have come to an impasse, with some folks believing that there is such a thing as ethics in regards to the treatment of mice, and others believe that ethics are only for other humans. I'd be amazed if there's anywhere else to go from there. It's really down to a very basic difference in animal husbandry philosophy...


Yes, it highlights some very basic differences in the approach to breeding and associated practices. However, I don't believe it's at an impasse just because people will never agree. That's not the point. People don't have to agree!

I think the value of the discussion is in bringing out the different points of view into the open, for a full and free debate. This is so important for many reasons:

Speaking for myself, I have strong views but I'm interested in hearing other ideas put forward. It may not change my way of thinking, but it definitely gives me a better understanding of the why people have different opinions and convictions, and what these are. That's a good thing!

I also think this type of discussion is excellent for people who are new to the fancy (and forum). It shows that there's not one way, the right way, of thinking about things, but rather, several valid approaches. It shows that it's ok to be different from others in relation to such fundamental issues, as long as there's mutual respect and acceptance that everyone's point of view is just that - a point of view.

Threads like this give everyone a voice, and because of the openly expressed differences, the newcomer can feel comfortable in freely expressing an opinion without feeling like they're going against any black and white standards adhered to in the fancy. Lots of members spoke up with their views! (Even Jack Garcia, usually as quiet and reserved as a (qualzuchten) mouse, felt brave enough to offer his opinions.) :lol:

Many of the posts that I would instinctively have disagreed with have given me a lot to think about. I'm sure there are some others who have found the same thing.

So - this type of discussion doesn't have to end in agreement, or if this doesn't happen, simply be seen to hit an impasse. That misses the point of talking things through, which is a valid end in itself.


----------



## sys15

MojoMouse said:


> I also think this type of discussion is excellent for people who are new to the fancy (and forum). It shows that there's not one way, the right way, of thinking about things, but rather, several valid approaches. It shows that it's ok to be different from others in relation to such fundamental issues, as long as there's mutual respect and acceptance that everyone's point of view is just that - a point of view.


very well put.


----------



## Gracegarden

MojoMouse -- very well said!


----------



## Shadowrunner

you are much better spoken than I. so much envy xD

I recently had a friend,casually pick up feeder breeding. Now let me just say, I think breeding animals
for any reason is fine so long as it's done with respect . But her guys started getting a skin rash and sniffles,and she asked
me for advice. turns out she had been using ceder bedding,in a cage with very little ventilation.
I gave her the advice she asked for, to change the bedding. She shrugged it off, and continued to use the bedding. Continued to feed them cat food. Now she has frail mice who won't reproduce. And she wonders why.

So while I consider keeping animals in really poor condition with no effort to fix it, unethical. 
Then breeding the sicklies even more so, some people would disagree .
So what exactly are ethics?



> Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.


well there we go. right and wrong are concepts that are different for everyone, subjective.
so ethics must be too.

All rather interesting to me, I mean think for a moment -why- you perceive 
wrong things as such. A whole lifetime of memories powers that bias.

For me,personally, I try to limit suffering. *Thats* about it. *shrug*
limit...not eradicate.
how do you know comfort without experiencing discomfort?
I dont coddle my bubbies either, hardy little buggers.


----------



## MojoMouse

> Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.


The moral philosophers, some of the highest thinkers, have been debating the concepts of right and wrong for centuries... and still haven't defined the concepts or come to any agreement as to the answers. That's kind of the whole point. Personally I find the different arguments put forward, and the various schools of thought on the subject, really thought provoking.

Another equally interesting area of philosophy is logic and reason. Fascinating, but off topic here - I just thought I'd mention it. 



Shadowrunner said:


> .... I mean think for a moment -why- you perceive
> wrong things as such. A whole lifetime of memories powers that bias.
> 
> For me,personally, I try to limit suffering. *Thats* about it. *shrug*
> limit...not eradicate.
> how do you know comfort without experiencing discomfort?
> I dont coddle my bubbies either, hardy little buggers.


You've made an excellent point, Shadowrunner. We can't give our animals a life completely without pain. It's not expected or possible. I mean, we have to deal with pain as well. It's part of the condition of being alive... and as an alert to potential danger, part of the condition of _staying_ alive!


----------



## Jack Garcia

Shadowrunner said:


> right and wrong are concepts that are different for everyone, subjective.


