Its okay if your pet dies but its scary if my child dies mentality

[Sherlocks]

While I get there are some animals we eat and some we keep as pets I think some people have issues connecting to people for obvious reasons. However, a lot of people will still want them to hold ultimate regard for all humans regardless of the crime. 

 

If say a man breaks into a house to rape and kill an old lady and the dog hurts the robber we kill the dog by law. Now a lot of people will say this is good since human life always matters more but I fail to understand why morally you would think it's okay to rob and rape an old lady and not want the dog to save this poor old woman. 

 

Now I am not making a point to highlight people who simply dislike animals. Some people simply don't and that is entirely your right. If you hate dog fur around your house I get it. It makes a mess, it's gross, you don't want to deal with that. Some people dislike children too but you know not everyone is required to feel the same. 

 

However, there are people who take this a step further and will go out of their way to harass and humiliate people who like or prefer animals. They will ask them questions "If a baby and a dog were in a burning building who do you save"? You can say both but the remark would be met with "No, the baby you disgusting freak. Why would you save a stupid dog you worthless freak". 

 

Which is a little harsh if you think about it. Now I think some of this delusional faith in all of the mankind might be upbringing but I don't think it really excuses this type of reaction either. A person who is alone as a child will seek other things which are lonely. If they are offered no kind of kindness by other people they will still desire affection. Animals are innocent and more likely to be kind to these people so they are more likely to seek out an animal. An animal won't hurt them, humiliate them, trick them, lie to them. An animal simply wants attention like that abandoned lonely person does. 

 

So isn't what you are really telling this person is YOU don't deserve love and I really just want you to suffer forever? 

 

Are attachments really different? 

 

 

[Yatogami]

All life is equal, and all life wants to live. 

 

What matters on the individual level, is love for any specific thing. Whether it be human or animal. Value is assigned by an individual. Having to choose between two values, results in no good answers. You want both, so your brain tries to rationalize between the two. Humans, by default, live longer and are capable of more things. So they are inherently more valuable as a thing.

 

I do not believe humans are anything more than animals who learned to question life. I do not believe in good or evil. I only believe in survival, and life and death. 

[NerotheReaper]

I have heard people get mad if a pet parent calls their pet "their baby". Like how dare someone care about their animal, and treat them as part of the family. Not everyone wants kids so they go with pets. Honestly pets are better than kids, pets can feed themselves and you don't need to worry about your pet setting your house on fire. (hope not). 

 

My cat is basically my baby, and I love him so much. He is very protective of me and I am grateful to have him. He is always so happy, and helps decrease my anxiety. With human children the baby sitting I have done my anxiety sky rockets. For those who haven't done baby sitting watch or play the game "Who's Your Daddy", and that is what it's like to baby sit basically. 

 

Guess people like to value human life over animal life, since humans like to protect their own species first rather than animal life. 

[m4rble]

1 hour ago, Sherlocks said:

If say a man breaks into a house to rape and kill an old lady and the dog hurts the robber we kill the dog by law. Now a lot of people will say this is good since human life always matters more but I fail to understand why morally you would think it's okay to rob and rape an old lady and not want the dog to save this poor old woman. 

Is this really true? Were there cases where something like this happened? That seems horribly unfair. 

 

It's sort of moral dilemma to not value human life more than the lives of other animals because humans inevitably cause the deaths of multiple animals throughout their lifetimes. Therefore, if all animals were equal than killing humans would actually be a moral good thing. Then again, if you consider all animal lives equal killing all predator animals would suddenly become a moral good. On the other hand,  the death of too many predators could cause more deaths in the long run due to animals becoming overpopulated and dying due to starvation or disease. Morals involving animals are really messy, as are morals in general. The truth is people aren't really 100% consistent when it comes to these things.

 

1 hour ago, Sherlocks said:

Are attachments really different? 

I think it's rare for someone to become as attached to animals as (some)parents become attached to their children. Parents often would literally die for their children and would continue loving them no matter what. Parents often never really get over the grief of losing a child and it's a fundamentally life-altering event. If someone experienced that level of grief from losing a pet it would be unusual. 

