"Results Based Training" - Does the End Justify the Means?

The Question:

I sometimes hear it as a rebuttal against trainers who represent themselves as purely positive, or as adherents to a particular theory. 

�I�m not a positive dog trainer, I�m a results-based trainer.  I do what works.� 

What does this mean?  

Means and Ends

One way to see the results-based trainer is as making use of the old adage, �the ends justify the means�.  At first glance, this looks like a way to bypass ethics in favor of pure pragmatism, as if it could be rephrased as �Never mind what�s right or wrong, what matters is that I achieve my aim in training�. Seeing the results-based trainer that way would be unfair, however, it would characterize her as amoral or concerned with suffering. 

Even Machiavelli, to whom the phrase is most commonly attributed, claimed that if cruel acts were ever necessary to preserve a State, they ought to be as swift and minimal as possible, meaning that he was committed to the idea that these acts did need some external justification.  So, the principle of charity dictates that we can't see the results-based trainer as trying to sidestep the demands of morality by appealing to pragmatism.  Instead, we have to understand her as making a specific claim about morality.  

Purely in terms of ethical theory, �the end justifies the means� can refer to consequentialism, the theory that what happens as the result of an action, rather than its motive, determines whether an action can be called good.  Practically, �the ends justifies the means� can refer to the claim that it is permissible to do something a little bad, in order to achieve a much greater good.  This is the most pertinent application for dog trainers.  In particular, it informs the rationale of many P+ trainers.

Or - and here we return to the theoretical understanding of the phrase -  it can mean that the use of an aversive like a shock collar cannot be classed as harm because it is necessary to achieve the goal. Something harmful is only morally wrong when it�s true that we shouldn�t do it.*  This is the most problematic interpretation, but there is some precedent.  We don�t see the vet as harming our dogs when she operates on them, even though she is causing pain.  The operation is for the dog�s greater good, and this takes away the moral badness of the pain.  Of course, we expect the vet to do everything she can to minimize any pain - unnecessary suffering is a morally wrong harm, but necessary suffering is not.  If the pain of using an aversive is both unavoidable and in the dog�s best interest, then the pain cannot be classed as a morally wrong harm.  

The results-based trainer could be seen as claiming that causing pain to a dog is permissible only so long as it successfully teaches the dog to do what the trainer wants, because what matters in training is results first. This runs into the requirement to justify the necessity of the use of aversives.  

The Burden of Proof

Assuming that an R+ and a P+ method are equally effective, there is a burden of proof on the P+ trainer to demonstrate that the harm is a necessary element of the training.  She must show that there is no way to avoid a small amount of harm if we are to achieve the end we are seeking.  Like the vet, the P+ trainer must show that whilst she is doing everything she can to minimize suffering, some aversion is necessary. 

No such immediate burden of proof rests on the R+ trainer, because positive methods are not harmful in themselves.  Assuming equal efficacy, there is no demand to justify the use of R+ rather than P+ methods.  This is the kind of reasoning the LIMA scale makes use of; if we�re not using the least invasive, minimally aversive method for training, we need to give a reason why.  

It�s not enough to claim �I just do whatever gets results�, because in most cases the same results can be obtained through a variety of training approaches.  We therefore have to ask, what does the results-based trainer class as the best result, and is this compatible with what�s best for the dog? 

____________________________________________________________________

*This is why an earthquake is harmful but not a moral wrong - morality only applies to the actions of people. It is also why surgical procedures are painful but not wrong - it would be wrong for a surgeon not to operate to save a patient�s life because it would hurt them. So when we say an action is wrong, we are saying that it should not be done.