Ethical-Dog-Trainer_-A-Practical-Guide-for-Canine-Professionals_-The-Jim-Barry.txt

The Ethical Dog Trainer. A Practical Guide for Canine Professionals Jim Barry Dogwise Publishing A Division of Direct Book Service, Inc. 701B Poplar Wenatchee, Washington 98801 1-509-663-9115, 1-800-776-2665 www.dogwisepublishing.com / [email protected] © 2008 Jim Barry Graphic Des...

The Ethical Dog Trainer. A Practical Guide for Canine Professionals Jim Barry Dogwise Publishing A Division of Direct Book Service, Inc. 701B Poplar Wenatchee, Washington 98801 1-509-663-9115, 1-800-776-2665 www.dogwisepublishing.com / [email protected] © 2008 Jim Barry Graphic Design: Lindsay Peternell Indexing: Cheryl Smith All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, digital or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system without permission in writing from the publisher. Limits of Liability and Disclaimer of Warranty: The author and publisher shall not be liable in the event of incidental or consequential damages in connection with, or arising out of, the furnishing, performance, or use of the instructions and suggestions contained in this book. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Barry, Jim (Jim A.) The ethical dog trainer : a practical guide for canine professionals / by Jim Barry. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-929242-56-6 (alk. paper) 1. Dog trainers. 2. Dogs—Training. I. Title. SF431.B367 2008 636.7’0887—dc22 2008014611 ISBN: 978-1-929242-56-6 Printed in the U.S.A. To the teachers who touch my mind and the dogs who touched my heart. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments Introduction Part I Personal and Professional Ethics 1. What Does Ethics Have to do with Dog Training? 2. Essential Ethics 3. Dilemmas of Dog Trainers 4. Case Studies 5. Contributors’ Assesments of Case Studies Part II Current Ethical Issues in Dog Training 6. Training Techniques and Equipment 7. Professionalism and Professional Boundaries 8. Dogs and Society Part III Summing Up 9. The Ethical Dog Trainer Resources About the Author and Contributors Index ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge at the outset that it is impossible to write a book on ethics without individual biases creeping in. For that reason, I want to express my deepest gratitude to all who provided comments and encouragement for this project, along the way indicating those areas in which biases seemed evident. An attempt has been made to remedy this defect, though no doubt vestiges of my beliefs and values remain. Gratitude is due especially to Steve Benjamin, faculty member at the Karen Pryor Academy for Animal Training and Behavior; Steve Bliven, one of the best clients a trainer could wish for; Chris Brudecki, Director of Outreach for Petsafe/Invisible Fence Brand electric containment systems; John Brynda, Program Manager, Marketing Services for Radio Systems Corporation; Martin Deeley, Executive Director of the International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP); Cyndy Douan, President and founder of IACP; Michelle Douglas, member of the board of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT); Ian Dunbar, PhD, MRCVS, founder of APDT; Margie English, Chair, Ethics Committee, National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors (NADOI); Chris Hannafin, DVM, President, Rhode Island Veterinary Medical Association; Don Hanson, President of APDT; Fred Hassen, originator of the “No Limitations” method of electronic collar training; Lynn Hoover, founder and past president of the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC); Andrew Luescher DMV, PhD, DACVB, ECVBM-CA, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist, Purdue University; Pat Miller, past president of APDT and author of The Power of Positive Dog Training; Christie Smith, Executive Director of the Potter League for Animals, Rhode Island’s premiere animal shelter; Susan Smith, Secretary and Treasurer of the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers (CCPDT); Dani Weinberg, PhD, dog behavior consultant and author of Teaching People Teaching Dogs; Debbie Winkler, president of IAABC, and her colleagues on the Board; and Marilyn Wolf, Certified Pet Dog Trainer (CPDT) and member of the Truly Dog Friendly group. INTRODUCTION * * * Do you ever feel that you are caught in the middle? Between a dog with major behavior problems and an owner who wants instant results? Between a client and a breeder who is giving what you think is inappropriate advice? Between your own views about the treatment of dogs and the cultural norms of your community? If so, then this book is for you. For all of us who work with families and dogs, these clashes of values—ethical dilemmas—are inevitable. Just as we need skills and experience to work with dogs, we need to become adept at handling ethical challenges as well. The approach outlined in this book will help you to become as skilled at ethical decision-making as you are at working with families and dogs. There are several reasons why ethics are important for all of us. First, we work daily with dogs and families. The decisions we make and the recommendations we give can have a great effect on their well-being. Second, we are part of a business that is working hard to be recognized as a profession. Professions need ethical standards to have credibility and grow. Third, we need to be able to look at ourselves directly and be comfortable with our choices. Being conscious about our values and developing effective ways to pursue them are vital to our self-respect. Finally, it’s very much in our interest to behave with integrity toward colleagues, clients and dogs. To do so enhances our reputation, enabling us to increase our ability to help—and maybe even our bottom line. Fortunately, we don’t have to do this alone. For thousands of years, the greatest minds have pondered the best approaches to making ethical choices. This ancient wisdom can inform even modern decisions. This book provides an easy-to-understand synthesis of these approaches that you can use in your daily activities. You don’t need to be a philosopher to make good decisions, but it helps to know a little bit about the ways in which these deep thinkers have tried to work through dilemmas. You’ll be pleased to discover that it’s no more difficult than the learning psychology or canine behavior you learned to become the trainer that you are. Plan of the Book Here’s the road map to better ethical decisions. This book has three parts. Part I focuses on personal and professional ethics for individual trainers and those in the related field of canine behavior consulting. Chapter 1 is a discussion about why ethics matters to dog trainers and how to develop an ethical vision for your business. Chapter 2 discusses the essential elements of ethics—how they apply to our lives, and their place in our profession. The chapter will review some of the enduring techniques for separating right from wrong and for deciding between competing values. These techniques will be put in context by drawing on the codes of conduct for the major dog training professional societies to show you how to use them in your daily business. Chapter 3 focuses on decision-making in practice. To do that, fictional cases are provided in which dog trainers have to make difficult ethical choices, and then these examples can be used by other trainers facing similar situations to develop a clear, systematic six-step decision making process. Chapter 4 provides an opportunity to work through some real-life application of this process. (Ethical decision-making, like dog training, is a skill; we need to practice to be proficient.) It presents a series of case studies that illustrate typical ethical challenges faced by dog trainers. You can read the cases, presented in Chapter 4, then apply the methods outlined in Chapter 3 to them, and then compare the conclusions with those of the author and other contributors in Chapter 5. Part II broadens the discussion in Chapters 6 through 8 to tackle a number of current “hot-button” issues in the dog training profession. These include: What training methods are acceptable? How do we maintain respectful affiliations and professional relationships with colleagues whose methods may differ from our own? What are the appropriate boundaries between our profession and other related fields, such as applied animal behavior and veterinary medicine? And where do we stand on the broader societal debate regarding peoples’ relationships with animals— are they property, or do we have some deeper obligation to the animals in our lives? These are the dilemmas that have the potential to unite or divide dog trainers as they pursue their goal of recognition as professionals. Here you have an opportunity to read the various arguments and reflect on how they relate to your own views. Who knows, some views might change as a result. In Part III, Chapter 9 contains a summary of the key points in the book and a set of considerations related to what an ethical dog trainer should know and do. It also summarizes how dog trainers develop as committed, ethical professionals. The Resources section contains the codes of ethics and standards of conduct of some of the professional societies for dog training and allied fields. There is also a list of resources for those interested in pursuing this topic further, as well as some “ethical stretching exercises” based on those resources. The goal of this book is to help you personally and professionally. The hope is that by mastering some simple, yet challenging principles, all of us dog trainers can raise the quality of our choices and make things better for our clients and dogs, as well as for our profession. A Note on Sources Because this is intended as a professional development book, not an academic tome, I have used an informal method of citation in the text and in the Resources list. In this age of rapid electronic searching, I assume that the books and articles cited will be easy for readers to find with the information provided. When websites are listed, the information cited was present at those addresses on October 31, 2007. PART I PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS Chapter 1 WHAT DOES ETHICS HAVE TO DO WITH DOG TRAINING? * * * Every day, dog trainers and behavior consultants come face to face with ethical challenges. But these challenges come to us in disguise, masquerading as choices about training methods, marketing efforts, working with clients, and collaborating with colleagues. In order to navigate effectively through these difficult situations, it’s essential to look behind the masks and see them for what they are—ethical issues that require us to have a clear vision based on a coherent set of beliefs, values, and principles to guide us. Developing and implementing this vision is what ethics is all about. What is ethics, anyway? There are several ways to define ethics and ethical behavior, so it’s useful at the outset to look at some common definitions. In keeping with the practical intent of this book, we won’t be going too deeply into theory, but having a consistent set of terms and a clear understanding of some basic concepts will be useful, just as understanding and using the terminology of learning theory can be very helpful in training dogs. The term ethics comes to us ultimately from the Greek word ethos, which means the character or nature of something. In the original sense, ethics simply means being true to our nature. The American Heritage Dictionary has several definitions: 1. A set of principles of right conduct. 2. A theory or system of moral values. 3. [The] study of moral philosophy. 