We Ought To Do The Best We Can

Let's say that Smith is a lifeguard, and he's sitting at his post when he sees Jones drowning.  When he goes to try to save Jones, Smith realizes he's been tied to his chair.  What ought Smith do?

Well, because Smith is a lifeguard, we can agree that he ought to save Jones, because it's a lifeguard's job to save drowning people.  But because Smith is prevented from leaving his chair, then, it seems wrong to say that Smith ought to save Jones, because Smith can't save Jones.  It's only true that we ought (morally) to do something, if we practically *can* do that thing.  

What, then, ought Smith do?  There are a couple of options. Either Smith can try to escape from his bindings, or he can call for someone else to save Jones.  So, to generalize, either Smith can try to make the situation back into how it was when we both ought to and was able to save Jones, or, Smith can change the situation so Jones is saved even though Smith is prevented from doing it. 

Most people would agree that the second option is better, because there's more chance Jones would be saved.  Trying to make the situation into one where the ideal is possible is liable to result in a bad outcome.  Smith ought to know this, so Smith ought to call for help.  Sometimes, if we can't do what we ought to do, we ought to do something else - the next best thing.  

How can this be applied to dog training?  One way is in how we approach training solutions.  Often, especially in training an anxious dog, we're confronted with a set of circumstances that mean we can't do the number 1, most ideal thing.  Maybe the dog lives somewhere that it has to confront other people and dogs just to go out to potty or exercise, so we can't completely control the distance of triggers.  Maybe the neighbors have a loud, barking do, so we can't completely control the desensitization process.  

Does this mean we should give up on training dogs in less than ideal situations?  No. Should we wait until the dog is in an ideal situation, even if that means never training, or training so rarely that no positive effect can happen?  No. 

My point is, if we can't do the best thing, we can do the next best thing.  And, it's not a moral failing if we accept that what we would have done in ideal circumstances is not possible here.  What is a failing, is to assume that anyone who asks "what is the best thing I can do in these less-than-ideal circumstances" either doesn't understand dog training, doesn't understand their obligations, or is not creative enough to make the situation into one where the ideal action is possible.