[Sylvastor]

Moral and ethics are a tricky topic in itself. It all depends on its "origins".

 

41 minutes ago, NerotheReaper said:

[…] [1]you don't need to worry about your pet setting your house on fire. (hope not). 

[…] [2] Guess people like to value human life over animal life, since humans like to protect their own species first rather than animal life. 

[1] There was a news once about a cat which walked on a cooktop and accidentally turned it on, which then set the house on fire and caused an explosion. Don't worry, the cat survived nearly unharmed as far as I know.

Spoiler

And this, my dear AVENites, is why touch-controls for the sake of touch-controls (aka rule of cool) isn't always a clever decision.

[2] Precisely. The drive for self-preservation doesn't just apply to your own self, but also to other humans. In situations where life is at risk, people help other people in order to keep the species alive. Of course you may say "But what about all those situations where nobody does anything?", but what we know as the bystander effect is a result of living in masses we simply weren't designed for and which we didn't adapt for yet. Humans lived in smaller groups. Being surrounded by a whole lot of other human beings triggers the thoughts "Someone else will surely do it…" and the egoistic self-preservation sets in, because there are enough candidates to take care of the issue instead. Yet the others think the same.

Spoiler

And as a fun fact, to break this deadlock, address someone directly with "Hey, you!" – this will motivate them to act on it.

 

There's also something else that comes into play here: Humans value themselves higher than other animals because of their technological progress and language. They think it sets them apart from animals, which in conclusion means: "We're better. We're far more worth than animals, we are not animals."

Though looking at our anatomy, that statement is probably more along the lines of hubris/hybris. We're still animals, we just know that we're self-aware – and we can communicate this to other human beings. Animals can't.

We cannot look into the minds of animals, so we can't know for sure if they aren't either. Some "probably are", like some crows, parrots, apes and so on, but that's just based on what we define as self-awareness. To detect true self-awareness it would require to be able to look into them.

 

And yes, overall, life is life. Preferring one over another is (objectively seen) foolish.

Spoiler

Though if trying to look at it objectively, another question would pop up: What is life and why exactly is it worth saving and spreading?

But this would require an own thread to be discussed and considering how many people have asked this and never came to a satisfying answer, it's pointless to try because we don't understand enough of all of this yet and our view is way too subjective since we're lifeforms ourselves.

 

That's all from my end.

[Sherlocks]

8 minutes ago, m4rble said:

Is this really true? Were there cases where something like this happened? That seems horribly unfair. 

 

It's sort of moral dilemma to not value human life more than the lives of other animals because humans inevitably cause the deaths of multiple animals throughout their lifetimes. Therefore, if all animals were equal than killing humans would actually be a moral good thing. Then again, if you consider all animal lives equal killing all predator animals would suddenly become a moral good. On the other hand,  the death of too many predators could cause more deaths in the long run due to animals becoming overpopulated and dying due to starvation or disease. Morals involving animals are really messy, as are morals in general. The truth is people aren't really 100% consistent when it comes to these things.

 

I think it's rare for someone to become as attached to animals as (some)parents become attached to their children. Parents often would literally die for their children and would continue loving them no matter what. Parents often never really get over the grief of losing a child and it's a fundamentally life-altering event. If someone experienced that level of grief from losing a pet it would be unusual. 

 

 

 

Some people would die for their pet. Even if you don't realize this kind of people exists. 

 

Yes, there has been numerous cases where a dog has attacked a robber or someone trespassing on their owner's property and often the owner has to fight to keep their pet and not euthanize them. Sometimes they win but there was one man who broke into a yard and broke his leg and insisted the animal and owner suffer for it. 

 

Also if we care about human life we would not be allowing predators to remain and walk around and not be punished. We would be happy if say the dog attacked an intruder because it teaches that intruder to behave himself and it sends a message to everyone to behave. That's just karma and if we keep allowing misdeeds because "Being human means you can hurt other humans" that destroys the whole foundation of human decency. 