4. The rules of standards of... a person or the members of a profession. Some people use the terms ethics and morals interchangeably; others think of ethics as related to external standards and of morals as the dictates of individual conscience. Actually, the word “morals” is derived from the Latin mores, which means customs or traditions, so the original meanings were the opposite of the current practice. To avoid unnecessary confusion, we are going to use both ethics and morals to refer to either external or internal principles of conduct. We’ll also use ethics to mean the branch of philosophy that studies issues of right and wrong. Do I really need this stuff to be a successful trainer? Why bother getting bogged down in definitions? The short answer is to be a better trainer. Being an ethical trainer and a successful trainer— at least as we commonly define success—are not exactly the same, but there is a relationship. Trainers who act in accordance with their highest standards feel more comfortable with themselves than those who cut corners. This enables them to focus their energies on developing their knowledge and skills rather than trying to work around ethical problems. They also come across to their clients as reliable people who deliver what they promise. By conveying an image of integrity, they may find that their clients are more inclined to recommend them to others. Trainers who are forthright, compassionate, and supportive are, in the long run, more likely to achieve a positive reputation than those who exaggerate their abilities or care more about themselves than their clients. Customers can tell. So there’s no guarantee that ethical behavior will lead to fame, fortune, and a bigger bottom line. But there are both personal and professional benefits to being the best that we can be, in every sense. Creating a vision One way to link our business goals to our ethics is through a vision statement. According to the online consulting firm 1000ventures.com, a vision statement is “a short, succinct, and inspiring statement of what the organization intends to become and to achieve at some point in the future… the image that a business must have of its goals before it sets out to reach them.” Here are some examples of vision statements: We bring good things to life. (General Electric) We save people money so they can live better. (Wal-Mart) To bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world. (Nike) These statements, of course, double as advertising slogans, and we may not agree with all of the activities that these and other companies undertake. However, a well-crafted vision statement can serve as a guidepost for all business activities, integrating core beliefs, fundamental values, and highest principles into a set of specific goals that provides a way to achieve personal satisfaction—and, hopefully, business success. Beliefs, values, and principles How do we create a positive vision and become both successful and ethical dog trainers? This book will outline some steps to take when, in pursuit of certain goals, dog trainers are confronted with temptations to act unethically or with dilemmas that require them to make uncomfortable choices. Before going into those steps in detail, however, it’s useful to start with a look at ourselves. When we act ethically, we conduct ourselves in accordance with what we hold to be true (beliefs), what we esteem (values), and guidelines for how we should act (principles). For example, if we believe that animals have inherent dignity and rights, we would value compassion toward them and might follow a principle of minimizing harm in our work with dogs. If we believe that people have a right to freedom of choice, we would value honesty in our relationships and might follow a principle of providing complete information on all options available for resolving a family dog’s behavior problems. What do I know to be true? At the beginning of our journey toward becoming highly ethical trainers, then, it’s useful to ask ourselves what our core beliefs are. People often talk about their “belief systems.” Usually, they are mixing up beliefs, values, and interests, so it’s helpful to begin by looking at what we hold to be true, and how we come to have that set of beliefs. The American Heritage Dictionary defines belief as, “Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.” The historical roots of the word imply a religious faith, but that is only one of the ways in which people come to a conclusion about what is true. There are factual beliefs based on direct observation (i.e. “Many retired racing Greyhounds have trouble learning to sit,”) scientific conclusions based on research studies (like, “When a dog is under stress, it’s heart beats faster and blood flows toward the muscles in preparation for fight or fight,”) or conclusions widely held within a group or culture (such as, “Pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds.”) Beliefs have varying degrees of reliability, and many, including some of those above, may actually be untrue. But our beliefs do, in a very real sense, provide the foundation for our behavior. So as a first step, it’s valuable to enumerate our beliefs about dogs, about the people with whom we work, and about the nature of our business. Here are just a few of the many questions about beliefs that you may want to ponder: About dogs: What are dogs for? Are they to be regarded as independent creatures with the same rights as humans? May they be used to promote human goals? Or do they fall somewhere in between, with rights that are limited in some ways in comparison to humans; and if so, what are those limits? About people: What is my relationship to my clients? Am I a service provider, an educator, a counselor? Do I work for them, or are we equal collaborators? Are all of the people with whom I work to be valued equally, or are some to be regarded more highly than others? Are there things that clients might do that would cause me to want to stop working with them? About business: What am I in business for? Is the purpose of dog training to help families to be more content with their dogs? To achieve awards? To provide a living for myself and my family? What makes a successful business? Is it the “bottom line,” the achievement of a particular set of performance goals, esteem within my community? What do I care about? Values have been defined as things that are “worthy of esteem for their own sake” (according to Rushworth Kidder in How Good People Make Tough Choices). What do you find especially worthy of esteem? Do you value honesty, compassion, or freedom? What about dignity, honor, or duty? Are you drawn to people who show integrity, generosity, or steadfastness? Where do justice, mercy, and loyalty rank in your system of values? Are you more interested in efficiency, or in effectiveness? Does success matter to you more, or does self-satisfaction? We all value all—or nearly all—of these attributes. But problems can arise when they come into conflict. For example: Is it better to be honest with a client about a poor prognosis for remedying his dog’s behavior, or does compassion dictate that we be more encouraging than our professional opinion would warrant? Should you provide generous discounts to clients in need at the risk of being unfair to others who must pay full price? Should you allow a client to use training methods of her choice in the name of respecting freedom of choice, even if you believe those methods may be harmful to her dog? These are not easy questions for any trainer to answer, yet they come up far too often. The next chapter will discuss some methods for resolving these value conflicts. But for now, it may be useful for you to think about how you developed your unique set of values. Hunter Lewis, in an interesting book called A Question of Values, suggests that there are six basic ways in which people acquire their value systems. They are: 1. Authority: an external force such as a religious community, family, or organizational affiliation. An example might be placing high value on being non-judgmental toward other trainers because that is a tenet of the International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP), or on “dog-friendly training” as advocated by the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT). 2. Logic: deducing values from a set of fundamental beliefs. For example, valuing honesty based on the belief that honest people are more likely to prosper. 3. Sense experience: relying on what we can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch, such as placing a high premium on comfort for you, your clients, and the dogs. 4. Emotion: valuing what comes from the heart or gut, such as love or loyalty. You might highly esteem commitment to enduring relationships between dogs and people. 5. Intuition: basing values on the unconscious connections made in our minds, on our ability to rapidly integrate information into conclusions. You might have concluded, without really thinking deeply about it on a conscious level, that a calm, confident attitude is to be valued when working with dogs and clients. 6. Science: holding in esteem that which can be proven by rigorous inquiry. Valuing training methods that are consistent with the conclusions of cognitive psychology or ethological studies would fit into this category. These six sources aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, but most of us seem to have a preference for one or a couple of these factors in determining our values. Knowing where our values come from can be important to figuring out which ones should take precedence in any given situation. Here’s another preliminary exercise: Enumerate some of your most deeply held values, figure out how you acquired them, and think about how you might order them in terms of importance. One interesting way to do this is based on a method used by Rush Kidder in some of his training courses. Imagine that you are building a new facility for your programs. You have the opportunity to have three words engraved in stone over the entrance. These words will represent your most important values. What words would they be, and why would you choose them over others? What should I do? Based on our beliefs and values, then, we develop a set of principles or standards for action. Most of us, unless we are professional philosophers, don’t do this in a rigorous fashion. Depending on our preference for how we determine our values, for example, we may be more logical, more emotional, or more intuitive about our principles. But we need to have some principles; otherwise, our actions become inconsistent and capricious. Principles are guides to behavior. They help us to maintain fidelity to our values in specific circumstances. Sometimes commentators criticize “situational ethics,” but in reality all ethics is situational in that it relates to discrete events that are before us. To react to these events, we require some way to translate our values into action. Many dog trainers and consultants include a set of principles in their promotional materials or on their websites, perhaps explicitly as a training philosophy or implicitly in their biographies or descriptions of services. Here are a few examples of the stated principles of dog trainers, with the wording changed to maintain their anonymity: We pledge to treat all of our clients and their dogs with respect. Our training is humane in that it helps dogs to attain solid results when under stress. The safety of people and animals is our principal concern. We seek to promote unity, harmony, and understanding among dogs and people. We teach you to effectively communicate with your canine to the benefit of all. We turn out high-performance dogs for clients who insist on the best. If you look closely at these principles, you can find the beliefs and values behind them. Some are based on a belief in the inherent dignity of both dogs and people, and value compassion. Others indicate a belief that clients’ wishes are to be accorded respect, and that effectiveness is to be valued highly. Have you written a training philosophy or set of principles? If not, that’s a good way to start your journey toward being an ethical dog trainer. If someone asked you to describe your training and business philosophy in a few sentences, what would you say? Try jotting down some notes and see if your principles seem to be coherent and consistent with your beliefs and values. Once you’ve done that, you can compare them with some widely accepted ethical standards, such as the professional codes in the Resources section, and see how they measure up. Isn’t it all relative? But wait a minute, you might say. Does it really matter? Aren’t these principles highly individual? And aren’t they different depending on