"Boy, will you look at those idiots watching this? Where is their sense of dignity?"
The Washington Post recently published a photo of an oddball attraction at a minor league baseball game in Harrisburg, PA. A capuchin monkey, garbed in jockey attire, was riding a border collie—really, really stupid, though “really stupid” is the frequent standard of minor league baseball promotions generally. This means that when a club executive suggests, “Hey, howzabout we have some monkeys riding on dogs, like in little saddles?” and the response from the management team is, “That’s really stupid, Ed,” he’ll say, “Great! Then it’s a go!”
I found the picture rather grotesque, but it never occurred to me that the gimmick was unethical. Oh, I assumed that PETA would find it unethical, but PETA believes it’s unethical that animals aren’t allowed to vote. Several indignant readers wrote to the Post, however, protesting that the photo was “offensive” because it celebrated unethical conduct, the conduct being, apparently,“insulting the natural identity of these animals.” “Monkeys riding boarder collies is just wrong,” wrote one of the outraged.
As an animal lover, I believe animals have more complex feelings than we are comfortable acknowledging. It is wrong to hurt animals, to fail to care for them properly, to put them in unnecessary peril, or to be unkind to them. I believe that treating animals as anything other than living creatures encourages worse mistreatment by others. I believe that animals can be happy, in their own way, and I am convinced by studies and films that they are capable of play.
Dignity, however, is a human concept that some misguided people project on animals. Monkeys play with their feces, dogs lick their privates, they both run around buck naked. The thought thatthese things are seriously undignified—so undignified that even Danny Bonaduce wouldn’t do them for money (I think)—simply does not enter the minds of animals. Animals do not have a sense of identity, so it is impossible to insult “their sense of natural identity.”
If a monkey riding a border collie was imperiled nearly as much as the human he is imitating, a jockey riding a horse, that would be unethical. If the border collie was in danger of breaking a leg and having to be euthanized on the field like race horses sometimes are—that would be unethical. The fact that the activity looks ridiculous, however, does not make it unethical, any more than dog shows are unethical. If you want an example of making an animal look ridiculous, look at how they groom poodles. If those dogs were capable of it, they would be thinking, “I’d rather have a monkey ride me like Seabiscuit any day than have to appear on national TV looking like this!”
There is no evidence that they are capable of thinking that, however. The “offense” of the dog and monkey show isn’t that it’s “just wrong” but that it’s just stupid and weird, the “ick factor.” The animals may or may not be enjoying themselves; my guess is that they are. It is preferable, after all, than being in a cage or a pen. There is no reason to believe that they are being hurt, and humiliation is not a concept that has meaning to a border collie.
The monkey riding the dog isn’t unethical, nor is the Washington Post’s printing a photo of it unethical. (One upset letter-writer argued that such photos “encouraged people to own these animals.” Somehow I doubt that the natural reaction to seeing a monkey playing Eddie Arcaro (oh, look it up!) is to think, “Boy, I’d sure like to have one of those riding my dog!”) Human beings may debase themselves by applauding such idiocy, but they also debase themselves watching “Jersey Shore.” The animals, meanwhile, are just fine.
Ethics Alarms 
Okay, now I have to ask. This is one of our local people out Taos, NM way, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18390655/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/artistic-license-didnt-include-rabies-tags/
It’s a mouse, riding on a cat, riding on a dog. What’s your stand?
They look happy to me!
They are! The harmony is envied, as just this morning the cat in our house got into the hamster cage and it wasn’t a pretty picture. Can’t we all just get along?
You don’t think putting that monkey in a jockey suit was being unkind to him?
Does he like or dislike the jockey suit? Presumably, if he didn’t like it, the only way you could tell is if he focused on getting it off. If that were the case, he wouldn’t be riding a border collie.
Do you think dressing babies in clothes is unkind?
No. I wouldn’t do it. But it is hardly cruelty.
It was tongue in cheek but I do think the ethical question is whether the monkey be someone’s pet to train in the first place, not whether or not he is riding a dog.
I personally dislike primates as entertainment. Dressing capuchins up and having them do stupid tricks seems so antiquated.
I don’t think any non-domesticated animals are proper pets. Lower primates can enjoy contact with humans, but they are better off with other monkeys.
The specific question addressed by the post regarded the “offensiveness” of the photo because it wasn’t dignified. That’s nonsense.
Are monkeys appropriate pets? No. Are they better off as pets than dead, or being experimented on? Ask them. I suspect that they’ll say “Give me the damn jockey outfit!”