 

If there is a train and it carries 900 passengers but you can save it if you let 100 die what are you going to do? Let all 900 die? or save the 800? If someone about to hurt an old lady is harmed before they can commit the act is that not better then allowing it to happen because humans have a absolute right to hurt and abuse each other? Thats not in human interest. 

 

 

[Sherlocks]

2 minutes ago, Sylvastor said:

Moral and ethics are a tricky topic in itself. It all depends on its "origins".

 

[1] There was a news once about a cat which walked on a cooktop and accidentally turned it on, which then set the house on fire and caused an explosion. Don't worry, the cat survived nearly unharmed as far as I know.

  Reveal hidden contents

And this, my dear AVENites, is why touch-controls for the sake of touch-controls (aka rule of cool) isn't always a clever decision.

[2] Precisely. The drive for self-preservation doesn't just apply to your own self, but also to other humans. In situations where life is at risk, people help other people in order to keep the species alive. Of course you may say "But what about all those situations where nobody does anything?", but what we know as the bystander effect is a result of living in masses we simply weren't designed for and which we didn't adapt for yet. Humans lived in smaller groups. Being surrounded by a whole lot of other human beings triggers the thoughts "Someone else will surely do it…" and the egoistic self-preservation sets in, because there are enough candidates to take care of the issue instead. Yet the others think the same.

  Reveal hidden contents

And as a fun fact, to break this deadlock, address someone directly with "Hey, you!" – this will motivate them to act on it.

 

There's also something else that comes into play here: Humans value themselves higher than other animals because of their technological progress and language. They think it sets them apart from animals, which in conclusion means: "We're better. We're far more worth than animals, we are not animals."

Though looking at our anatomy, that statement is probably more along the lines of hubris/hybris. We're still animals, we just know that we're self-aware – and we can commincate this to other human beings. Animals can't.

We cannot look into the minds of animals, so we can't know for sure if they aren't either. Some "probably are", like some crows, parrots, apes and so on, but that's just based on what we define as self-awareness. To detect true self-awareness it would require to be able to look into them.

 

And yes, overall, life is life. Preferring one over another is (objectively seen) foolish.

  Reveal hidden contents

Though if trying to look at it objectively, another question would pop up: What is life and why exactly is it worth saving and spreading?

But this would require an own thread to be discussed and considering how many people have asked this and never came to a satisfying answer, it's pointless to try because we don't understand enough of all of this yet and our view is way too subjective since we're lifeforms ourselves.

 

That's all from my end.

 

If we want to protect human life then we would not be rooting for someone about to hurt an old lady. 

[m4rble]

5 minutes ago, Sherlocks said:

Some people would die for their pet. Even if you don't realize this kind of people exists. 

They exist, but most people would not die for their pets. The parental instinct is probably the stronger than any other instinct humans have. I suppose sometimes it might be fully transferred to a pet, but this would be rare. 

[Sylvastor]

7 minutes ago, Sherlocks said:

If we want to protect human life then we would not be rooting for someone about to hurt an old lady. 

True.

But that's likely the issue where laws and morals conflict.

Long story short: The reason the lady's dog would get euthanized is based on laws that (quite honestly) aren't fine-tuned enough to take the situation into account and value human life above that of the animal (self-preservation comes into play again), but instead if the human was hurt by it, it has to be protected from the dog, which in turn means others could be harmed by it, which leads to the conclusion of euthanizing it. It's silly, really, but that's the cause of it.

It's a tree of priorities based on "humans are more worth and laws are supposed to protect humans" with flaws.

 

In a properly tuned law system, the situation would always be taken into account and the reasons for the dog's action concluded correctly. The intruder was a danger, the dog protected the lady. Did it ever do something like that before outside of such a situation? Yes → reconsider. No → keep it alive.

Though under the assumption of "All life deserves living", killing no matter what life as punishment or "protective measure" would be wrong.

[Sherlocks]

1 minute ago, Sylvastor said:

True.