my culture, my background, and my experiences? Aren’t standards of behavior in this profession or any other just relative? Well, yes and no. It is absolutely true that attitudes, practices, and principles about how dogs are treated and trained vary widely. Standards for housing dogs in northeastern cities may be very different from those in rural southern areas. Training principles espoused by handlers of field trial retrievers may differ from those promoted by pet dog trainers. And there are some cultures where dogs are eaten at mealtimes! This is not to say that there are no common standards. Anthropologists and sociologists have found that virtually all societies have some kind of commitment to fairness, respect, and the maintenance of safety. In her book Common Values, ethicist Sissela Bok finds that, in order to survive, all human groups need some sort of basic values in common: mutual loyalty and reciprocity, limits on harmful actions, and principles of fairness and justice. Rushworth Kidder, in Shared Values for a Troubled World, conducted interviews with 24 “people of conscience” from virtually all major world cultures. In their comments, seven core values were mentioned consistently. They are: love, truthfulness, unity, freedom, respect for life, fairness, and tolerance. These seem to be at the center of our shared humanity and are values that underlie relationships among people worldwide. They also can inform work with clients. When it comes to belief systems, there is also a fairly high degree of convergence in attitudes toward animals. There are biblical references to the dignity to be accorded to animals; the Qur’an speaks of communities of animals, comparing them to human communities; and Buddhism counsels loving kindness to all creatures. It is also true, however, that in most major world religions, humans have higher inherent value than animals, so that their rights are paramount. This view has evolved and is currently being challenged; the new perspective is explored in Chapter 8. The difficulty arises for us as trainers because, the more we try to apply these general standards to specific situations, the more disagreement is likely. This is not surprising. Applying ethical principles is difficult. It requires precision in our understanding, clarity in our thought, and the ability to be both courageous and humble. We must avoid two traps— ceding our decision-making to others, and crashing ahead to promote our own views without due consideration to our limitations and the validity of others’ concerns. To do this requires self-knowledge, self-discipline, and skill. Returning to the vision With a clearer understanding of our beliefs, values, and principles, and knowing where we and our business fit into the cultural context in which we operate, we can now return to our vision. The following are some hypothetical vision statements for trainers and consultants with different areas of specialization: 1. Trainer for Family Dogs. Beliefs: Dogs and people should be content and joyful in their families. Too many dogs are given up or euthanized because of poor behavior. Values: Compassion, loyalty. Principles: Dogs should be trained and treated humanely, and families should learn how to prevent and treat common behavior problems that, if left unresolved, could lead to re-homing or euthanasia. Vision statement: All of our clients and their dogs will have long, happy lives together. 2. Competitive Obedience Trainer. Beliefs: Dogs and people are happiest when engaged in activities that bring out the best in both. High levels of performance are achievable and desirable. Values: Excellence, determination. Principles: Dog training should be conducted in accordance with the highest standards of performance using methods that are effective and humane. Vision statement: All of our dogs will be joyous, perfect 200s. 3. Behavior Consultant Specializing in Aggression Cases. Beliefs: Most aggression is rooted in anxiety. A science-based methodology can mitigate, but not necessarily eliminate, aggressive behavior. Values: Security, scientific rigor. Principles: Aggressive dogs should be managed to reduce risks to people and other animals and treated using sound, scientifically valid behavior-changing techniques. Vision statement: The families we help live safely and contentedly with their dogs. 4. Professional Retriever Field Trial Trainer. Beliefs: Dogs should excel at the tasks for which they were bred. Breeding programs are enhanced by identifying and breeding the highest performing dogs. Values: High achievement, competitiveness. Principles: Training should build on natural drives and achieve outstanding results through systematic drills and the incentive of competition. Vision statement: Our dogs give you the bird, every time. While these trainers and consultants have very different goals and methods, they share one common characteristic: integrity. Integrity, a word that has the same origin as integer (a whole number) connotes a “oneness,” or the ability to present a consistent set of beliefs, values, and principles that can guide decisions regarding clients, colleagues, and animals. For dog trainers, that is what ethics is all about. Chapter 2 ESSENTIAL ETHICS * * * Establishing a business vision is like deciding on the destination for an ocean voyage. But knowing where we want to go and getting there are different things. Like ships setting off for a distant port, we sometimes must sail through dangerous waters, relying on charts compiled by previous voyagers to guide us on our way. For our journey toward becoming ethical dog trainers, we are fortunate to have the assistance of spiritual leaders and moral philosophers who have gone before us. This chapter explores the guideposts that they left, beginning with those who made the voyage centuries ago. As indicated in the last chapter, the origin of the word ethics is Greek, and the ancient Greeks had a lot to say about what ethical behavior is and how to achieve it. This section presents an examination of some aspects of basic ethics, starting with insights from the Greeks. It then goes on to look at some of the modern rules of behavior for our profession and some of the specific methods that philosophers have developed for making difficult ethical decisions. Ethical concepts are presented here at a fairly basic level. That means a focus on the essentials while bypassing some of the nuances. You might look back to when you first read about learning theory. We’ll be working on a level that could be compared to Karen Pryor’s Don’t Shoot the Dog or John Bailey and Mary Burch’s book How Dogs Learn. That is, technical terms will be used accurately and basic methods described concisely, but without the depth that you would find in an ethics textbook. There are many excellent books on ethics for those who wish to go deeper; a selection is listed in the Resources section. The Greeks had it right: know yourself At the temple of Apollo in Delphi there were two famous inscriptions. The first was, in Greek, gnothe sauton, which means “know thyself” and the second was, “meden agan,” or “nothing in excess.” These terms make for sound advice for any trainer. We’ve already talked a bit about knowing ourselves in terms of beliefs, values, and principles. It’s also helpful to be thoughtful about understanding our own behavior. The psychologist Carl Gustav Jung said that if you want to know what a person’s real (as opposed to stated) values are, you should look at what that person does. However, what we actually do is not necessarily in accord with what we espouse as our highest principles. Sometimes we make choices that are simply wrong. The early Christian figure Paul said, “That which I would do, I do not; that which I would not do, that I do.” In other words, we may have the best of intentions, but stray from what we believe and value. One way to approach self-knowledge is through the tools of psychology. Psychological instruments like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) can give us insights into our personalities and preferences. Based on Jung’s theory of personality, the MBTI helps us to understand our preferences for how we relate to the world (as introverts or extraverts), gather information (through our senses or through intuition), make judgments (using logical thinking or feelings and values), and deal with the future (making plans or staying open to opportunities). Dani Weinberg has a helpful summary of the MBTI in her book, Teaching People, Teaching Dogs. Another tool is the Enneagram, an approach to categorizing human behavior in terms of common human needs. It is a spiritual discipline that traces its origins to the early Christian period and involves reflection and dialogue with a spiritual director regarding the basic drives that shape our behavior. These include the need to be good, to give to others, to perform, to be special, to learn, to be secure, to avoid pain, to oppose others, and to be calm. (These instruments should be interpreted by a qualified professional.) Some of us may consult with counselors for a better understanding of ourselves and our behavior. We may come from a spiritual tradition that emphasizes self-examination. Perhaps our religious community has a practice of examination of conscience, or we may know about the method of moral inventory used in some support groups. Whatever approach one may choose to take, however, it is helpful to have an assistant or guide. This person may be a spouse, friend, mentor, or spiritual advisor. His or her role is not to help us develop a training approach, but rather to serve as a confidante and helpmate when we are faced with a moral temptation or an ethical dilemma. Here’s one way to begin to explore ourselves more deeply: Make a list of three professional situations you faced recently in which you were proud of what you did. Then list three in which you were disappointed in your own choices. Now look behind those specific circumstances and see if there are any patterns. For example, from your lists, can you determine: What are the strengths that you bring to your profession? What are the areas that are most challenging for you? Can you list the characteristics that you think are most consistent with your deepest values—like compassion, respect, fairness or integrity? Did you find some weaknesses like difficulty relating to certain personalities, going beyond your capabilities to earn more money, or cutting corners on an evaluation for a friend? Try to create a balance sheet that shows your best features as well as those in which you see a need for further development. Next, share this information with someone you trust. If that person cares about you, and is ethically perceptive, he or she will give you valuable feedback that can help you to grow. What every trainer must know: laws, regulations, rules, and customs The other inscription at Delphi, “nothing in excess,” is also very important for us as trainers. It reminds us to stay within our limits, both personally and professionally. One of the difficulties, however, is that those limits aren’t always clear. Dog training is currently a largely unregulated profession. In contrast to physicians or electrical contractors, we don’t have the benefit of having a specific set of professional standards and a clear, legal framework within which we operate. That means we must exercise what attorneys call due diligence—an in-depth examination of all applicable rules in order to understand the limits which we must not exceed. A good place to start is with the legal system. It’s important that dog trainers and behavior consultants be aware of all provisions in the law that govern their activities. These include, but are not limited to, laws regarding the structure and conduct of our businesses, tax requirements, insurance regulations, rules regarding verification of employment eligibility, and a myriad of other federal, state and local laws. There are also, of course, laws and regulations regarding animals. We need to be aware of, for example, leash laws, dangerous dog laws, laws affecting ownership of specific breeds, and requirements for reporting dog bites. For both the business and animal aspects of our activities, professional