The Dog and his Philosopher Quotes

“Like most mammals, dogs only have 2 colour detecting cells or cones. This is in contrast to humans, who have 3. Dogs, therefore see a restricted colour spectrum. However, they are not colourblind, instead they see the world in yellow, blue and grey. For dogs, green, yellow and orange are perceived as yellowish, while purple and blue are perceived as blue, and blue-green as grey. As a result, dogs have a hard time recognising a red ball in a green field.”
― Martin Balluch, The Dog and his Philosopher: A Call for Autonomy and Animal Rights

“Dogs share 99% of their genes with wolves and can have children with each other. However, both are also so closely related to a whole host of other species that it is possible to for them to produce fertile offspring with jackals, coyotes, the Australian dingo, the African wild dog, Arctic foxes, and the Black fox Coren (2013). The species boundary is obviously not a barrier for reproduction. And of course, all types of dogs are able to cross-breed.”
― Martin Balluch, The Dog and his Philosopher: A Call for Autonomy and Animal Rights

“Is the term for the human species clearly defined? There is no authoritative definition of 'species'. The boundaries between biological populations are, by definition, fluid. If this wasn't the case, evolution could never have taken place – the principle is change, not being static. In particular, the often quoted criterion, that two different species cannot produce 'fertile offspring' is not consistent with reality. Primates produce fertile offspring, often not only between different species (white-handed gibbon and capped gibbon, hamadryas baboons and olive baboons) but also between different defined genera (such as the hanuman langur [Semnopithecus] and the Nilgiri langur [Presbytis]) and, this happens in the wild. The boundary between the 'species' human and other primates is therefore arbitrary from a biological point of view. There is no 'special characteristic feature' that could justify such a boundary. […]”
― Martin Balluch, The Dog and his Philosopher: A Call for Autonomy and Animal Rights

“For Kant, human freedom was at the centre of his Metaphysics of Morals. As a result, moral behaviour in the West prioritises respecting the autonomy of others in as far as is possible. Kant's ethical conception is therefore not oriented around minimising human suffering, in contrast to the general attitude in animal welfare, which is to minimise animal suffering. The autonomous decision is to be respected even when this means increased suffering. And stealing from or murdering a person in order to help many others is in principle excluded, even if that was to serve the overall good. This morality is anchored firmly in the law as basic rights, which protect humans from a utilitarian approach to our dealings with each other.”
― Martin Balluch, The Dog and his Philosopher: A Call for Autonomy and Animal Rights