But that's likely the issue where laws and morals conflict.

Long story short: The reason the lady's dog would get euthanized is based on laws that (quite honestly) aren't fine-tuned enough to take the situation into account and value human life above that of the animal (self-preservation comes into play again), but instead if the human was hurt by it, it has to be protected from the dog, which in turn means others could be harmed by it, which leads to the conclusion of euthanizing it. It's silly, really, but that's the cause of it.

It's a tree of priorities based on "humans are more worth and laws are supposed to protect humans" with flaws.

 

That is my point. This ideology does not believe in preserving human kind. It simply believes humans are above all. Which is arrogance, not a care for the species. If you cared for the species a guard dog doing its duty as your GUARD DOG is a good thing and anyone breaking in deserves to suffer whatever terrible fate they have coming. If however a animal randomly attacks a person without being provoked clearly the animal is the problem. In which case casualties usually happen, often to both parties. 

 

There a difference between trying to preserve a species and simply saying "I believe the species is above anything".If you wanted to preserve a species, some of us dying is totally worth that toll isnt it? 

[Sylvastor]

Yes, under this point of view, it would be entirely logical.

Besides, it would prevent the risks of overpopulation (at least to an extent).
 

Spoiler

It sounds brutal, but that's how nature works.

[aeimquy159]

6 minutes ago, m4rble said:

They exist, but most people would not die for their pets. The parental instinct is probably the stronger than any other instinct humans have. I suppose sometimes it might be fully transferred to a pet, but this would be rare. 

I wouldn't die for my pet. Though if i was in a situation where i had to choose to save a my pet or another human (i didn't know) from death I would choose my pet. That might sound heartless but humans are animals like any other. What gives humans more value?

[m4rble]

3 minutes ago, aeimquy159 said:

I wouldn't die for my pet. Though if i was in a situation where i had to choose to save a my pet or another human (i didn't know) from death I would choose my pet. That might sound heartless but humans are animals like any other. What gives humans more value?

That makes sense. The thing is, if you had a child, I highly doubt you would save your pet instead of your own child. That's human nature almost all of the time.

 

Nothing really objectively gives humans more value than other animals. A lot of different religions have tried to justify human superiority, but in reality it just depends on what you value. 

[Xenobot]

I knew a dog who actually was put down because he protected a member of his human family. My neice was home alone (my parents and I literally lived across the street from my brother and his family at the time, so she had us if she needed anything, which we thought was sufficiently safe) and as she was going into the house, a boy in the neighborhood tried to follow her inside. She told him no, and ran inside to close the door on him, at which point he tried to physically overpower her and force the door open. Their dog ran up and bit the boy on the arm, and he ran off as a result. That's a damn good dog as far as I'm concerned.

 

Both she and the kid were probably around 10 years old when this happened? Possibly a little younger? So, while it's extremely unlikely he had any sexual motives for doing this, I think it's fair to say he did not have the best intentions (bullying?). Of course, his mom made a huge stink about "her sweet baby boy" getting rightfully bitten, and took the issue to small claims court. The judge ordered the dog destroyed for it.

[Scottthespy]

Animals and people are different. All else being equal, I'll consider an animal life on par with a humans. In a 'who to save' situation, if I know both parties, I'll apply the same logic. Who has more life left to live, who has a better life to live? Who has the better chance of survival given my rescue abilities?

 

That said, animals and humans suffer differently. Not more or less, just differently. A human with a major but not mortal injury will often be debilitated by it, unable to work past the pain. An animal with a similar injury will often just keep on keeping on, perhaps nursing the limb or licking it when they're resting, but not letting it stop them from moving around and doing things. Even pets who aren't driven by immediate survival instinct. A human's ability to anticipate the future pain, ponder on the possible additional damage of moving around, and imagine worst case scenarios will cause a great deal of mental anguish that wont effect animals, so in many cases minimizing suffering involves saving a human over an animal because the animal will just be a badass and get on with trying to save themselves or, in a non life threatening situation, get on with life.