advice is essential. The assistance we get from a good attorney can be well worth the cost. There’s another place to go for help. Professional associations for trainers and consultants have their own codes of ethics or professional conduct. Several of these are reprinted for reference in the Resources section. While they vary in depth, content, and emphasis, there are some recurring themes that can guide our choices. They include: Remaining within the boundaries of our professional competence. Being truthful, accurate, and complete in our advertising and in our communication with clients and colleagues. Treating dogs humanely and refraining from causing intentional harm. Being respectful of colleagues, even when we may disagree about individual choices. Using discretion regarding information obtained when providing professional services. Conducting the financial aspects of our businesses in accordance with accepted professional practices. Making a commitment to continued education and professional growth. Trainers who embrace these rules are, in effect, establishing boundaries that they agree not to exceed. In so doing, they are engaging in the self-discipline of turning their freedom of choice over to an organization for the collective good. Deciding which organizations to join is an important choice. Professional associations provide benefits, educational opportunities, and marketing assistance. They also represent a shared set of beliefs, values, and principles, and it is essential that trainers be prepared to accept those provisions when joining the organization. Finally, it’s important that trainers and consultants be aware of local customs and cultural norms. Leaving a dog outside in winter may be considered cruel in Maine, but an accepted practice in more moderate climates. The attitudes that people display toward their dogs at a Schutzhund trial may look quite different from those at a Canine Good Citizen® test. It’s important, in those instances, to have a healthy dose of humility and explore what is behind the attitudes before leaping to conclusions. Ethics as a skill set Dog training is a skill. It has principles, and requires practice. Surprisingly, acting ethically is also a skill, and as mentioned earlier, it’s one that needs to be practiced. The Greek philosopher Aristotle put it this way: “People become builders by building and instrumentalists by playing instruments. Similarly, we become just by performing just acts, temperate by performing temperate ones, brave by performing brave ones.” He might have said that we become dog trainers by training dogs. This chapter reviews some of the principles that are involved in making sound ethical decisions, especially thinking systematically and making moral judgments. The next chapter develops and applies a simplified approach to using these skills. And in Chapter 4, you will be provided an opportunity to practice them with a series of case studies. Making ethical arguments: thinking logically The first set of principles has to do with how we use our brains! As noted above, many of us derive our values from emotion, intuition, or authority, but in applying those values to concrete situations, we must do so in a logical and systematic manner. Again, from Aristotle, we “are compelled at every step to think out for [ourselves] what the circumstances demand.” The following are some hints on how to think logically about ethical issues and how to avoid big mistakes. Lessons from Monty Python There is a famous sketch from the Monty Python television comedy series called “The Argument Clinic.” In it one character purchases an “argument” and then engages in an exchange with another who keeps disagreeing with him. Finally, in exasperation, he declares, “This is not an argument; it’s only a contradiction. An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition!” That’s what you need to have in mind when talking about making a moral argument—marshalling statements in a logical way to support a specific ethical decision. Note that this is not about winning a debate with another person, but about marshalling a series of statements and conclusions to guide our own actions. We often think about this as an either-or or should-I-or-shouldn’t-I process, but it doesn’t always involve a choice between two options. What is essential, however, is that we identify the range of possibilities and subject them to a rigorous evaluation. Robert Pielke, in a short book called Critiquing Moral Arguments, says that there are three key elements in ethical reasoning: (1) acquiring factual information that is as complete and accurate as possible; (2) determining the relevant moral principles; and (3) constructing a logical argument. Each of these will be addressed. First, processing information; second, employing sound logic; and finally, using the principal methods of moral reasoning. Stress and ethical decision-making It’s hard enough in everyday circumstances to analyze options logically, but under the stress of an ethical challenge, it’s even more difficult. That’s why practice is required. All of us who work with dogs know how stress affects behavior. When we face ethical problems, we are like dogs under stress. Our behavior is impaired, and we default to patterns that have worked for us in the past. The stress that accompanies moral temptations and dilemmas is an aversive, something we would like to escape or avoid. Just like dogs trying to escape from an unpleasant situation, we try to relieve our stress in the easiest way possible. That means that we often take short cuts in our thinking or engage in denial or other psychological defenses to diminish our anxiety. This can get in the way of obtaining the information we need to act soundly. Jonathan Wilkenfeld and his colleagues at the University of Maryland conducted an exhaustive study of the behavior of countries in crisis and found some recurring patterns of concern. (See Brecher and Wilkenfeld, A Study of Crisis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997.) Including: Reducing complexity Acting on current beliefs Seeking analogies Blocking new information Choosing the first acceptable solution rather than the best one Psychologists have also determined that these patterns apply to individual decisions in crisis and other stressful situations. All of these “cognitive shortcuts” ease our pain, but prevent us from uncovering the essential information that we need. The following are some tips for avoiding debilitating detours. Avoiding bumper-sticker morality “Choose life!” “Support our troops!” “Love animals, don’t eat them!” We see bumper stickers like these every day. They may make us think, but they are not reliable guides to complex moral topics like abortion, war, or vegetarianism. There are lots of bumper sticker statements in the dog-training profession, as well. Some of them are actual bumper stickers reflecting our business tag lines. Here are a few real examples, altered slightly for confidentiality: Positive training for lifetime companionship No shock collars for any dog Train with no limitations Exercise your right to choose (the training method for your dog) Down with treat-slinging weenies Like the other examples, these slogans may provoke us and stimulate discussion, but they do nothing to illuminate the real issues facing dog trainers—choice of training methods, whether to permit or exclude training devices, and, importantly, how to achieve mutual respect in an emerging profession that is all too often characterized by disagreement and recriminations. Bumper stickers can be great for drumming up business, but are less useful for helping us to make tough decisions. Dangerous shortcuts: stereotypes, false analogies Closely related to the bumper-sticker dodge is the practice of stereotyping people (or dogs). A little later, we’ll get into the fallacy of avoiding logical arguments by focusing on people rather than issues. But for now, it’s enough to recognize that our clients, their dogs, and our colleagues are individuals. Stereotypes based on race, ethnicity, gender, or other traits can not only damage our relationships with clients, but they can distort our own moral judgment. Labeling others in our profession also is a dangerous shortcut, whether it is “positive only,” “traditional,” “balanced,” or any of the other descriptors that we may use to refer to a colleague. Similarly, while there are certainly breed characteristics that can be ascribed to dogs, those of us who have worked with many dogs are aware that breed stereotypes such as “Afghan hounds can’t be trained,” “Labs are great family dogs,” and “Pit bulls are dangerous,” can lead to morally questionable conclusions. A related problem is the use of false analogies to reduce the stress of making tough decisions. Examples include: “The last time I gave a discount to a client like this I lost money;” or “When we trained dogs for the military in Vietnam, I did it this way;” or “I’ve dealt with people like him before, and they can’t be trusted.” Harvard scholars Richard Neustadt and Ernest May, in a book called Thinking in Time, say that political leaders use analogies like this frequently, often with disastrous consequences. They suggest subjecting those analogies to a quick test: Make two columns on a piece of paper and jot down what’s similar between the current situation and the past one and what’s different. If the similarities seem to outweigh the differences, your analogy may be a valid guide to action. Digging deep for ethical clarity The best remedy to all of these potential distortions in our reasoning is to keep asking hard questions. The Greek philosopher Socrates (470-399 B.C.) was famous for his technique of probing his students to think more deeply. Today we call this method Socratic questioning, and it is still widely used in teaching and learning over 2000 years after his death. Here’s a dialogue showing how Socratic questioning might work in practice: Trainer 1: “I can’t refer my client to that trainer.” Trainer 2: “Why not?” Trainer 1: “He’s a [choose one: positive only, traditional, balanced] trainer. Trainer 2: “Why is that a problem?” Trainer 1: “His methods are [choose one: ineffective, outmoded, inhumane]. Trainer 2: “How do you know?” Trainer 1: “They all do it that way.” Trainer 2: “Have you ever seen him train or talked to him?” Trainer 1: “No.” Trainer 2: “Then how do you know how he trains?” Trainer 1: “He describes himself on his website that way.” Trainer 2: “Have you ever met anyone whose dog he trained?” Trainer 1: “Well, yes. I met one person.” Trainer 2: “How did that dog seem?” Trainer 1: “Pretty well-behaved, but I don’t know about any others.” Trainer 2: “How could you find out?” Trainer 1: “I guess I could meet with him. I think I’ll do that before I make up my mind.” The cost of going through this process is time and effort; the payoff is more complete and relevant information. Whether you do this yourself or do it with another person is less important than taking the time to do it as thoroughly as possible. We never have all of the information we need to make a sound moral decision, but exerting the effort to gain as much as possible is likely to pay off, especially if we make it a habit. Fighting the fallacies Once reasonably complete and accurate information has been obtained, it must be assembled into a logical argument. There are two basic methods of ethical reasoning—deductive and inductive. (Note: a specialist in this field would consider the following explanation to be oversimplified and in some regards a little inaccurate. It’s similar to the ways in which we teach clients how to train their dogs by oversimplifying learning theory, pack dynamics, or the physiology of the digestive system. The goal here is comparable—to provide a concise and helpful explanation for use in real-life situations.) Deductive reasoning starts with a general statement and proceeds to a specific conclusion. It operates on the basis that if the individual statements, called premises, are true, then the conclusion must be true. The form that deductive reasoning takes is called a syllogism. A standard syllogism has three elements: the major premise (general statement), the minor premise (specific