Assuming you are a critical thinker, would you debate this proof based on ethica

Question:Ethical does not need to overshoot the philosophy category for it to be true. Just your first impression.

Dogs migrated for some periods and are today widely domesticated.
Domestication would potentially be philosophically considered not a true breed, since/if they do not represent the "self" of their species.
There was a time when they didn't migrate over time, and were within the representation of the species self.
Therefore ethically, their representation is that of the species self.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Ethical does not need to overshoot the philosophy category for it to be true. Just your first impression.

Dogs migrated for some periods and are today widely domesticated.
Domestication would potentially be philosophically considered not a true breed, since/if they do not represent the "self" of their species.
There was a time when they didn't migrate over time, and were within the representation of the species self.
Therefore ethically, their representation is that of the species self.

You wrote, : "Therefore ethically, their representation is that of the species self."

WHERE did you learn your definition of "ethics"? Ethics is the manner in which humans TREAT other men and other spieces.

"What is [ ] ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.

"The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?

"Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?"

"Ethics: (Gr. ta ethika, from ethos) Ethics (also referred to as moral philosophy) is that study or discipline which concerns itself with judgments of approval and disapproval, judgments as to the rightness or wrongness, goodness or badness, virtue or vice, desirability or wisdom of actions, dispositions, ends, objects, or states of affairs."

No... wrong. lol. Dogs have a breed, not just one because they migrated...

sorry it doesn't really make sense to me.

One thing I can say is that there is no such thing as a "true breed". Species are affected by outside factors all the time. Humans are just another outside factor

Also the word "ethically" doesn't really have any meaning with no context. Are we talking existentialism? pragmatism? christian ethics?

Evolution changes everything to adapt or die. Because of this do we or they lose what they truly are or is that ingrained in the Psyche of all?

Dogs can be no better or worse than their keeper.
A dog requires constant training and rebuking for it to become domesticated, an undisciplined dog ruin furniture, mess everywhere and spoil good furniture.
A dog in a palace or in a hovel is as well bred as the owner who trains and reproves it.

Man can grow no greater than his basal nature. And therefore inclines to that which he can comfortably compare himself to.

Witness. The merer the mortal the greater the propensity to constantly dwell on lesser beings or animals to feel elevated thereby. Fact.

Ethics, scruples, principles are human virtues.

If I'm not mistaken, the crux of your arguement is that the "origin state" or the raw composite is more pure philosophically than the refinements that people often delineate as a singular distinction, mistaking it for "pure" in the terms of "ethics".

"Pure" would be holographical, all elemental, and the refinements (as in "pedigrees") do not build from the all encompassing, but break it down and segregate it.

Ethics is something that I personally don't place much value in. It, like the illustration, is transient and changes with the respective climate and conditions.

I gues you could call it "Dogma"...ha...