They are not subjective in the sense I think you mean. They are based on a demonstrable and objective universal standard, which is: man's own life. No matter how we frame morals about any given situation, none are possible without man's own life as a standard judging instrument, and that is the root on which all moral systems lie. In other words, you cannot examine morals or ethics without first being alive (all ethical frameworks rest on and come back to the Axiom of Existence) to consider or apply them. This is the first step to all ethical frameworks (even epistemologically incorrect ones that try to avoid it).

So the first question which must be asked in meta-ethics is never "What is ethical about this situation?" but rather, "[Why] Does man need ethics at all?" The answer to that question is [Yes,] because man, qua man, is a rational animal ("rational" here in the sense of using and requiring volitional consciousness for continued survival in the nature of itself) and has no built-in standard for life in the manner of other animals. Man cannot survive for long--as man--using the operating processes of a cat or bird or beetle, but rather must use that volitional consciousness and make a choice--many choices, in fact.

If anyone wants to discuss epistemology (the nature of thought and knowing) or meta-ethics (the nature and need for ethical frameworks) I'll be happy to do so in a PM, but I think they may actually be outside the scope of this forum.



MojoMouse said:


> The moral philosophers, some of the highest thinkers,


I have never used illicit drugs in my life!


----------



## icedmice

This is why I love this forum  .

I was curious as to why the subject of euthanasia for ethical breeing practice hadn't come up an Australian rodent forum. When it did, it opened a pandoras box, people culling because their best mate said it was ethical but not because they understood it. It wasn't so much that culling was widespread that I had an issue with but the fact there is little thought put behind it. It is a subject that you yourself need to come to terms with regardless of what the person next to you thinks, you need to know where your personal boundaries lie.

I'm a little sentimental about my animals, quite often living out their full life spans at my facility, I breed for show and pets. 
There is no real distinction between a show or pet mouse in Australia. I breed for pets because the alternative for members of the public is a pet store or BYBer. I'd prefer people had a positive experience with their pet. I can't guarantee health or temperament 100% but I can offer some after sales service most pet shops and BYBers won't offer like replacing unsuitable animals, assistance with care etc.

A lot of homes surprisingly have kept in touch. Sometimes I don't hear back until the animal has passed away. For me breeding for pets is ethical practice, that is why I do it. I prefer to sell to pet homes because they tend to appreciate their animal more than most breeders. It is a matter of sorting out the tyre kickers from the genuine homes.

My personal boundaries of ethical breeding, you may or may not agree. Apart from basic husbandry.
Monitoring what you produce, taking weight measurements and making sure they are within a healthy range. Doesn't necessarily mean as meticulously as I do with digital kitchen scales, you can usually tell a healthy weight by sight. There's been a fair few stunted mice selling within our club recently which concerns me. Not selling diseased animals or animals which have a high chance of having or are displaying a known genetic defect (at point of sale). Euthanasia of animals with stunted growth, physical defects which impact long term health such as a spinal deformity, diseased animals not responding to treatment or with highly infectious conditions and animals with a tendancy for aggression. 
Selection of pairs beyond simple aesthetics, not simply putting one with another because they are the flavour of the month. The pairs need to bring something valuable to the fancy like improved health, type, robustness or temperament. Something more than just looks. Breeders that have every variety available and breeding plans reflect popularity within the club are ones I tend to avoid.


----------



## MojoMouse

Iced is one of the few breeders in Sydney that I respect and trust. There are a couple of others, but not many. And I have to say, she runs her rodentry with a level of meticulous detail and genuine care that is amazing. If there were more breeders like her, we'd have an amazingly active mouse community here!



Jack Garcia said:


> Shadowrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> right and wrong are concepts that are different for everyone, subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> They are not subjective in the sense I think you mean. They are based on a demonstrable and objective universal standard, which is: man's own life. No matter how we frame morals about any given situation, none are possible without man's own life as a standard judging instrument, and that is the root on which all moral systems lie. In other words, you cannot examine morals or ethics without first being alive (all ethical frameworks rest on and come back to the Axiom of Existence) to consider or apply them. This is the first step to all ethical frameworks (even epistemologically incorrect ones that try to avoid it).
> 
> So the first question which must be asked in meta-ethics is never "What is ethical about this situation?" but rather, "[Why] Does man need ethics at all?" The answer to that question is [Yes,] because man, qua man, is a rational animal ("rational" here in the sense of using and requiring volitional consciousness for continued survival in the nature of itself) and has no built-in standard for life in the manner of other animals. Man cannot survive for long--as man--using the operating processes of a cat or bird or beetle, but rather must use that volitional consciousness and make a choice--many choices, in fact.
Click to expand...