statement), and the conclusion. Here’s an example: Dogs can smell better than humans can. (Major premise) Fido is a dog. (Minor premise) Therefore, Fido can smell better than a human. (Conclusion) Note that, if you accept the major and minor premises, the conclusion flows irrefutably from them. Here’s another example, drawn from a moral argument: Deliberately abusing a dog is wrong. (Major premise) “Hanging” a dog on a choke chain is deliberate abuse. (Minor premise) Therefore, hanging a dog on a choke chain is wrong. (Conclusion) Once again, if we accept the premises, the conclusion must be true. At this point, you may be wondering how you can be sure that the premises are true. This will be explained further later in this chapter, but for now, let’s say the major premises can come from scientific research. In ethics, however, they usually flow from the beliefs, values, and principles reviewed earlier, and form the basis for the general statements that we make about ethics. (If they are well founded, they can greatly help our reasoning; if not, they can degenerate into the type of bumper-sticker morality mentioned earlier.) The minor premises come from observation and definitions, and that leads us to the other type of logic—inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning moves from particular statements to make general conclusions—in the opposite direction from deductive reasoning. While deductive reasoning can, in theory, establish that something is certainly true, inductive reasoning can only confirm that something is probably true. And the degree of certitude depends on both the structure of the argument and the amount of information collected. Many of us are familiar with inductive reasoning as practiced in scientific research and statistical methods. It works like this: First you conduct some systematic observations. For example, you might observe very closely the behavior of a number of dogs when they greet each other. Based on that observation, you would develop a tentative conclusion called a hypothesis. An example might be, “Dogs typically greet one another head to head and then head to rear.” You would then design an experiment to confirm or refute the hypothesis. You might, for example, recruit some assistants to observe a large number of greetings between dogs in different locations, at different times of day, and between different breeds, attempting to take into account any factors that might influence greeting behavior. You would then assemble the observations into a quantitative database and subject them to a statistical analysis, after which you would be able to draw conclusions about the probability that our hypothesis accurately reflects dogs’ behavior. (In the scientific community, we would then publish our findings and our peers would attempt to replicate them or to refute them; that’s how science expands its base of knowledge.) The example above shows inductive reasoning at its best. But, as dog training expert Jean Donaldson often points out, trainers often use less rigorous forms of inductive reasoning in daily life, choosing to rely on anecdotal evidence instead. Trainers may, for example, base their conclusions not on thorough research, but on individual experience. That may be fairly reliable, if you are a trained observer and have made a practice of trying to be systematic in assessing what you perceive. For example, if you have trained herding dogs for a number of years, you may be able to make reliable statements about their behavior without a statistical analysis. However, you can’t necessarily communicate those statements to others in a way that can be scientifically validated. Sometimes we use what Donaldson describes as anecdotal evidence. We all do this—telling stories about dogs. An example might be: “I love to train Australian Cattle Dogs. I worked with one in our shelter and she learned all of her basic herding commands in a couple of weeks. They are a joy to train.” This final statement may or may not be accurate, but there’s no way to prove it because it is based on only one observation and can’t be generalized (and because “a joy to train” isn’t very clear). The most insidious forms of inductive reasoning are two that I mentioned earlier: stereotypes and false analogies. Both involve distortions of the reasoning process by generalizing from a limited number of observations to draw sweeping conclusions. They are particularly problematic when you convert the conclusions into a major premise for a deductive argument such as the following: Many attacks by Pit Bulls result in serious injury or death. I therefore conclude that Pit Bulls are dangerous dogs. (Inductive reasoning) Dangerous dogs should be banned. Therefore Pit Bulls should be banned. (Deductive reasoning) It’s easy for canine professionals to spot the flaws in this argument, but for many this distorted type of reasoning is very compelling. This takes us to an important aspect of making moral arguments, and that is avoiding logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is a defect that undermines the validity of an argument. It deals with the structure and relevance of the statements we make. It therefore behooves you to know about the principal types of fallacies so they can be avoided as much as possible. Glen Whitman, a philosophy professor at California State University, has compiled a list of common logical fallacies. These are a dozen examples: 1. Argument to tradition. This is the familiar argument that some practice is right or acceptable because “it’s always been done that way.” For example, the only way to keep hunting dogs steady is to put them on a chain gang. That’s the way it’s been done for 50 years, and it works. 2. Argument ad hominem. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. For example, that trainer is a “treat-slinging weenie.” She can’t possibly know anything about dogs. 3. Argument to ignorance. This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. For example, you can’t prove that Pit Bulls aren’t dangerous; so they should be banned. 4. Argument or appeal to numbers. This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it’s true. For example, a majority of Collie owners believe that their dogs are the gentlest breed, so they must be trained with very gentle methods. 5. Appeal to authority. This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. An example is that B.F. Skinner used harsh punishments when doing his experiments. He is the father of operant conditioning, so harsh punishments must be acceptable. 6. Sweeping generalization. This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case—in other words, stereotyping. Here’s an example: All trainers who use electric current collars are animal abusers. 7. Non Sequitur (“It does not follow”). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises. For example, Mastiffs are strong so it takes a lot of force to teach them to heel. 8. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (“After this, therefore because of this”). This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. Note: The dog went to a positive trainer and now it won’t sit; that shows how ineffective that training method is. 9. Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: Introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. An example: That trainer is not to be trusted with your dog because her cousin was jailed for fraud. 10. Slippery slope. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection. For example: If we let them require certification for trainers, before you know it we will be paying licensing fees and higher taxes. 11. Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody’s argument, rather than the actual argument they’ve made. An example: The trainers at that club claim to be able to train any dog, but I know for a fact that at least three of the dogs they trained have been euthanized for bad behavior. (In this case, they never made that claim, but advertised that they used “proven training methods.”) 12. Tu quoque (“you too”). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one’s reasoning by pointing out that one’s opponent has made the same error. A classic example: You said that my training is ineffective, but I’ve seen dogs that you trained that had lousy behavior, too. Committing any of these errors, or other fallacies, means that the argument presented is illogical. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the conclusion is false. It’s perfectly possible to reach a true conclusion through faulty reasoning. The risk of error, however, is much greater than if you reason coherently, especially when trying to reach a moral judgment. For that reason, when faced with challenging situations like conflicts of values, it’s useful to reach back into history and use one of the proven methods for resolving ethical dilemmas. Resolving ethical conflicts Ethical challenges fall into two general categories—moral temptations and ethical dilemmas. Moral temptations involve a choice between right and wrong. An example would be a trainer who knows that she shouldn’t pass a dog in a Canine Good Citizen® test, but does it anyway in order to appear to be a good friend to the owner. From an ethical perspective, the way to handle a moral temptation is very simple: You simply choose the right thing. In practice, however, this can be very difficult for two reasons. First, the wrong choice is usually in some way attractive. We might get money, fame, or friendship for doing it. Second, wrong choices, or temptations, are not always clearly labeled as such; they come to us disguised as good things. For example, we might think it good for our self esteem or for our ability to provide for our family to make more money, even if it involves cutting corners. Distinguishing between good and bad choices can be very difficult because of the ways in which our minds present choices. In the Christian tradition, the ability to make these choices is called the “charism (gift) of the discernment of spirits” and is held to be achievable only through rigorous discipline. Even more challenging are situations in which the choices are between opposing values, both of which seem to be good, but which are mutually exclusive. Perhaps you have a longtime client to whom you are very loyal, so that you are reluctant to tell her the truth about her aggressive dog. Or you may find yourself wanting to give a break in a test to a dog that is very close to achieving its title, while also feeling committed to maintaining the standards of the sport. These are true ethical dilemmas, involving clashes of values when you have to make a difficult choice about which one should take precedence. Debating dilemmas These are difficult decisions, but fortunately you don’t have to tackle them alone. For thousands of years, the best minds have been grappling with ways to reject moral temptations and escape from ethical dilemmas. They have come up with two methods of moral reasoning to help us— ends-based and duty-based. There is a third approach that you can use— called care-based reasoning—that is a combination of the other two and also provides useful insights. Looking at consequences Ends-based reasoning relies on the underlying assumption that whether an action is right or wrong depends on its results. If the end result is good, then the action was good; if it was bad, than the action was bad. This raises a few important questions. What constitutes a good or bad result? And for whom? Whose “good” should be the measure? The most famous method of ends-based reasoning is called utilitarianism, an ethical system developed by British philosophers, notably Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. They held that acts are good if they promote pleasure and bad if they promote pain—and the pleasure was considered to be the collective pleasure of all who were affected. In other words, the ethical choice is the one that results in the “greatest good for the greatest number.” The pleasure to which they were referring was not only sensual pleasure; they considered pleasures of the mind and of the spirit to be superior to bodily pleasure. Bentham developed a complex way to measure pleasure and pain, which is discussed