Heartache and hypocrisy: did Nikki Phillippi “murder” their family dog Bowser?
The tragic story of Bowser the family dog, who was euthanised by YouTuber Nikki Phillippi and her husband Dan out of apparent fear for their child’s safety, has sparked a massive outcry with much of social media accusing the family of being murderers. What does this tell us about our attitudes to non-human animals? An awful lot, it seems.
When a drama of this magnitude rocks social media, it’s hard to know quite where to start. In short, YouTuber Nikki Phillippi and her husband Dan announced in a recent video that they had euthanised their family dog of nine years Bowser, who they claimed had been showing signs of aggression to the point where they were afraid for the safety of their young child. It was a decision that was terrible in every sense of the word - terrible to decide upon in the first place, and terrible in its quite literal execution.
There are several dimensions to this story that tell us a lot about our attitudes towards non-human animals, in particular the reaction of non-vegans. As Rose from Cheap Lazy Vegan summed up so well in her video analysis, comments from so-called ‘animal lovers’ and outraged ‘dog owners’ accusing Phillippi of murder have been rife. Said in no uncertain terms, they perfectly illustrate the hypocrisy and double standards by which society operates. When animal rights activists and vegan advocates use such terms and direct similar vitriol in accusing farmers and slaughterhouse workers of committing acts of murder when they hang cows, sheep, pigs and other farmed animals up by their feet and slice their throats, we are immediately branded as militant extremists. But when someone puts a dog to sleep, there are no issues in throwing around the same words.
This is not to say that their decision shouldn’t be rightfully criticised, or to use Bowser’s untimely and tragic death to further an apparent vegan agenda. It is only to once again highlight something that we’ve known for a long time. Society suffers from cognitive dissonance in the extreme, based on the arbitrary definition of some animals as being food, and some as being ‘pets’. Why is this necessarily a problem? Because the line is frequently blurred and betrays a moral fluidity that serves only whatever our desires happen to be - in this case, the desire to eat pig flesh or steal milk meant for calves and commit all the many unspeakable acts of cruelty to achieve those things so that we might have a nice breakfast.
This case brings to mind Brooke Houts, another YouTuber whose relationship with her companion dog, who she openly abused in a video, raised a furore that was another perfect case study in societal cognitive dissonance. In Brooke Houts and the curious case of Cognitive Dissonance, Alex J. O’Connor writing for Surge outlined the case for ethical consistency:
By refusing our own obligation to refrain from harming animals because we like the way it tastes to eat them, we forfeit our right to condemn other people for harming animals because they like the way it feels to hit them. It doesn’t matter how much enjoyment or convenience Brooke Houts receives from hitting her dog; her sensory pleasures are an insufficient excuse for abusing an animal. Likewise, it doesn’t matter how much enjoyment or convenience we receive from eating a pig; our sensory pleasures are an insufficient excuse for abusing an animal.
Most people hold to the former of these ethical propositions but reject the latter. But, if we wish to retain consistency, either sensory pleasure justifies our inflicting harm on a nonhuman animal or it does not. To believe that it both does and does not at the same time is an exercise in cognitive dissonance and one we would do well to identify, interrogate, and eliminate from our thinking.
The same consistency should apply in the case of Nikki Phillipi and her husband as it would with Brooke Houts. The legion of animal lovers casting the proverbial first stone should first look within and judge themselves accordingly. Those who say it is impossible to murder a cow for food because they’re not human and so no crime is committed, yet as soon as a dog is euthanised in a comparatively more peaceful way, that is suddenly a heinous crime equal to any committed against any human, should think carefully. As Rose said in her video, people who eat animals often say that it is ok to do so if they have been raised well and have had a great life being fed on grassy pastures, and if the eventual slaughter was “humane” without suffering and pain - so if lifestyle and welfare is the test, then when why is Bowser’s euthanasia in the family home a problem?
As for the decision itself, we certainly would agree with many of the arguments being made by non-vegans. The animal lovers and dog caregivers, for all their hypocrisy, genuinely do care about dogs - we just wish they could venture beyond arbitrary distinctions and see that other animals are equally sentient and deserving of their rights. In this specific case, Phillippi’s story has some serious holes, a lot simply doesn’t add up. Why decide to have a child when Bowser had been showing signs of aggression following an early trauma for many years? Why not use their considerable platform to seek out specialist help? Why not rehome Bowser - although they say responsibility may stay with them in a legal sense, they clearly didn’t know for sure if that applied to where they lived.
There are many videos on YouTube and posts on Instagram pointing out all the flaws and how their announcement video just didn’t seem sincere. Disingenuous or not, the fact that there are so many unanswered questions tells us that they couldn’t explain their decision in any satisfactory way. And when we can’t explain something in simple terms, it means we haven’t understood it well enough ourselves.
Without any further insights from Phillippi, we can only assume that they could have done more for Bowser. Yet they chose not to. Sadly, one of the greatest truths is that even pets are seen as property by most of society. The animal lovers and dog lovers will be screaming that Bowser was part of the family, almost equal to the human children. Almost. We humans are experts at disguising our entitlement, and the indignant dog owners are no exception. We might say that a dog is like a child to us - there is research that tells us dogs have a level of intelligence equal to that of a two-year-old child - and we bring dogs into our lives and accept their love, but how many end up in shelters every year? Would we discard human children so readily? When a child displays problematic behaviour as a result of trauma that affected their mental health, we don’t kill them, we find professional help.
When all is said and done, first and foremost we must remember Bowser, a dog whose aggression was no fault of his own and whose fate was undeserved. But to do justice to the memory of Bowser, we must recognise human hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance and entitlement so that the same injustices - which happen in their billions every year - never happen again.
Andrew Gough is Media and Investigations Manager for Surge.
Your support makes a huge difference to us. Supporting Surge with a monthly or one-off donation enables us to continue our work to end all animal oppression.
LATEST ARTICLES