I agree with Shadowrunner's comment, particularly because it was made in the context of the preceding discussion. One of the problems with "philosphical" debates in real life is that they can be taken out of the context of the common experience and elevated to a plane that is inaccessible to anyone that has not formally studied the discipline. Your comments are interesting, have merit and are eminently debatable, but my feeling is that you've focussed on only one area of ethics. More relevant here are normative and applied ethics (and if anyone's not familiar with these, google them - they're interesting and relevant).

A lot of the discussion in this thread has been based on these ethical frameworks, whether or not the posters were aware of it. For me, that's philosphy in practice - issues being debated by people who have a genuine interest in the relative values of right and wrong in relation to a shared interest. 



Jack Garcia said:


> MojoMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moral philosophers, some of the highest thinkers,
> 
> 
> 
> I have never used illicit drugs in my life!
Click to expand...

Then you really must stop mixing alcohol with your flu medication! :lol:


----------



## Stina

> right and wrong are concepts that are different for everyone, subjective.


I believe there are personal ethics (which vary from person to person) and group ethics. Group ethics come into play when you have a community of people that have, as a general whole, decided on a set of moral/ethical standards; i.e. The forum community setting the standards that causing an animal pain is wrong, allowing an animal to suffer needlessly is wrong, not providing sufficient food and water to an animal is wrong, culling humanely is ok etc. Group ethics can vary from community to community...I know at least one mouse forum where the community definitely has some different ethical/moral standards set.


----------



## Shadowrunner

I am me and only me, so therefore I am only confidant enough to speak from my point of view,since to my knowledge I've never been anyone else..
It makes me uncomfortable to put my thoughts where everyone can see them, but I find discussions like this very rewarding, if not confusing...

That was way too broad of a statement I think.(and if this is sort of rambling I apologize)
What I meant before is...The way I personally judge any given situation,is on past experiences.
No one else has had my experiences, exactly, and never will.
So no one else will have the same rights and wrongs exactly as I do. Generally speaking I might have morals that line up with most everyone else.
We all have things in common, and certainly can imagine moments in other's lives but no one will ever know
all of the intimate details of my life the way I do, and how they affect me.
Same goes for anyone else. I will never know the things that drive other people to think the way they do.
I can put myself in that situation mentally, but even then, it would be me and how I would react not a true representation of them.

So I see right and wrong as a sort of sliding scale. In any topic, setting or hobby.

I personally think circumcising a 5 year old with a bamboo knife out in the jungle is wrong for a variety of reasons, but I'm not a member of a tribe.
I could never understand perfectly why they do it. Meanwhile, my way of life seems wrong to them. 
Right and wrong in it's nuances are cultural, and vary even at a individual level.

I have never read any philosophy books nor have I taken any classes so please excuse any crudeness(or offense because that's not what I intend).
I'm finding it difficult to put a abstract thought into words.....

Personally, I am very hard to offend. the only thing that ever bothers me is cruelty. 
But I've experienced my share of it, and that is why I am vehemently against it. That is what drives me against it, memories.
In the same note, I wasn't really brought up traditionally, I was alone most of the time.
So I was free to explore and think about the world on my own without interference. As a result I find many topics silly to worry over.
People think me odd or eccentric for that sometimes, but that's because they draw on different memories for information and judgement.

So what I'm saying is, regardless of if it's type, the community involved, or how it's applied...
It boils down to the individuals. Everything I do, I try to do the "right" way. 
Mousing included.
The same things I find to be right and wrong anywhere else can be easily applied to raising mice.

Which is why I think that, what I said before was too broad. And way too casual.
I do these things without actively thinking about them, which would also explain my lack of finesse in expressing what I mean.

