Service Dogs

[Zedic]

How are service dogs viewed by Objectivists and the Objectivist philosophy? Would they be allowed or banned in an Objectivist society?

[Ordr]

They'd be allowed. A dog is the property of its owner.

How are service dogs viewed by Objectivists and the Objectivist philosophy? Would they be allowed or banned in an Objectivist society?

[themadkat]

How are service dogs viewed by Objectivists and the Objectivist philosophy? Would they be allowed or banned in an Objectivist society?

I'm not sure why this is even a question. Service dogs are a great innovation that allows disabled people to be more integrated and independent in society. Why would they be anything but applauded in an Oist society? Are you trying to get at something in particular with your question? Otherwise I'm lost.

[Zedic]

I'm asking because of government intervention. In the U.S., people with service dogs are protected by law to not be denied service because of their dog. A service dog isn't a pet, he's a working dog who needs to go everywhere the person goes. So I'm curious how Objectivism would treat instances of discrimination that people with service dogs face.

[Lazariun]

Can you provide examples of people who have been discriminated against due to their service dog? It seems to me that any prospective business would want to avoid the stigma of ostracizing customers due to their disabilities. Just because government offers a benefit doesn't mean that benefit is necessitated.

[Jake_Ellison]

In Objectivist society, no rights should infringe upon the rights of others. Rights should also apply to everyone equally.

What you are describing is a supposed right someone has over another person's property. More than that, it's a supposed right only blind people would have. No, the government would not have the power to grant such "rights" to anyone.

As for discrimination, we are all discriminated against by both businesses and other people. A business for instance will only give you goods if you have the right ammount of money. A restaurant will only allow you to enter it if you have the right clothes.

A hot chick will only have sex with you if you are attractive and pleasant, and probably a million other things.

If you were to apply the principle that "Discrimination is always wrong", you would automatically be abolishing private property, you would be legalizing-and in fact enforcing, with the use of government force- rape, etc.

[themadkat]

I'm asking because of government intervention. In the U.S., people with service dogs are protected by law to not be denied service because of their dog. A service dog isn't a pet, he's a working dog who needs to go everywhere the person goes. So I'm curious how Objectivism would treat instances of discrimination that people with service dogs face.

Anyone could deny service to people with service dogs, or for any other reason for that matter, but it would be very stupid, and their business would fail.

[K-Mac]

It shouldn't matter that a service dog is a "service" dog. If a property owner wants to allow or disallow people or pets or smoking or whatever on their property, they should be able to. (As long as they are not violating anyone's rights.)

[Zedic]

If you were to apply the principle that "Discrimination is always wrong", you would automatically be abolishing private property, you would be legalizing-and in fact enforcing, with the use of government force- rape, etc.

If you apply the principle that "discrimination is always right" (from the perspective of the discriminator, and who or what he chooses to discriminate against for what ever reason), then you're saying that the discrimination that blacks faced in the Jim Crow south was justified from the perspective of the property owners who discriminated. The Jim Crow laws, and the general social discrimination blacks fought against, could of never been permanently rescinded without the force of law.

Anyone could deny service to people with service dogs, or for any other reason for that matter, but it would be very stupid, and their business would fail.

Not necessarily. You're assuming that A (discrimination) automatically implies B (business failing), when it doesn't.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

Not necessarily. You're assuming that A (discrimination) automatically implies B (business failing), when it doesn't.

Just as A (leaping off the top of a tall building) does not automatically imply B (dying). Just as C (not studying for a test) does not automatically imply D (failing). But A does cause B and C does cause D. There is more to truth than logical implication.

[DavidOdden]

If you apply the principle that "discrimination is always right" (from the perspective of the discriminator, and who or what he chooses to discriminate against for what ever reason), then you're saying that the discrimination that blacks faced in the Jim Crow south was justified from the perspective of the property owners who discriminated. The Jim Crow laws, and the general social discrimination blacks fought against, could of never been permanently rescinded without the force of law.

So the generalization that you're looking for is this: the government may not discriminate irrationally, an individual may.

[Zedic]

Just as A (leaping off the top of a tall building) does not automatically imply B (dying). Just as C (not studying for a test) does not automatically imply D (failing). But A does cause B and C does cause D. There is more to truth than logical implication.