 

I would save a beloved family pet over a repeat violent criminal, because the pet has done less harm and will likely continue to do less harm than the criminal. I will save a middle aged human who merely annoys me over a twenty year old cat who's already older than any one expected them to get, because the human has more life to live and more potential to make the world a better place. My criteria for 'who to save' is applied equally to humans and animals, and is designed to minimize suffering and maximize potential for world betterment. 

 

Perhaps others see human life as more important because our potential for suffering, due to mental anguish, is higher than for most animals, and our potential for effecting the world, due to our innate desire to tinker, is greater. It could also be a life span thing in many cases, since few animals live longer than humans. But above all, its an empathy thing. We ALL empathize easier with that with which we more strongly identify. Some people consider their animals family, and thus identify with them more strongly than a robber/rapist, and will empathize more with the animal and consider it more worthwhile. Some people identify more via species, and will thus more strongly empathize with humans.

 

As for people calling out and mocking animal lovers...it has little to do with the topic, and more to do with those people generally being jerks who would mock people over ANY ideological difference.

[m4rble]

32 minutes ago, Scottthespy said:

Animals and people are different. All else being equal, I'll consider an animal life on par with a humans. In a 'who to save' situation, if I know both parties, I'll apply the same logic. Who has more life left to live, who has a better life to live? Who has the better chance of survival given my rescue abilities?

 

That said, animals and humans suffer differently. Not more or less, just differently. A human with a major but not mortal injury will often be debilitated by it, unable to work past the pain. An animal with a similar injury will often just keep on keeping on, perhaps nursing the limb or licking it when they're resting, but not letting it stop them from moving around and doing things. Even pets who aren't driven by immediate survival instinct. A human's ability to anticipate the future pain, ponder on the possible additional damage of moving around, and imagine worst case scenarios will cause a great deal of mental anguish that wont effect animals, so in many cases minimizing suffering involves saving a human over an animal because the animal will just be a badass and get on with trying to save themselves or, in a non life threatening situation, get on with life.

 

I would save a beloved family pet over a repeat violent criminal, because the pet has done less harm and will likely continue to do less harm than the criminal. I will save a middle aged human who merely annoys me over a twenty year old cat who's already older than any one expected them to get, because the human has more life to live and more potential to make the world a better place. My criteria for 'who to save' is applied equally to humans and animals, and is designed to minimize suffering and maximize potential for world betterment. 

 

Perhaps others see human life as more important because our potential for suffering, due to mental anguish, is higher than for most animals, and our potential for effecting the world, due to our innate desire to tinker, is greater. It could also be a life span thing in many cases, since few animals live longer than humans. But above all, its an empathy thing. We ALL empathize easier with that with which we more strongly identify. Some people consider their animals family, and thus identify with them more strongly than a robber/rapist, and will empathize more with the animal and consider it more worthwhile. Some people identify more via species, and will thus more strongly empathize with humans.

 

As for people calling out and mocking animal lovers...it has little to do with the topic, and more to do with those people generally being jerks who would mock people over ANY ideological difference.

Animals may actually suffer more than humans in some situations because they can't think to themselves, "the pain will be over soon," or something similar. It's kind of like how adults can usually handle pain better than children because they've learned more coping strategies. 

[Sally]

You can't rationally say that a pet parent feels as strongly toward their child as a human parent, until you've been the parent of a human child, or talked with a number of parents of a child,  or observed situations involving parents of human children in situations endangering their children.  This is one specific situation where mere guessing just doesn't give you a reasonable answer, because it involves others' emotions and values.    

[Sherlocks]

1 hour ago, CBC said:

What.

 

No rational, sane person would say it's "okay" to rob and rape someone. You're twisting the specifics of the scenario into something it's not. It has nothing to do with it being okay to rob and rape.