This is frustrating xD


----------



## Frizzle

I think you did very well wording your opinion. : )

I just finished up with Sociology: Adolescent Deviance. And one of the topics we looked at was about social norms, and how there will always be people who are "deviant," and wander from these norms. While many might think that a life without deviance would make the world a better place, our professor went on to say that deviance is necessary to the change and growth in societies. She used and example of a little girl who was murdered in a casino; the perpetrators best friend walked in to see what was happening, but then walked away. Previously, there was no real laws about the need to intervene (guilty by association?) during a crime, but this incident sparked a national outrage that changed a part of the justice system. While one might say, "I thought you said deviance was good!?" While the act itself was horrible, it prompted a social change that probably went on to help millions. Pretty much any social change (Black & women's rights, freedom of religion, etc...) was brought around by someone who questioned the current order.

I guess I'm trying to tie this into mice by saying that right now we have a set of norms that vary from person to person and different societies. While there are some people who may deviate from the accepted norms (feeding, breeding, culling, etc...), they are the ones who's behavior sets the standard for the rest of us. For example, this little article about chickens being culled via a wood chipper. http://www.upc-online.org/avma/21304cuttler.htm Most people might agree that this is not the way to cull animals, but previously there was nothing set in stone about it being wrong. Someone did it, and society agreed that it shouldn't be done, regulations were changed. But if the majority of society saw it to be okay, then this may not have been an issue, and throwing chickens down wood chippers might be okay.


----------



## MojoMouse

Shadowrunner, you put your view forward very clearly. There's a strong case for ethical standards to be seen as personal, and they _are_ for the reasons you outlined. However, there's an equally important view that a group could/should have accepted norms of behaviour, as suggested by Stina and Frizzle. That's more along the lines of the theory of "the greatest good for the greatest number" (utilitarism). This could be seen as being essential for the existence of harmonious communities. The different priorities of each point of view can be opposed, and have been the basis of a lot of thought and debate. Individual freedoms v societal standards. It's fine when they line up, but problematic when one imposes on the other.


----------



## Jack Garcia

Groups can't exist without individuals.



> Previously, there was no real laws about the need to intervene (guilty by association?) during a crime, but this incident sparked a national outrage that changed a part of the justice system.


What law are you referencing? I would like to see the statute.


----------



## Frizzle

^^^
I'd like to say it was in one of the southern states like Alabama or Nebraska. I really don't know specifics, I also watered the details down because it was really horrible what all happened to the girl. :?


----------



## Jack Garcia

Nebraska isn't a southern state. 

I'd like to know the law so I can read it. As far as I'm aware, no such law exists.


----------



## MojoMouse

Jack, Frizzle may not be able to provide information about the legislation because it may not exist in that form. However, as I'm sure you know, the law is an evolving entity, and while I don't know about the example she gave, I can provide a summary of the situation in Australia. Precedents are being set, and often draw on English caselaw as well as Australian cases:



> GENERAL LEGAL POSITION
> As a general rule the law does not impose liabilty on individuals for failing to assist a person in need or to take
> steps to prevent a person' from sustaining an injury or loss. iii As Gummow J stated 'whatever its scope, a duty of
> care imposes an obligation to exercise reasonable care; it does not impose a duty to prevent potentially harmful
> conduct': Roads and Traffc Authority of New South Wales v Dederer (2007) 238 ALR 761 at 767. One of the
> clearest judicial statements concerning the law's reluctance to require individuals to assist others in need was
> made in Stovin v Wise (1996) AC 923 at 931 by Lord Nicholls who stated that
> 
> _The classic example ofthe absence of a legal duty to take positive action is where a grown person stands by while a young
> child drowns in a shallow pool. Another instance is where a person watches a nearby pedestrian stroll into the path of an
> oncoming vehicle. In both instances the callous bystander can foresee serious injury ifhe does nothing. ... All that would be
> called for is the simplest exertion or a warning shout. Despite this, the recognised legal position is that the bystander does not
> owe the drowning child or the heedless pedestrian a duty to take steps to save him. Something more is required than being a
> bystander. There must be some additional reason why it is fair and reasonable that one person should be regarded as his
> brother's keeper and have legal obligations in that regard.iv_
> 
> Although as a general rule an individual is not legally obligated to assist a person in need, the courts have been
> wiling to impose a duty upon a defendant to take positive steps to help the plaintiff when some additional
> factor is present to justify such an imposition. This additional factor might be satisfied by the defendant actually
> inflicting the injury on the plaintiff which has put them in a situation of periL. Alternatively the defendant might
> control the land on which the plaintiff was injured, or there might be a pre-existing relationship between the
> plaintiff and the defendant that makes it appropriate to impose an obligation to assist the defendant (e.g.
> employer-employee, teacher-pupil, etc).


