Animal "Ethics" Committees

[pete_29]

Suppose you had to choose between (a) healing a very seriously wounded dog and (b) placing a band-aid on a stranger’s cut. More people, I suspect, would choose (a), in which case they would be placing the welfare of a dog over the stranger. The example simply illustrates the welfare of people doesn’t always trump.

Suppose you had to choose between(a) feeding a starving dog, or (b) feeding a starving child. What would you do?

 

[spencelo]

Suppose you had to choose between(a) feeding a starving dog, or (b) feeding a starving child. What would you do?

In most cases (not all), the child because the latter usually has prospects for a richer, longer life. If we compared a starving puppy and a starving person on his death bed, I’d choose the former.

 

[Rence]

So it is your opinion that we should place the welfare of animals above those of humans?

You still haven’t explained how taking the time to doctor a seriously injured animal, while placing a lesser priority on putting a bandaid on a human, is placing the welfare of animals above humans. Answer that question first. Because you still haven’t justified how “put the animal down” is the moral thing to do in the circumstance where there is 1) a seriously injured animal in need of medical attention and 2) a human being needing a bandaid. Given your reponses in this thread, I’m not surprised that you are confused. It seems you don’t place any value on animals at all. And you have the right to your opinion. But thankfully, you will be in the minority.

 

[Rence]

Suppose you had to choose between(a) feeding a starving dog, or (b) feeding a starving child. What would you do?

I’d go ahead and feed the starving dog and let you feed the starving child. Between the two of us, both would eat. How’s that for cooperation

 

[pete_29]

I’d go ahead and feed the starving dog and let you feed the starving child. Between the two of us, both would eat. How’s that for cooperation

Nice dodge. Glad to see you think so much of your fellow human.

 

[DCNBILL]

You still haven’t explained how taking the time to doctor a seriously injured animal, while placing a lesser priority on putting a bandaid on a human, is placing the welfare of animals above humans. Answer that question first. Because you still haven’t justified how “put the animal down” is the moral thing to do in the circumstance where there is 1) a seriously injured animal in need of medical attention and 2) a human being needing a bandaid. Given your reponses in this thread, I’m not surprised that you are confused. It seems you don’t place any value on animals at all. And you have the right to your opinion. But thankfully, you will be in the minority.

You did not read the question, it was not a question of priority it was a question of either or. I would always put my priority on my fellow human as their dignity requires.

I never said that I place no value on animal life I merely stated I value human life above animal life if you do not that is upon your conscience.

I would refer you the Catechism of the Church in these matters so that you may understand the Catholic teaching on such matters.

Respect for the integrity of creation

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

 

[pete_29]

In most cases (not all), the child because the latter usually has prospects for a richer, longer life. If we compared a starving puppy and a starving person on his death bed, I’d choose the former.

You’ll pardon me if I’m skeptical about you feeding the child.

 

[Rence]

Nice dodge. Glad to see you think so much of your fellow human.

That wasn’t a dodge. That was the truth. That was calling on you on the fact that your impossible senario doesn’t exist. There is NO reason in the world for either one to go hungry. If you ask me about a starving dog and a starving person, there is NO reason in the world why we can’t feed them both. This is a nonissue.

 

[Rence]

You did not read the question, it was not a question of priority it was a question of either or. I would always put my priority on my fellow human as their dignity requires. I would refer you the Catechism of the Church in these matters so that you may understand the Catholic teaching on such matters…

Again: You still haven’t explained how taking the time to doctor a seriously injured animal, while placing a lesser priority on putting a bandaid on a human, is placing the welfare of animals above humans. Answer that question first. Because you still haven’t justified how “put the animal down” is the moral thing to do in the circumstance where there is 1) a seriously injured animal in need of medical attention and 2) a human being needing a bandaid. Given your reponses in this thread, I’m not surprised that you are confused. It seems you don’t place any value on animals at all. And you have the right to your opinion. But thankfully, you will be in the minority.

You might want to pause a second and reflect that there is really no moral dilema in choosing to doctor a seriously injured animal instead of putting a bandaid on a human being, regardless of whether it’s done first or not at all

 

[DCNBILL]

Again: You still haven’t explained how taking the time to doctor a seriously injured animal, while placing a lesser priority on putting a bandaid on a human, is placing the welfare of animals above humans. Answer that question first. Because you still haven’t justified how “put the animal down” is the moral thing to do in the circumstance where there is 1) a seriously injured animal in need of medical attention and 2) a human being needing a bandaid. Given your reponses in this thread, I’m not surprised that you are confused. It seems you don’t place any value on animals at all. And you have the right to your opinion. But thankfully, you will be in the minority.