 

Your post is all over the place. Mocking people who love animals has nothing to do with laws regarding someone being attacked, and insofar as the law is concerned, there are many good reasons that human life is considered more valuable. Also we do have laws to protect animals, and very rightly so (and for the record, I personally would likely never think it reasonable to euthanise a dog who attacked an intruder), but always considering them full equals is ridiculous. Where does it stop? Does a field mouse have the same rights and innate value as your beloved family pet? Does a housefly have the same rights and innate value as that field mouse? As marble said, there's really no objective reason that humans are more valuable -- hell, I don't think we're valuable at all; I don't matter worth shit and neither does anyone else -- but it's human nature, and to some extent it seems fairly logical for us to operate this way. If their house was burning down, most people would save their children, partner, parents, whoever, before they saved the dog or cat or gerbil. It's just how we're wired because we're animals too, trying to survive like every other species.

 

 

 

No the laws are built that way already but there are people who believe an animal attacking a human for any reason is wrong because humans are superior and abuse to an animal for any reason is acceptable because "Animals" are worthless. That a person who cares about a dog getting hit by a car is an idiot and needs to get over it and accept that its just a worthless dog and stop crying. It does not matter if that was someone's pet or that they loved it, its an animal and animals are tools for us to abuse and use that is all there is to it. 

 

Some people would excuse an animal attack if its in the interest of human life. However, some people say all humans are above all animals and can never be attacked by one regardless of circumstances. They would push for that animal who defended that person about to be attacked because the dog was clearly wrong. There are no exceptions to the rule in these people's eyes. Also there are people who would die for an animal and while some don't go so far as animal activism and veganism there are people who care deeply for animals and value an animal life as a life. Not something to abuse, threaten and kick when you get bored. 

 

 

 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Anthrocentrism is the dominant system unfortunately; it's helping to destroy it as well.

[Homer]

(1) I'd go save the dog and you can call me whatever you want for that. Fucks given: 0

 

(2) I'd never call my pet "baby" simply because it isn't one. It is an animal and should be treated as such. (Plus, I prefer animals to babies so that would be an insult in my book)

 

(3) I don't really understand what any opinion about rape has to do with shooting a dog. Yet I DO believe that animals aren't respected enough. It's too easy to get rid of them. The dog has bitten someone? Dog's fault! But the problem is always holding the other end of the leash.

[Scottthespy]

13 hours ago, m4rble said:

Animals may actually suffer more than humans in some situations because they can't think to themselves, "the pain will be over soon," or something similar. It's kind of like how adults can usually handle pain better than children because they've learned more coping strategies. 

And this is why I try not to talk in absolutes. 'Often', 'much of the time', 'in many cases'. Its true that there are also cases where the animals suffering would be greater, and the human would be the one more likely to sort things out and get to safety on their own. I've just noticed a trend of animals dealing with physical pain a lot better than humans...not to say their physical suffering is less...just that they don't stop doing what they were going to do anyway. I've watched a number of pets healing from minor or major injuries who had to be hurting, but would wander around, play with their toys, beg for attention, when a human would stay as still as possible to not aggravate the injury. An animal is capable of realizing that pain is less when they aren't moving, they just often don't seem to consider the pain to be as much of a detriment as humans do.

[carbomb]

Well, western society is deeply rooted in judeo-chrisitan values / beliefs. I think that this mentality comes from the biblical belief that humans are made in image of God, while animals are not, giving an inherent superiority to humans.

[SorryNotSorry]

Back in the 1970s, life was cheap, and the life of a kid was cheaper than most. It was no big deal if your kid died back then, and neither was it a big deal if your dog or your cat died. People who'd gotten attached were pretty much told to just suck it up.

[Sally]

25 minutes ago, Woodworker1968 said:

Back in the 1970s, life was cheap, and the life of a kid was cheaper than most. It was no big deal if your kid died back then, and neither was it a big deal if your dog or your cat died. People who'd gotten attached were pretty much told to just suck it up.

That's all absolute BS.  I had kids then and was around many parents and life for kids was not "cheap".  