What you said in the post was that the fact that the activity was ridiculous did not make it unethical (or something to that effect). All I was saying was that to reduce the question to whether or not it is ethical to train the monkey to ride the dog or to put that on display misses the real ethical point. A point that would provide meat for debate. The question as it stands is just silly. I also don’t get why the monkey’s only choices would be to be a pet, dead or an experiment. Seems there is a human ethical question there too.
It’s pretty simple. If a human being can and does supply a loving, healthy existence to an animal—of any kind—there’s nothing wrong with that.
I would rather see a capuchin monkey. already taken from his or her natural environment, adopted by a caring responsible person than any of the other alternatives left to such an animal.
The larger issue of what kinds of animals are responsible to keep as pets is long and involved, and I’ll write on that when and if I’m ready. The post was about the activity pictured, presuming no other mistreatment.
Ah, so you think we can equate the monkey to a baby. I thought the original dialogue was against that.
I never said anything about babies, though I deleted a paragraph about the comparison, because it just muddles the issue.
Again, I think dressing up babies in costumes that amuse the parents is dumb, and somewhat de-humanizing, using them as props. It is more stupid than unethical. Ick. That women who makes elaborate costumes for her birds is strange, but I don’t feel she’s unethical. Ick again. She loves her birds, and treats them well.
Jack, I know you didn’t say anything about babies. Tim did in his reponse. My further reply was to Tim and was pointing out that in your original post you seemed to be against applying human emotions, like dignity, to animals, thereby equating them to people. Sorry for the confusion but maybe I hit the wrong reply button.
My point was to ask you:
“What’s unkind about giving a monkey clothes?”
Nothing. Feel free to head to Brazil and hand out jockey suits. Although, since they are arboreal and mark their territory by soaking their hands and feet in their urine, I doubt they would wear them. Clothes would seriously cramp their style.
Well, that seems like a stupid idea. I’d stick to giving clothes to monkeys that desire to wear them.
I thought it was a stupid idea too, glad that came across. If I ever encounter a monkey who’s natural reaction to desire is to immediately get dressed, I will be sure to give him a sweater or something.
“You don’t think putting that monkey in a jockey suit was being unkind to him?”
So what was the point of your original question then if you yourself would give a domesticated dog-riding-monkey a jockey suit? Did you not like the fashion? Did you think he looked ridiculous?
I think I already said, days ago, that the original comment was tongue in cheek. I never did say that I would put a domesticated dog-riding monkey in a jockey suit. There is no such thing as a domesticated dog-riding monkey. If you choose to believe that from the photo, feel free. This is casual and amusing banter for me which is about the level of thought that is required for this superficial issue in my opinion. Jack has stated he was not addressing any larger issue and this is his blog so I will not go into my opinions about the human atrocities committed against nature so we can sit here and discuss the ridiculousness of a monkey riding a dog and worse yet, pretend that IS the issue. I will refrain from that out of respect but don’t expect me to take it seriously. To me, this whole topic is just more entertainment on the monkeys’ back.
I also think the outraged posters on the photo are being completely negated with the conclusion that their opinion is nonsense which is again, a very superficial analysis. Comments on visual internet posts by nature happen quickly, usually as an emotional reaction. They tend to be ones’ immediate feeling or thought and not everyone can muster measured thought in 60 seconds or less. Throw in the emotional component and it becomes possible that some of them are outraged without really understanding why. I would guess a good number of those outraged were connecting to the bigger picture, the real issue. Just because they were unable to articulate that in their comment does not erase how they felt or the benefit we gain by analyzing that.
The likelihood of most posters connecting to the big picture (as you see it) is small to nonexistent. Rational ignorance is powerful.
I do like how you co-opted the population at large by transferring their irrational animosity into deeper meaning. Good trick!
Everyone that disagrees with the current President who doesn’t have a rational argument for it must really be tapped into the deeper understanding that dark skinned people don’t belong in offices. I’m pretty sure I can co-opt both the rationally ignorant tea party masses and the firebaggerlings with this concept, right?
tgt, I didn’t co-opt anything. I said I would ‘guess’ and that there was benefit to be had by analyzing it. It wasn’t a conclusion. I didn’t talk to any of the outraged posters so I wouldn’t presume to speak for them any more than I would write them off as being rationally ignorant.
I guess that a good number of the people who have a kneejerk reaction to Obama are just racists.
It’s even stupider now because of the weasel words. I’m not saying X…I’m just saying X.
No weasel words. I was always just saying X, you said I said X… I think in the process of telling me I shouldn’t be putting words in people’s mouths or thoughts in their heads or something like that. I definitely didn’t say anything at all about Obama, or are bad analogies just a theme here?