in Chapter 6. Mill took his evaluation a step beyond human pleasure, and argued that the benefits of our actions should “be extended insofar as possible to the whole of sentient creation.” In fact, utilitarianism forms the ethical foundation for much of what today is known as the animal rights movement. There are some real benefits to an ends-based approach to resolving ethical problems, but also some limitations. Such an approach forces us to think through the consequences of our proposed actions, in terms both of what might happen and whom we might affect. It makes us starkly aware of our connections to other people and creatures, and the extent to which our own behavior influences theirs. Finally, it reminds us that ethical actions are those that benefit others, not just ourselves. On the other hand, as we know from experience, it can be very difficult to forecast the results of our decisions. It is often nearly impossible, in fact, to determine exactly who might ultimately be impacted by what we do and whether they would see that effect as good or bad. (It also skips over the recurring problem of acting with the best of intentions only to have the result turn out to be something we didn’t anticipate.) There are other complications, of interest mainly to philosophers. But as professional trainers, we can benefit from asking systematic questions in a utilitarian framework such as: Which people will be affected by my action? How? Which other creatures (dogs and others) will be affected? How? Will the result be pleasure or pain? What will be the intensity, duration, or scope of the result? Will it be brief and limited to a few, or last a long time and affect many? In looking at my possible choices, is there one that clearly provides the “greatest good for the greatest number,” including all of those who will be affected—the “stakeholders”? Following our principles Recognizing the limitations of ends-based reasoning, other philosophers have taken a different tack and sought to define ethical actions as those that are in accord with our highest duties. They argue that human activities are so complex that we can only do that which duty compels, regardless of the consequences. One member of this tradition counseled that we should “do right though the heavens should fall.” But how do we determine what our duty is? One individual who gave this question a great deal of thought is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant is what we would call a “deep thinker.” His writing is so complex and turgid that you could actually use it on human students for positive punishment or negative reinforcement. You could make them read Kant if they misbehave, and let them stop when they do what we want. But once you wade through Kant’s prose, his conclusion is actually quite straightforward. In fact, you probably were told something similar by your family. Kant said that our duty is always to act so that our actions could become the general rule for all people in similar situations. (In his own way, he had to create a fancy term for the rule, so he called it the “categorical imperative.”) So when we face a choice, we need to ask, “How would it be if everyone did it this way?” Kant then used this general principle to develop what he called “maxims” of ethical behavior. Some were pretty sweeping—for example, never lie. But others were more complex. For example, he argued that humans should be compassionate toward animals because that made people nobler, but that animals, in themselves, are not rational and exist only to serve human purposes. There are some maxims that are often recommended for service professions. These include, “do no harm,” “accept accountability,” and “respect autonomy.” In Chapter 9, the work of Dr. Mary Burch is referenced to describe how some of these maxims apply to dog trainers. Just as with utilitarian reasoning, there are strengths and weaknesses to duty-based reasoning. One advantage of this method is that it forces us to think about our duties and responsibilities in the broadest possible context. If we would not be comfortable with others acting as we intend, how then can we consider our actions to be ethical? On the other hand, it can be very difficult to formulate a maxim that is at the same time a general rule and also applicable to a specific situation. If the maxim we choose is, “Do no harm to animals,” how does that apply to a particular training goal? If it is “Always favor peoples’ satisfaction over that of dogs,” will it help us to deal with an abusive dog owner? One way out of these difficulties is to look again at the laws, rules, and customs of our profession. The various professional organizations have formulated codes, reproduced in the Resources section, intended to be universal guidelines for their members. While they don’t necessarily cover every situation, they are an excellent starting point for a duty-based assessment of ethical behavior. The Golden Rule There is one other time-honored method of making moral decisions that includes aspects of ends-based and duty-based reasoning. That is the principle, found in virtually every major world tradition, of reciprocity, which in the West is often called the Golden Rule. Probably the most familiar formulation is “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” So in this method, the test of ethical behavior is to put yourself in the place of those affected by your actions and assess what you would want under those circumstances. You have to think both about the consequences of your acts, and the obligations that you owe to others. This can be a challenging and rigorous test of what you intend to do. Again, of course, it’s not a simple process. The biggest problem can be indentifying who “the other” is. Is it the client? The dog? A colleague? The community at large? And if it’s more than one, whose interests should take precedence? Should you focus on what the client has hired you to do, or advocate for the dog? Despite these complications, the care-based method has the advantage of being simple and easy to recall. It’s like the default behaviors you teach your dogs. Dogs under stress will often do the behavior that they first learned, like sitting, while they work out what to do next. For a trainer, defaulting to the Golden Rule can buy respite from the stress of an ethical challenge, and the opportunity to think more deeply about choices. In Summary This chapter has covered a fairly complex set of concepts, terms, and methodologies. It’s time to transition to applying these ideas in practice. But before doing so, here is a summary of the key points for dog trainers: It’s important to have a coherent moral vision for ourselves and our organizations. That vision should be based on an integrated set of beliefs, values, and principles. Developing these qualities requires self-knowledge and consultation with others. If we have integrity and discipline, we are better able to resist the dangerous shortcuts that often accompany stressful ethical challenges, such as simplifying situations, stereotyping, closing our minds, and taking the easy way out. In working through moral difficulties, we need to search for factual information and reason in a systematic way, avoiding logical fallacies. Three time-honored methods of ethical reasoning—ends-based, duty-based and care-based—can greatly assist our efforts. Chapter 3 DILEMMAS OF DOG TRAINERS * * * We’ve now gone through in some detail the steps involved in development of an ethical vision and some of the considerations regarding ethical action. These include: Clarifying beliefs, values, and principles. Understanding ourselves better. Knowing the applicable laws, rules, and customs governing our profession. Avoiding dangerous shortcuts. Thinking logically; and Using the established methods of ends-based, rule-based, and care-based reasoning to make sound decisions. At this point, implementing these methods probably seems to be a formidable task. Trainers may feel the way some of their clients do if given tasks to work on that are too numerous or too complex to handle. This chapter, then, integrates these procedures into a simplified, six-step process for resolving ethical dilemmas. Hopefully, this will be a method that will work for you in practice, not just in theory. Daunting challenges As dog trainers, we confront challenging ethical dilemmas every day— but they rarely come to us with a label reading “ethical dilemma.” Rather, they show up in disguise, masquerading as business or training decisions. For example: Should I give a discount to this client who seems to have limited resources, or maintain the same price structure for all clients? Should I continue to work with a family that seems to be undermining their dog’s behavior? Should I tell a client that I think their vet has given them poor advice? Should I report a bite incident involving a client’s dog, when the owners have failed to do so? These are difficult situations because they involve not a simple case of doing the right thing, but a genuine clash between deeply held values. What do you do when you have to choose between compassion for a family in need and your responsibility to be fair to all of your clients? When your love of animals clashes with your duty to provide services to a client? When you need to share important information and also respect professional boundaries? Or when there is a conflict between your loyalty to clients and the safety of the broader community? You can’t avoid these problems, but at least you don’t have to face them alone. As mentioned before, for centuries, great minds have grappled with ethical dilemmas and have provided guideposts that you can follow. The guideposts, enumerated in the previous chapter, can help you to navigate between the rocks and whirlpools and maintain a safe course to an ethically sound decision. This isn’t always easy, but being conscious and systematic can improve the quality of your decisions and provide you with the satisfaction of having acted with integrity. As Aristotle emphasized, ethical reasoning (like dog training) is a skill that improves with practice. Dave’s dilemma To get started, let’s look at a specific situation faced by Dave, a fictional trainer. Dave wasn’t totally surprised to find that the house was dark when he arrived. The client had arrived late for the last appointment and Dave had to cut that session short to get to another family on time. He had serious reservations about this client’s commitment to the dog. She couldn’t seem to keep appointments, or to find the time to do the training in between. In the meantime, the dog (a small mixed breed) continued to have housetraining problems and was beginning to growl and air snap at the youngest child, a five-year old girl. As he waited to see if the client would arrive, Dave thought deeply about the situation. In all honesty, he thought the dog and family were woefully mismatched. He had said as much, in an indirect way, during the second appointment when he stressed the dog’s need for exercise and close supervision. In this busy family, it seemed unlikely that those needs would be met. He really thought that the dog should be re-homed, but the two children professed great affection for the little critter and he suspected that they would be heartbroken if they had to give him up. But the dog seemed to be miserable and a bite was a real possibility. Nevertheless, the family had hired Dave to help and he felt a deep obligation to do that to the best of his ability. Just then, a car pulled up. The client rushed over to Dave, apologizing profusely, and asked him to come in. At this point, only half an hour was left for the session. As they walked to the house, the client told Dave that she had not had any time to train this week, that elimination was still a problem, and that she had forbidden her daughter to handle the dog after it nipped her two days ago. Dave took this all in and said to himself, “I have to make a decision. What in the world can I say to this family?” Resolving the dilemma: The SITSTA method Dave’s situation is all too common. We all face these clashes of values such as compassion for the dog versus responsibility to the client who hired and paid us. Because Dave had been through such dilemmas before, he was able to come to a resolution. He did it using a process that involves six steps: 1. Searching for additional information. 