Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm objecting to your sentence, saying it's objectively false. Whether or not training another human being is ethical or not is another argument (e.g. children). A dog needs to be taught what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior. If you have somebody living with you, they need to be educated on what they can and cannot do. And since dogs and human are pack animals, you need to enforce the idea o…
I understand what you're saying, but his implication is that dogs do not have to be taught not to aspire to be better than dog-status. They cannot be any more than dogs. This is clarified by using an inanimate object (wrench) as a the other example. Human beings though have to be molded in order to keep their 'place'. They can even aspire to want to be things that they cannot achieve, such as my never ending desire t…
Often, dogs will try to be part of the family and try to assert dominance over family members, especially younger, more timid children. They're aspiring to be a higher place in the pack than they should be, and they need to be trained in the fact that they're objectively and necessarily not equal to any human being.
When a dog ever thinks it is the equal of humans, bad things happen, such as bites and euthanasia of the dog, and maulings. That's why you need to train it early as a puppy, that it should never bite/be aggressive to humans, as it'd be harmful to the dog.
The same reasoning can be applied to humans, but cannot be applied to wrenches. Equating wrenches to dogs is another logical dead end - either dogs have feelings and emotions and hopes, otherwise the beating your dog is equivalent to leaving a wrench out in the rain without oil, as both are just tools to you.