Danielle, this is your words explaining what you had previously said:
I didn’t co-opt anything. I said I would ‘guess’ and that there was benefit to be had by analyzing it. It wasn’t a conclusion.
This is what you had actually said:
I would guess a good number of those outraged were connecting to the bigger picture, the real issue
It was clear from your post that you were trying to link your opinion to those other people. The word ‘guess’ is the weasel word to keep from being called on it later, even though you have already linked the ideas.
My analogy was right on point. It takes an idea and tries to link it with people who have not backed that idea.
Big presumption but I get what you are saying about long and involved.
I don’t know why you say that. We cannot presume mistreatment from a photo, so we must presume none. Abusing animals is a crime, and we presume innocence in this country even when there have been credible allegations of a crime. Naturally, then, we presume no abuse, in the complete absence of evidence to the contrary.
A monkey can be extremely hard to control. Especially through adolescence…. and I live in the real world, not in a courtroom.
Finally, a spot for this link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_sfnQDr1-o
Can anything this awesome possibly be unethical?
I had seen those same outraged Letters to the Editor and was surprised. Seriously, the monkey and the dog both seemed to be having a good time. As long as they weren’t abused in the training or competition, I don’t see why it’s unethical. Glad you addressed it.
Danielle: TGT is right. Genuine animal cruelty is not remotely the real issue, and the reason I posted was not to support the right of people to put monkeys in clothes or train dogs to let them ride then like horses—I said it was stupid, and it is. But it’s not animal cruelty, and those condemning one to support their objections to the other just trivialize and blur important issues and end up with PITA-style absurdity, arguing that the groundhog is being robbed of his dignity by being used as a prop for Groundhog Day.
Making animals wear clothes isn’t cruel unless the animal indicates that he or she is uncomfortable. Man-Ray, who makes the photos of his Weimeraners in various odd poses with human props and clothing, has written that his dogs enjoy the photo sessions, and he clearly loves his dogs.Your drawing the line connecting putting a monkey in a hat and genuine mistreatment does co-opt the discussion. Real animal cruelty is not an issue legitimately raised by the photo. The over-reaching of people who try to make it the issue was the point of the post.
Jack, I see that the two of you are of the same opinion. I don’t believe that you are right just because you agree. I am of a different opinion on this one is all. I am pretty sure everyone gets to have their own opinion. I wasn’t trying to change yours and I think I said that. There certainly is not enough relevant discussion here to change mine. I get what you are selling, Jack…. I am just not buying it.
“I’m not buying it” isn’t an argument.
That was the point…. I was never arguing.
Well that’s spectacularly unhelpful! Just stake a position out and don’t bother to defend it or test it, just keep asserting it, as if that makes it right. You should run for Congress.
I live in the wrong country to run for Congress and am not planning on relocating. You are probably right though. I should have perhaps lurked a little longer and read the comment guidelines a little closer. I remember something about fostering discussion but I did not interpret that, at the time, to mean arguement. I apologise for having misunderstood the intent but I am not prepared to argue. What makes it right is that I believe it and it is my opinion, therefore it is the right opinion for me. I am just as happy to have you reject my opinion as accept it when formulating your own. I will refrain from expressing it undefended in future now that you have pointed out the stipulation.
What makes it right is that I believe it and it is my opinion, therefore it is the right opinion for me.
That is ridiculous. Because you believe it, it is right for you to believe it.
There is no problem here with expressing an opinion, but if you are unwilling to back it up, and people disagree with you, it will likely be torn to shreds.
You also have been attempting to defend your positions. If you simply state that your opinion is not meant to be based on reality, I doubt people will argue with you.
The opinion we’re of is that this is not unethical behavior. The opinion you were stating was that people likely see the larger unethical behavior that led to this. That’s just rationalization and wish fulfillment.
‘the larger unethical behavior that led to this’? Can ethical behavior occur if other, unethical behavior, is a mandatory prerequisite?
Can you state what unethical behavior is the mandatory prerequisite so I can understand your question more fully?
Danielle doesn’t believe in arguing, Tim…she believes in stating what she believes, and what anyone else reveals, argues or concludes is of no import.
That said, with the blog awash with controversies over sex offender persecution, Stalinist blogs and fake-hypocrisy, plus the emergence of a rare and persistent Ethics Alarms troll, your dedication to monkey clothes is comforting.
By the way, I did work in some moral luck commentary. Did you notice?
I did notice, thanks! Though, I was hoping for it to be the central theme of a post, I recognize that they are a rare breed and it’s sometimes hard to get a whole post out of them.