You might want to pause a second and reflect that there is really no moral dilema in choosing to doctor a seriously injured animal instead of putting a bandaid on a human being, regardless of whether it’s done first or not at all

You are correct there is no moral dilemma at all, an animal is an animal, one should not waste resources on animals when those resources could be given to humans who have a greater dignity and place.

Now if one asked me if I would tend to a wounded dog before tending to a wounded snake I would have an option.

 

[Rence]

You are correct there is no moral dilemma at all, an animal is an animal, one should not waste resources on animals when those resources could be given to humans who have a greater dignity and place.

Now if one asked me if I would tend to a wounded dog before tending to a wounded snake I would have an option.

Oh? But what about your response to the same senario between the severely injured dog and the human needing a bandaid. You replied that you would just put the dog down, and that you had no issue with doing so.

 

[MaryBernard]

You are correct there is no moral dilemma at all, an animal is an animal, one should not waste resources on animals when those resources could be given to humans who have a greater dignity and place.

Well said!

 

[Rence]

You are correct there is no moral dilemma at all, an animal is an animal, one should not waste resources on animals when those resources could be given to humans who have a greater dignity and place.

Now if one asked me if I would tend to a wounded dog before tending to a wounded snake I would have an option.

Again: You still haven’t explained how taking the time to doctor a seriously injured animal, while placing a lesser priority on putting a bandaid on a human, is placing the welfare of animals above humans. Answer that question first. Because you still haven’t justified how “put the animal down” is the moral thing to do in the circumstance where there is 1) a seriously injured animal in need of medical attention and 2) a human being needing a bandaid.

 

[MaryBernard]

Oh? But what about your response to the same senario between the severely injured dog and the human needing a bandaid. You replied that you would just put the dog down, and that you had no issue with doing so.

There is nothing wrong with putting an animal down that is suffering.

 

[DCNBILL]

Oh? But what about your response to the same senario between the severely injured dog and the human needing a bandaid. You replied that you would just put the dog down, and that you had no issue with doing so.

Correct, I see no need for the senseless suffering of the animal and since I would be wasting resources on the animal that could be used for humans I choose the latter. Would you rather I let the dog suffer? Oh and I did not state that I had no issue with doing so btw.

 

[DCNBILL]

Well said!

Thanks.

 

[Rence]

There is nothing wrong with putting an animal down that is suffering.

Of course there isn’t. But there is nothing wrong with doctoring a severely injured animal either. I have seen a dog run over and dragged by a truck, bleeding out of every orifice and with a broken hip and dislocated her shoulder. After being treated by a vet, she is now, several weeks later, running amok in the fields and chasing the horses. In the question posed in the above senario, we’re not talking about a severely injured animal without any hope of recovery. We are simply talking about a ‘severely injured animal’ without any indication that medical intervention would not repair the injuries.

 

[Rence]

Correct, I see no need for the senseless suffering of the animal and since I would be wasting resources on the animal that could be used for humans I choose the latter. Would you rather I let the dog suffer? Oh and I did not state that I had no issue with doing so btw.

No one said anything about the senseless suffering of the animal. The question was a decision to treat 1) a severely injured animal and 2) putting a bandaid on a human. In this senario, there were no resources that could be used for the human. The reply was still “put it down”. I’ve seen several animals with severe injuries heal quite well with medical intervention. So that’s a cop out…

 

[DCNBILL]

Again: You still haven’t explained how taking the time to doctor a seriously injured animal, while placing a lesser priority on putting a bandaid on a human, is placing the welfare of animals above humans. Answer that question first. Because you still haven’t justified how “put the animal down” is the moral thing to do in the circumstance where there is 1) a seriously injured animal in need of medical attention and 2) a human being needing a bandaid.

I have stated, one should not waste resources on animals when those resources could be given to humans who have a greater dignity and place. If that does not address the question I am sorry that I can not be more clear.

 

[MaryBernard]

In the question posed in the above senario, we’re not talking about a severely injured animal without any hope of recovery. We are simply talking about a ‘severely injured animal’ without any indication that medical intervention would not repair the injuries.

There is also no indication that medical injury would repair the injuries. It comes down to a question of which has more worth. It’s obvious to most people that a human has more worth than an animal.