The point Frizzle was making was a good one and pertinant to our informal discussion here.  Most of us aren't legally trained (though I recall you mentioning somewhere that you are). I think it's relevant to offer opinions and examples, and if these may not be strictly accurate, this doesn't detract from their relevance.


----------



## Jack Garcia

It's not a good idea to cite something you're not prepared to back up. If I say I live in a teepee with eighteen unicorns, you better believe I'd have photographs to prove it.

(I don't, actually--I live in a teepee with _nineteen_ unicorns. One just had a baby.)

The portion of your law which interests me most is this: _As a general rule the law does not impose liabilty_[sic] _on individuals for failing to assist a person in need or to take steps to prevent a person' from sustaining an injury or loss._

That's called a "Good Samaritan Law" and in my jurisdiction (the Commonwealth of Kentucky), it can be found here for AED devices (although it applies in other situations, too): http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B954EF5 ... SamLaw.pdf (KRS 311.667)

I'm trained and certified in CPR, AED, and First Aid, and would help most people in most situations, but I don't see how the law can _require_ me to do so if that's not my profession. What I read Frizzle's post to say (she may correct me if I'm wrong) was that an unspecified law had been passed in the US that _required_ bystanders to help. This was her example of "group ethics" (a concept I dispute), so it is entirely relevant to this discussion.

When discussing something as nuanced and specific as law (or ethics), one has to be very clear.


----------



## Jack Garcia

Ah, I think I may have discovered the case you're talking about, Frizzle. Is it the Sherrice Iverson case in Nevada? It matches most of what you've said except for the fact that it's in the Southwest.

If so, it appears the law that was passed subsequent to the young girl's rape and murder ("The Sherrice Iverson law," NV State Assembly Bill 267) is actually a mandated reporting law. It requires those who are aware of child abuse to report it to authorities, but it does not require bystanders to actively go in and help (which could put them in danger). They're only required to report. Certain professions (including my own) are mandated reporters in most states (http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/ ... /manda.cfm) and it looks like NV simply extended that status to everybody, not just doctors, social workers, and so on.

This is mostly analogous to MojoMouse's example of the drowning child (where the would-be rescuer could himself drown) or the burning house (which is full of obvious dangers). The state cannot_ force _someone to help, although most of us would do all that we could.

Very interesting (and tragic) stuff to think about...


----------



## Stina

> This was her example of "group ethics" (a concept I dispute)


There would not/could not be laws (at least in a democratic country) without group ethics and morals....as laws are based on these things. A group must agree that something is right or wrong in order to make a law for or against it.....and that is based on ethics and morals. Obviously individual ethics and morals come into play, but when a decision is made by a group to follow a set of laws or conditions, that becomes group ethics....when people follow it whether they agree upon it or not, they are being subjected to the ethics of the group.


----------



## Jack Garcia

Of what do you think groups are composed? They don't exist without individuals. Families, churches, cities, states, nations cannot exist without individuals (although individuals can exist--at least for a time--without them). The individual is the metaphysical primary.

Every "group" decision is thus the decision of one person and another person and another person, all of whom agree naturally or have been persuaded to agree by one of the members. The individual cannot be subjugated to the whole.

I'll refer those who've participated in this thread to Ayn Rand's _The Virtue of Selfishness_ (1964, New American Library), where she discusses the nature of the collective as well as includes a few short essays about ethics. I think at least a couple of folks here might appreciate it.


----------



## MojoMouse

Stina said:


> There would not/could not be laws (at least in a democratic country) without group ethics and morals....as laws are based on these things. A group must agree that something is right or wrong in order to make a law for or against it.....and that is based on ethics and morals. Obviously individual ethics and morals come into play, but when a decision is made by a group to follow a set of laws or conditions, that becomes group ethics....when people follow it whether they agree upon it or not, they are being subjected to the ethics of the group.


You put that very well, Stina! The dilemma, in the context of our special interest group here, as mouse breeders, is how important the ethics of the group are, as opposed to individual ethics, say in the situation of how a colony of mice are housed? Or what kind of mice should be bred - eg healthy or unhealthy.