[ChillaKilla]

I would die for my cat

[Skycaptain]

2 hours ago, Woodworker1968 said:

Back in the 1970s, life was cheap, and the life of a kid was cheaper than most. It was no big deal if your kid died back then, and neither was it a big deal if your dog or your cat died. People who'd gotten attached were pretty much told to just suck it up.

Please repeat that, in real life, to someone who has lost a child and see what their response is 

[Snao Cone]

On 3/4/2017 at 1:49 PM, Sherlocks said:

No the laws are built that way already but there are people who believe an animal attacking a human for any reason is wrong because humans are superior and abuse to an animal for any reason is acceptable because "Animals" are worthless. That a person who cares about a dog getting hit by a car is an idiot and needs to get over it and accept that its just a worthless dog and stop crying. It does not matter if that was someone's pet or that they loved it, its an animal and animals are tools for us to abuse and use that is all there is to it. 

 

Some people would excuse an animal attack if its in the interest of human life. However, some people say all humans are above all animals and can never be attacked by one regardless of circumstances. They would push for that animal who defended that person about to be attacked because the dog was clearly wrong. There are no exceptions to the rule in these people's eyes. Also there are people who would die for an animal and while some don't go so far as animal activism and veganism there are people who care deeply for animals and value an animal life as a life. Not something to abuse, threaten and kick when you get bored. 

 

 

 

It sounds like this discussion is inspired by one or two people you know who have bad opinions. I don't see this attitude as prevalent in society as a whole. I recall a statistic from years ago (and I could be misremembering this, but it does make a lot of sense) that about one third of households have pets. Very few people who have pets will see animals as tools for us to use and abuse. Most people who don't have pets won't view them as suitable targets of abuse. They probably just can't afford a pet whether due to time or money. Or maybe they are particularly anal about how clean their house is. Or maybe they're allergic. Or maybe they live in a building that doesn't allow pets. Whatever the reason, most people without pets don't want to hit them with their car, nor do they think less of people who have pets. Extreme situations where there are moral dilemmas may reflect the relative value people put on pets versus humans, but to use that as a basis for evaluating their whole moral character is unfair.

 

Recently my sister's dog died of cancer. They put her through chemo last year, which is a lot to put any body through whether pet or human, and after treatment they made sure she was comfortable - that she was breathing right, that she was still eating and enjoying food, and that she was still enjoying company. The cancer came back quite quickly, as the vet said might be the case, and they decided not to put her through chemo again. They monitored her health and her level of enjoyment of life, and when she took a sudden plunge one day and could barely walk anymore, they took her to the vet ER and were told that she wouldn't get any better. They put her down.

 

One of the dilemmas that my sister and brother-in-law had to work through when their dog was first diagnosed is whether they would put in the resources to extend her life by six to twelve months. There's no shortage of things they also need money for. They have a toddler who's in daycare. Their deck needed to be replaced due to building codes. My sister was traveling out of town once a month for work. If they had decided, based on their own limitations and the effect on the dog's health, not to go through with treatment, would you consider them terrible people? If their kid was diagnosed with cancer, they would absolutely put more resources into his treatment than they did for their dog. Do you find that to be severely unethical?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Woodworker1968 said:

Back in the 1970s, life was cheap, and the life of a kid was cheaper than most. It was no big deal if your kid died back then, and neither was it a big deal if your dog or your cat died. People who'd gotten attached were pretty much told to just suck it up.

 

you also had to walk to school uphill both ways through 10 feet of snow barefoot

 

 

[carbomb]

1 hour ago,  skit said:

 

you also had to walk to school uphill both ways through 10 feet of snow barefoot

 

 

and we liked it!

[Puck]

I do think evolution makes us naturally more vested in our own species surviving than others. If we don't actively try to keep each other alive, no other species is gonna do it!

 

That being said, I do want to point out that guard dogs were bread for a reason and not all countries would kill a dog/other animal for protecting it's family. It does depend on the situation, but for the most part I don't believe dogs are put down unless they attack without reasonable cause. Evidence of the contrary could, of course, prove me wrong here, but I can't imagine people with guard dogs think their dog is going down if it hurts someone...