2. Identifying options. 3. Testing against any rules that apply. 4. Scrutinizing his choices through ethical thinking. 5. Talking to others for advice, and 6. Acting on his choice. I refer to this system as “SITSTA” after the first letter of each step, and it’s easy to remember because it’s pronounced “Sit, Stay!” Here’s how it worked for Dave. Step 1: Search for information Dave started by reviewing very quickly all of the information he had at hand. The dog was a rescue and probably was severely under-socialized as a pup. There was no information available on his parents, but he seemed to be a terrier mix of some kind. The dog had a great deal of energy and was very vocal. He had a urinary tract infection when he first came into the home, but the family left it untreated until Dave suggested that it may have contributed to the housetraining problems. When Dave first encountered the dog, he showed conflicted behavior, first approaching and then backing away, but Dave was quickly able to lure him close and teach him a “Sit” and “Watch Me” using food treats. The family members who were present, the mother and two children, mastered the technique in short order as well, so Dave knew that the dog could learn, and that the family could acquire the skills to train. At the same time, it was evident to Dave that the training was not actually taking place. He saw little change in the dog’s behavior from session to session. He knew that both parents worked at demanding jobs and that the children had a variety of after school activities. He also knew that the dog was alone and unsupervised for long periods of time, despite Dave’s advice that he needed regular exercise and companionship. Dave queried the client on what had transpired since the last appointment and confirmed that the dog had been largely neglected except for meals and (usually unsuccessful) trips outside to eliminate. At this point, Dave felt that he had all of the essential information he needed to make a decision. Step 2: Identify your options Dave then set out in his mind what he thought were his best choices. First, he could continue to work with the family as he had been doing, demonstrating training techniques and brainstorming solutions to the continuing behavior problems. This was very attractive to him because he tended to be emotional about such situations and was drawn to “values of the heart” like compassion and generosity. Dave knew, however, that he shouldn’t just make the first choice that came into his mind, but should be more systematic. Second, he could fire the clients by telling them that he was unwilling to continue working with them unless they would commit to following his recommendations. Finally, he could recommend, in the strongest terms, that they find another home for the dog. There might have been some other options, Dave thought, but these seemed to be the principal ones. The first placed greatest value on loyalty to the family and professional responsibility to provide services that had been paid for. The last emphasized the well-being of the dog above loyalty to the family. The second was a sort of compromise, delaying the choice of options one and three and giving the family a chance to change its behavior. Dave was satisfied that these options pretty much covered the bases. Step 3: Test against the rule book Dave was a member of three professional associations, and he was deeply committed to following their codes of ethics. While he hadn’t memorized them, he referred to them often and was confident that he knew the applicable provisions. He didn’t find one in the code of the National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors (NADOI), and his other two associations touched only indirectly on the issue. His membership in the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) obligated him to follow its Code of Professional Conduct and Responsibility, and specifically to “treat all dogs and clients with respect, taking into account their physical and psychological well-being and respecting clients’ wishes regarding training of their dogs.” The International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP), of which Dave was also a member, required its associates to “conduct themselves in a business like and professional manner while maintaining empathy and understanding for the needs of the client, customer and dog.” He felt this wasn’t a lot of help, as the standards didn’t seem to provide any specific guidance about which option to choose. They required that trainers respect and have understanding for clients and dogs; however, in this case Dave needed to choose one over the other. Since they didn’t seem to rule out any of the options, Dave felt free to go to the next step. Step 4: Scrutinize your choices To scrutinize is to look very closely and systematically at something—in this case to analyze each option using the tools of ethical reasoning. Dave had at least some knowledge of ethical reasoning, so he was pretty sure he could work his way through the major arguments for and against each of the options. He started by looking at the consequences of his choices, as the utilitarian thinkers we discussed in the last chapter might have done. If he stuck with the current program, he was pretty sure that the dog’s behavior would not improve, that the family would become increasingly frustrated, and that it was possible that the dog or a family member would be injured. He wasn’t sure how the family would react to an ultimatum, option two, but the parents seemed to be fairly open to new information, although their busy lives made it difficult to follow it at times. Dave thought there was at least a chance that they might refocus attention on the dog and either improve its training or decide on their own to give it up. Looking at option three, confronting the family about re-homing the dog, Dave thought they probably would become defensive and maintain that they loved him too much to let him go. The suggestion might shock them into action, but he felt it was at least as possible that they simply would stop working with Dave. Dave then looked at what he felt were the responsibilities of his profession. What would it be like, he asked, if all dog trainers in similar situations followed the first option and continued to pursue the same program, which to date had been ineffective? He thought that would be a poor reflection on the profession. He felt strongly that dog trainers adapt their approaches to fit the specific needs of dogs and families. Continuing to pursue a losing strategy seemed very unprofessional to him. The second and third options seemed a little more in line with Dave’s sense of professionalism. After all, he reasoned, one of a trainer’s obligations is to provide accurate and helpful information so that clients can make the best choice. The decision is theirs, but trainers have the responsibility to provide the best advice and information possible. Finally, Dave tried to put himself in the place of the other parties. This was a challenge because there were several humans and a dog involved. He thought that, if he were one of the parents, he would not want to keep doing the same program with no significant results. He imagined himself as a stressed-out, hardworking adult in a very busy household, and thought that he would really want some relief, not just more of the same. As far as the children were concerned, he guessed that the older child, a 12-year-old boy, would be pretty much indifferent. He never seemed particularly warm to the dog and was focused more on sports and friends. The girl loved the dog but tended to treat him like a toy. She would be disappointed to lose him, but certainly wouldn’t want to be bitten more severely. If Dave were the dog, he would have thought that his current life was pretty lousy. He’d really like to be in a home in which he had fun and companionship and knew what the rules were so he could feel happy and secure. This assessment further strengthened Dave’s view that something had to change. At this point, Dave was feeling pretty confident about what his decision would be, although he was disappointed that he couldn’t go to the next step of checking it out with colleagues. But he tried to imagine what it would be like if he could. Step 5: Talk to others If there had been time, Dave would have asked for input from his “ethics committee,” a group of friends and colleagues who provided mutual support for difficult times. Of course these people didn’t refer to themselves as a committee; they were just individuals whose insights and expertise Dave admired. They included his mentor, his “significant other,” and several other local trainers who formed an informal network. They also included hundreds of members of email lists sponsored by Dave’s professional associations. As he reflected on what these people might have advised, Dave thought that his mentor would have urged him to be both flexible and compassionate; his partner would have counseled a gentle, supportive approach that did not threaten the family’s sensitivities; and several of Dave’s training colleagues probably would have advised him to “bite the bullet” and confront the problem before it got worse. One particular colleague, whose business and training approaches were very different from Dave’s, probably would have told him in no uncertain terms to make clear to the family that they were going to have to change their behavior in a significant way. Dave rarely agreed with this trainer, but he had to admit that directness had its advantages. With these insights in hand, Dave was ready. Step 6: Act on your decision Dave knew what he had to do. He asked the family to crate the dog briefly in another room and to join him at the dining room table. He gently told them of his concerns for both the dog and the family. He acknowledged their affection for the dog, but told them directly that the situation was likely to get worse unless something changed significantly. He suggested that, for this appointment, they not work with the dog, but have a discussion about the family’s desires and the time and energy that they had available. He encouraged each family member to speak up and, when they had done so, he offered to help them come up with a weekly schedule for training, exercise, and companionship for their dog. He told them that he would be happy to continue working with them if they felt that they could commit to the program that they would develop together. He was very frank, however, in also telling them that, if they failed to follow his recommendations, he would conclude that the family situation was not suitable for the dog, would recommend finding him a new home, and would assist them in contacting appropriate placement organizations. He could not, however, continue to work with them if he felt that the dog’s basic needs were not being met. What next? The story stops here because it’s about Dave and his decision, not really about the family and the dog. Because it’s fiction, you can create your own ending. Perhaps the family heard what Dave said, worked out a program for the dog, and found that he became a joyful member of the clan. Or maybe they paid lip service to the idea, didn’t follow through, and the dog’s behavior continued to plummet. Maybe he went to a new home; maybe he bit the daughter and was euthanized. In a sense, the outcome is not relevant to Dave’s decision-making process because he, like the rest of us, could only control his own behavior, not that of the others involved. As a professional, his advice carried weight, but in the final analysis, the family would choose its own course. This is actually pretty realistic, isn’t it? You often don’t know the full story of what happens after you work with a client and dog. Some clients stick around and continue to work; others seem to disappear despite our efforts to keep in touch. But Dave can at least have the satisfaction of having grappled with a difficult dilemma and come up with an approach that was respectful, professional, and essentially