06-15-2011, 02:30 PM
Again, we confuse the legal right with an action that is morally justified. If there is a reasonable action you can take to spare both dog and sheep, that is the action you should take.
In this instance, it does not sound like we have a dog who is a repeat offender. Based on the only side of the story presented thus far, we have a dog that has not escaped his confinement for 3 years. This does not sound like the sort of dog who is negligently left to wander and harass sheep or people. There are plenty of those, but this does not sound like one of them.
If a dog threatens a human, then deadly force is appropriate both morally and legally. If a dog attempts to shepherd a human without doing more, that might be a different matter.
It sounds, so far, like the owner carefully kept the dog confined for 3 years. Then there was an escape and harassment of sheep in a way that is unspecified.
Mere harassment is undeserving in my view of deadly force, from a moral perspective. Repeated harassment reduces the obligation of neighbor to neighbor. In such a case, the neighbor is suffering the trespass has more moral authority to exercise deadly force.
What we don't have a right, morally, to do as humans is to exercise a legal right gleefully, irresponsibly, and without regard to the consequences to others.
I can shoot your cat if it is attacking my bird. But if my bird is in a cage, and your cat appears for the very first time, paws the cage and attempts to scare the bird to death, I would exercise something short of deadly force to stop the attack.
If he scared the bird to death, then I would kill him.
In this instance, it does not sound like we have a dog who is a repeat offender. Based on the only side of the story presented thus far, we have a dog that has not escaped his confinement for 3 years. This does not sound like the sort of dog who is negligently left to wander and harass sheep or people. There are plenty of those, but this does not sound like one of them.
If a dog threatens a human, then deadly force is appropriate both morally and legally. If a dog attempts to shepherd a human without doing more, that might be a different matter.
It sounds, so far, like the owner carefully kept the dog confined for 3 years. Then there was an escape and harassment of sheep in a way that is unspecified.
Mere harassment is undeserving in my view of deadly force, from a moral perspective. Repeated harassment reduces the obligation of neighbor to neighbor. In such a case, the neighbor is suffering the trespass has more moral authority to exercise deadly force.
What we don't have a right, morally, to do as humans is to exercise a legal right gleefully, irresponsibly, and without regard to the consequences to others.
I can shoot your cat if it is attacking my bird. But if my bird is in a cage, and your cat appears for the very first time, paws the cage and attempts to scare the bird to death, I would exercise something short of deadly force to stop the attack.
If he scared the bird to death, then I would kill him.