Yes, exactly. Like I said, discriminating against someone with a service dog doesn't necessarily mean the business will fail. Thus, blind people with service dogs can necessarily be denied service by any or all people in a society because there isn't necessarily a negative consequence, or at least negative consequences which will lead to failure.

So the generalization that you're looking for is this: the government may not discriminate irrationally, an individual may.

I'm exploring the consequences of discrimination and how it affect society.

[DavidOdden]

I'm exploring the consequences of discrimination and how it affect society.

But then your initial question is all wrong. You are not asking about rights and banning, you are asking about broader morality -- is it moral to irrationally discriminate? Of course not, but it would be legal. And of course it would be immoral to fail to rationally discriminate.

[Zedic]

is it moral to irrationally discriminate? Of course not, but it would be legal.

I can agree with you to an extent. But I can't agree on a the more extreme end of the spectrum. Such as, I don't see how the discrimination of the Jim Crow south can both be immoral yet still legal. By making it legal, it's essentially sanctioned by the state. That's oppression, plain and simple. As far as a blind person with a dog goes, the dog makes up for what everyone else takes for granted. I know the word "fair" is a hot button word around here. So I have to ask, how is it just that he's denied the normal life of going to a restaurant or stopping by the nearest convenient store for a quick snack because of something he has no control over?

Edited February 20, 2009 by Zedic

[Brule]

I can agree with you to an extent. But I can't agree on a the more extreme end of the spectrum. Such as, I don't see how the discrimination of the Jim Crow south can both be immoral yet still legal. By making it legal, it's essentially sanctioned by the state. That's oppression, plain and simple. As far as a blind person with a dog goes, the dog makes up for what everyone else takes for granted. I know the word "fair" is a hot button word around here. So I have to ask, how is it just that he's denied the normal life of going to a restaurant or stopping by the nearest convenient store for a quick snack because of something he has no control over?

A person cannot be forced to act rationally so they may act either in a moral way or not. The government can and should be forced to act rationally, so discrimination by government would be wrong. If a bigot crosses the line and violates another person's rights, then they have crossed into the illegal realm. As for the dog, there is no right to a "normal life". The owner of a business does have a right to his property and may decide how they wish the property to be used. In general a business owner would be acting in his own interest to allow service dogs unless there is a specific reason to not allow them. If an owner doesn't allow service dogs, black people, or those with hazel eyes he will lose their business. He will also lose business of those whom judge him for being a bigot. It's perfectly fine to say it's not fair and to judge the owner negatively, but that is completely separated from the law.

[Jake_Ellison]

Yes, exactly. Like I said, discriminating against someone with a service dog doesn't necessarily mean the business will fail. Thus, blind people with service dogs can necessarily be denied service by any or all people in a society because there isn't necessarily a negative consequence, or at least negative consequences which will lead to failure.

Yes, the very very very very unlikely possibility that someone could find themselves discriminated against by every single person on the Planet exists, in theory. In fact that possibility exists irrespective of what type of government there is. If everyone in the world decides to discriminate against someone, what difference does it make what the laws are or who's in charge?

Now let's put that aside, and look at what could, realistically, happen. Let's look at history, and what types of government caused massive discrimination against people for irrational reasons. Was it systems in which the government had the power to dominate the decisions of individuals, imposing some form of discrimination (slavery, segregation, genocide in Nazi Germany), or was it when individuals had the right to decide for themselves with whom they wish to deal?

Then, let's look at what options a person has in different systems, when a majority of the people hate him, without good reason. (not that this would happen-the reason why we have both racism and an overbearing government is the same: collectivist philosophy)

In a free society, even someone who is for some reason hated (for whatever reason, probably because of something despicable he said or did), has the protection of the Law, and has the chance to find those few individuals who are willing to deal with him. In a society in which the government has the power to decide what it can do, arbitrarily, anyone who is unpopular would be condemned. (some examples from the history of Athenian democracy come to mind)

Is there any example in history when a person was granted every right everyone else had, in the face of the Law, and still found himself shunned by everyone, for reasons that were entirely irrational?

You have to remember that we are dealing with individuals. Saying that we could all turn on blind people is not a valid argument in favor of measures to restrict our freedom, because realistically that would never happen. What could happen though is that the government kills them all. In fact it did happen to Jews, gypsies, people with disabilities and homosexuals, all at once. If you want to prevent discrimination, promote individualism.