The mouse community can't actually control what an individual does. It can, however, exert influence in a number of ways, in situations where an individual is doing something that goes against the collective idea of ethics. Should it?

(I'm just putting up a question here - it's not actually my view that a group can or should control an individual in _normal_ circumstances.)


----------



## Stina

Jack...I'm fully aware, and pointed out, that groups are made of individuals....a group cannot exist without individuals...but that doesn't mean a group doesn't exist..... Again, without group ethics, there would be no laws...one individual does not make the laws in a democracy....they have to be agreed upon by a number of individuals...thus, a group. How could that not be called group ethics?


----------



## MojoMouse

Jack Garcia said:


> I'll refer those who've participated in this thread to Ayn Rand's _The Virtue of Selfishness_ (1964, New American Library), where she discusses the nature of the collective as well as includes a few short essays about ethics. I think at least a couple of folks here might appreciate it.


It could be interesting. Thanks for the reference.


----------



## Jack Garcia

You're welcome. It's actually a really short book (a collection of essays by a few different authors), but it's jam-packed with philosophy.



Stina said:


> Jack...I'm fully aware, and pointed out, that groups are made of individuals....a group cannot exist without individuals...but that doesn't mean a group doesn't exist..... Again, without group ethics, there would be no laws...one individual does not make the laws in a democracy....they have to be agreed upon by a number of individuals...thus, a group. How could that not be called group ethics?


You have confused or conflated so many concepts. First, the concept of irreducible primacy (in which a group cannot exist without individuals does not mean that a group does not exist; it means that the group is always a philosophical secondary). The individual _is_ the irreducible primary. Second, the nature of democracy and of our government (at least in the US). A democracy in its pure form (such as that of ancient Athens, where Socrates was killed legally because the majority didn't like what he taught) is not how our government works. The majority does not rule, full-stop. We are a Constitutional republic. In a Constitutional republic, one _individual _does not make laws, but they are rather embedded in and derived from one _document_: the US Constitution. That's why our Constitution seems so outsized in proportion to other countries'--we're a Constitutional republic. Third, "group ethics" means nothing. In a way, it's like saying "group hair color." There are no group hair colors apart from the individuals' who make up that group. If everyone decided to bleach their hair, the color would not belong to the group or be derived from the group. It would still be the individuals'.

I'm going to quote the book I mentioned above, then abandon this conversation, since it seems like few are following my thoughts anyway:



> _The social theory of ethics substitutes "society" for God-and although it claims that its chief concern is life on earth, it is [...] not the life of an individual, but the life of a disembodied entity, the collective, which, in relation to every individual, consists of everybody except himself. As far as the individual is concerned, his ethical duty is to be the selfless, voiceless, rightless slave of any need, claim or demand asserted by others. The motto "dog eat dog"-which is not applicable to capitalism nor to dogs-is applicable to the social theory of ethics. The existential monument to this theory [is...] Soviet Russia._


Best wishes!


----------



## Frizzle

Jack Garcia said:


> Ah, I think I may have discovered the case you're talking about, Frizzle. Is it the Sherrice Iverson case in Nevada? It matches most of what you've said except for the fact that it's in the Southwest.
> 
> If so, it appears the law that was passed subsequent to the young girl's rape and murder ("The Sherrice Iverson law," NV State Assembly Bill 267) is actually a mandated reporting law. It requires those who are aware of child abuse to report it to authorities, but it does not require bystanders to actively go in and help (which could put them in danger). They're only required to report. Certain professions (including my own) are mandated reporters in most states (http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/ ... /manda.cfm) and it looks like NV simply extended that status to everybody, not just doctors, social workers, and so on.
> 
> This is mostly analogous to MojoMouse's example of the drowning child (where the would-be rescuer could himself drown) or the burning house (which is full of obvious dangers). The state cannot_ force _someone to help, although most of us would do all that we could.
> 
> Very interesting (and tragic) stuff to think about...


Yup, that's the one. You're right, it's not interfering during a crime, but interfering in the sense that one couldn't just pretend it never happened. Thanks for the link.
Nebraska is south to me. Almost everything is! I guess I really don't have a clear distinction of the "official" south, lol.


----------

