03/15/2026
Ever heard of moral disengagement?
Let me explain and show you how it applies to dog trainers who swear they are balanced while using shock collars, prong collars, or other painful corrections.
Albert Bandura, a very clever psychologist, described it as how people switch off their own ethics and do harm without feeling guilty. In dog training, it explains how someone can call themselves humane and knowledgeable and still hurt dogs intentionally. He outlined eight mechanisms and they are all on full display here.
Moral justification is the classic line that harsh tools are for the dog’s own good or safety. A shock isn’t a shock, it’s a ‘tool’ for preventing future disasters. Euphemistic labeling is rampant. Prong collars become “training collars” and shocks are “taps” or “stimulations.” Words are sanitised but the pain remains.
Advantageous comparison is where the imagination really runs wild. These trainers claim positive reinforcement fails, that without their quick fixes dogs get rehomed or euthanised, or that sheep die because reward-based methods can’t control a chasing dog. In other words, fear and pain are the responsible middle ground, rather than abuse.
Displacement of responsibility is all the owner’s or a positive reinforcement trainer’s fault. Owners don’t have the time, the patience, or the money for positive reinforcement training, so the shock jock has had no choice but to step in with shortcuts, preferably after triggering the dog and filming it for content. When the dog suffers, it is the fault of the owners and positive reinforcement trainers.
Diffusion of responsibility comes from being part of a community that calls itself balanced. Everyone around them is doing it, so it must be okay. Group approval removes personal accountability and allows them to justify stress and fear as a necessary part of training rather than the trainer’s ethical failure.
Consequences are ignored or distorted. Stress signals are dismissed as stubbornness or being difficult. Dehumanization (the term was used in reference to humans, but a similar action happens to dogs – maybe ‘dedogification’) happens when the dog is framed as a problem to fix rather than a sentient animal with emotions.
Finally, attribution of blame lands squarely on the dog, as if all dogs require punishment to learn consequences. They even go so far as to erroneously blame the dogs’ mothers (mothers get blamed for everything) and claim that they are only copying her style of corrections (which patently isn’t accurate, but that’s not something they are too hung up about).
Put it all together and you have someone calling themselves balanced and actively harming dogs. It is horrible to watch, but recognising these patterns is the first step if we actually care about holding trainers accountable and protecting animals.