[Jake_Ellison]

I can agree with you to an extent. But I can't agree on a the more extreme end of the spectrum. Such as, I don't see how the discrimination of the Jim Crow south can both be immoral yet still legal. By making it legal, it's essentially sanctioned by the state. That's oppression, plain and simple. As far as a blind person with a dog goes, the dog makes up for what everyone else takes for granted. I know the word "fair" is a hot button word around here. So I have to ask, how is it just that he's denied the normal life of going to a restaurant or stopping by the nearest convenient store for a quick snack because of something he has no control over?

Reality check:

1. Segregation was enforced by the states. The federal government stepped in to prevent the states from passing laws that enforced segregation. That is what happened. Any other version of history is false, including what you are implying: that segregation still happened, with the government treating blacks and whites as equals.

Segregation was enforced by the police, not private citizens.

2. A blind person would not be denied service at a majority of restaurants. In fact any restaurant that did that would be crucified in the media. Businesses have been boycotted for a lot less than that.

The only reason why no one decided to do a poll is because it is pretty obvious that most people would make that concession to a blind person.

Again, you saying that this would happen is unreasonable.

[Lazariun]

A person cannot be forced to act rationally so they may act either in a moral way or not. The government can and should be forced to act rationally, so discrimination by government would be wrong. If a bigot crosses the line and violates another person's rights, then they have crossed into the illegal realm. As for the dog, there is no right to a "normal life". The owner of a business does have a right to his property and may decide how they wish the property to be used. In general a business owner would be acting in his own interest to allow service dogs unless there is a specific reason to not allow them. If an owner doesn't allow service dogs, black people, or those with hazel eyes he will lose their business. He will also lose business of those whom judge him for being a bigot. It's perfectly fine to say it's not fair and to judge the owner negatively, but that is completely separated from the law.

This is really the essence of it, right here. You can't force people to be nice, you can't force them to not be a bigot. You may think that you can use government to keep people in line, but then your reasoning is no different from those who would attempt to enforce restrictions on cursing in public or PDAs in parks. It rests on the same principle, and you can't justify another reason outside of a basis on emotion ("Well, I don't feel it is right") or your own subjective opinion.

Although a bigot may be irrational, he still has the right to speak his ignorant opinion, and he still has the right to say what goes on his property. The rest of us have the right to judge him for it. And the same goes for someone that would arbitrarily decide he won't serve blind people with service dogs.

Again, I still don't think it's a realistic situation though. I've never heard of anyone being refused from an establishment for being handicapped or having a service dog. It almost sounds like a hypothetical invented for the sake of argument. I can do that too:

What if a grocery store decided to not serve customers who have canes, because they don't want their floors scuffed up?

[K-Mac]

There are rational reasons why a business owner may not want a dog in his business. Perhaps the owner has a severe allergy.

[Lazariun]

There are rational reasons why a business owner may not want a dog in his business. Perhaps the owner has a severe allergy.

Good point K-mac. Or perhaps a terrible phobia of dogs. Or maybe the shop owner has his own dog, or cat, that is a sort of store mascot. There's a CD store here in town, where Zedic lives, that owns a store dog. Maybe the store dog or cat would flip out if another animal were brought in. In that case, does the blind man get special privilege over the store owner and his dog? (Although I'm sure most merchants would just try to contain their own animal to allow the patron to browse for the remainder of his stay.)

There are a lot of realistic circumstances for why a merchant may not want a service dog in his establishment, aside from mindless bias.

[DavidOdden]

Such as, I don't see how the discrimination of the Jim Crow south can both be immoral yet still legal.

I covered that when I said "the government may not discriminate irrationally, an individual may".

So I have to ask, how is it just that he's denied the normal life of going to a restaurant or stopping by the nearest convenient store for a quick snack because of something he has no control over?

Oh, are you referring to government health regulations? I don't believe that any government does or can require a food establishment to exclude guide dogs. Thus a guide-dog exception would exist to any anti-animal laws. Remember that the anti-animal laws are improper. However, any business owner has the right to decide to exclude animals from his property; he may have a rational reason for doing so, or may be being irrational. Either way, it's his decision.

It is, or should be, understood that guide dogs are specially trained so that the factors that generally motivate a no-dogs rule do not apply. However, there could be rational reasons to exclude all dogs, such as allergy.