ethical. That doesn’t mean that Dave’s decision was beyond reproach. That’s one of the challenges about real dilemmas; they don’t have neat answers. Maybe some readers will think he was too soft on the family. Maybe some will argue that he should have been a stronger advocate for the dog. Perhaps others will conclude that he should have shifted his efforts away from a non-compliant client in order to provide assistance to other, more motivated families. But for Dave, this was a decision that reflected his deepest values, arrived at in a clear, systematic fashion. That’s all any of us can do. Recapping the process Dave was fortunate in that he was able to make his decision quickly and confidently. He could do this because he had learned some basic principles of decision-making and because he had practiced them consistently. As a trainer, he knew that knowledge of principles is not enough; patience and repetition are the keys to effective dog training, and to effective ethical behavior. This chapter focuses on the principles; the next chapter provides an opportunity for practice. Reviewing each of the steps that Dave took will help you think about how to apply them to your own ethical dilemmas. (There is nothing novel about this process; the principles of ethical decision-making go back at least as far as the Greeks. There is a more detailed variation of this approach in Rushworth Kidder’s book, How Good People Make Tough Choices, and an outline of a procedure specifically for dog behavior consultants in James O’Heare’s book, Aggressive Behavior in Dogs: A Comprehensive Technical Manual for Professionals.) Step 1: Search for information This is the vital first step. To make a good decision, you need good, complete information. Unfortunately, in the busy world of a dog trainer there’s almost never enough time to gather all of the information you want. So you need to start by deciding what you really need to know. One good way to do this is to make a list of all of the relevant pieces of information that you can identify. Then ask if there is anything missing. Do you need to know more about the dog and its behavior? About the family and their goals? About the environment, schedule, financial resources, or attitudes that can affect the training plan or the business decision? You can ask yourself whether there is any really critical information that might cause you to change your attitude in a major way. That’s where you should focus your information-gathering efforts. You can gather the information in several ways. You can do research, ask other trainers for information, ask questions of the clients, or just observe closely what is going on (or not). Your choices will be determined by the type of information you need and the time available. If you need to cut corners, it’s probably best to ask questions, even if that’s not your usual style. You may find the information more quickly in the minds of others than you can in your book collection or on the internet. When gathering information, it’s vital to be specific and not take cognitive shortcuts. Avoid stereotyping and false analogies. Try to ensure that the information is not inadvertently biased by your own opinions and experience. Asking others to help evaluate your findings can be immensely helpful. Step 2: Identify your options The definition of a dilemma is a difficult choice between alternatives. When we are caught in such a bind, it’s easy to think of our situation as “either-or.” In real life, however, we almost always have more than two choices. If you are caught in the middle, ask yourself whether there is a middle way. Are there grounds for compromise between the extremes? Is there a third or even a fourth option? You also will want to make sure that your options are feasible. John Stuart Mill and the utilitarians coined an ethical principle that says, “Ought implies can;” in other words, you can’t be morally obligated to do something that is impossible. If the family has limited resources, you can’t choose an option that is beyond their means. If you don’t have the experience to perform a particular technique, you can’t recommend it. If you don’t have a suitable facility, you can’t offer to board and train the dog. At the same time, you don’t want to leave any useful options out, even if they might cause a hardship for you. Could you offer more sessions by cutting your rate? Could you refer the family to another trainer or a veterinary behaviorist? Could you help the family to find a pet sitter or a kennel where the dog could receive further training? Once you are sure you have covered all of the bases, you are ready for the next step. Step 3: Test against the rule book Sometimes you face real ethical dilemmas in your work, but often you are really involved in a situation where there is a right answer and a wrong one. It can be hard to tell the difference, but one good place to start is by checking the rules. There are a lot of rules that apply to dog training. There are laws—federal, state, and local—that govern the conduct of our businesses, what records you keep, what taxes you pay, and what your liability is. You may belong to a business association like the Chamber of Commerce that has expectations about ethical business practices. Perhaps, like Dave, you belong to a professional association like the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT), the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC), the International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP), or the National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors (NADOI). These organizations all have professional codes that their members pledge to follow. (The codes of these organizations are reproduced in the Resources section.) In addition to laws and ethical codes, there are other types of rules. There are cultural norms that are common to your community. You may have spiritual or religious beliefs that impose specific obligations. You also have family and personal values. A deep investigation of all of these standards will help you to determine whether there is a clear choice between right and wrong for this situation. Step 4: Scrutinize your choices An important aspect of the process is to distinguish between moral temptations and ethical dilemmas. Logical analysis can help. Moral temptations come in the guise of something good, but often rigorous application of logic and careful comparison with applicable rules and practices can ferret out the bad from the good. If you get through this procedure and are confident that you are not facing a simple right-wrong choice, you probably have a genuine ethical dilemma on your hands, a real clash of values. You have the information that’s critical to your decision and you’ve enumerated your options. It’s time to turn to those old philosophers for assistance in scrutinizing your choices. It doesn’t make any difference which method you start with, but you should include all three: consequences, duties, and the Golden Rule. Here are the critical questions to ask: Who will be affected by my decision? (Include people and animals as well.) Will they probably benefit or be harmed? How? How much? For how long? Is any of the harm irrevocable (for example, if one of the options is euthanizing a dog)? Which of my options will probably produce the greatest good for the greatest number of those affected? How certain am I of this conclusion? What are my duties in this situation? Is there an accepted principle or maxim, such as “Do no harm,” or “Do business fairly” to guide me? In looking at my options, would I be content if they could become a general rule for all trainers under similar circumstances? How would I feel if I were on the receiving end of my proposed decisions? If I were the client, the colleague, or the dog (yes, it’s ok to put yourself in the place of the dog), which option would I prefer on my own behalf? You may be lucky and find that all three of these methods of scrutiny give you similar answers. If so, count yourself fortunate and move on. It’s at least as likely, however, that you will get a mixed result. This is the indication that you really need the next step. Step 5: Talk to others When you’re stuck in the middle of an ethical dilemma, it’s helpful to compare your mind to a bad neighborhood: You shouldn’t go into it alone. When we are stressed and concerned about important decisions, our reasoning can be flawed. We all know that when dogs are stressed, their performance deteriorates. So does ours. That means that it’s critical to have input from the outside, from people who are not emotionally involved. If you had a mentor—a more experienced trainer with whom you worked—that person could be an excellent resource. So can colleagues in your area who will know the local cultural norms and business practices. Casting your net wider, the professional associations have excellent email discussion lists where trainers often post about the ethical issues they face. Sometimes the distance that comes with electronic communication can provide a sense of perspective that is lacking in our own thinking. You don’t have to confine your “ethics committee” to training professionals. Family members, friends, former teachers, or religious advisors can give invaluable advice. And there is one other consideration that is both important and very, very difficult: You need to have at least one person on your list whom you admire, but with whom you have a history of respectful disagreement. In the middle of an ethical problem, the last thing you need is a group of advisors who will all agree with you. Instead, you need someone who will challenge your thinking, press you to go deeper, and be clear about why you propose a certain decision. It may be unpleasant, but it will stand you in good stead in the long run. It may happen, as it did with Dave, that you won’t have time for much consultation; maybe you won’t have any time at all. If you practice this step regularly, however, you will have a pretty good idea of the advice you might get. At least then you may be able to ask yourself what some of your key advisors might say and then take those factors into account when you act. Step 6: Act on your decision Action is the essence of ethics. What you have done so far in this process has been in your head, or maybe on paper or on your computer. Now it’s time to do something. Remember, not to act is an action in itself. So think once more about the information you’ve gathered, options you’ve considered, rules that may apply, evaluations you’ve made, and opinions you’ve gathered. Then, as the commercials used to say, “Just do it.” Will everything turn out alright because you’ve done a good job with the process? Not necessarily, although you can probably expect more successes than failures over time. You might not become rich or famous from being an ethical trainer. But the chances are good that, if you practice these principles regularly, your sense of integrity and confidence will grow. That may well become obvious to others who avail themselves of your services. The unethical practitioner may be more successful in the short run, but in the end it is the person who behaves with integrity who reaps the more important rewards. Cathy’s conundrum Now that we’ve specified the method in some detail, let’s try to apply it to another situation in which a hypothetical trainer faced a difficult ethical choice. Cathy had been in business for nearly five years, and the bucks just weren’t coming in. She was a good trainer; she knew that. Her clients were almost always complimentary about her services. She often saw them with their dogs in public and she was pleased with how the pups behaved. Most of her business came through word of mouth, and that word was uniformly good. But Cathy was worried. She was having a hard time making ends meet. She wanted to become an even better trainer, but she didn’t have the money to go to the big professional conferences or to keep up with the new books. Moreover, it was a continuing struggle to meet the basic expenses for herself and her two children. Unlike the salaried positions she’d had in the past, dog training couldn’t provide a stable income. She never knew from month to month how much sh