Is it immoral to attempt to save one's pet and thereby sacrifice oneself?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

meltzerboy

New member
A hypothetical scenario: there is a fire and you save your family first and then go back to rescue your pet, realizing you will thus not be able to escape. You are basically sacrificing your own life in the process. Is this regarded as a moral or immoral behavior?

I know that according to Catholicism as well as Judaism, we are to respect and care for animals but, at the same time, not place their needs above those of humans. But what do you think about this example, in which we are putting the life of our pet above our own?
 
I don’t think that hypothetically, someone would try to rescue a pet knowing they couldn’t make it out, because then…the pet wouldn’t either. It takes a lot of courage to run into a house on fire. Fire is painfully cruel. I don’t think someone would run into a fire unless they thought they could accomplish something in the process.

That said, a person who loses their life while trying to save a pet, is not acting immorally because their intention is to succeed. Sometimes it happens that we do not, and it’s tragic, but not immoral.
 
Rence said:
That said, a person who loses their life while trying to save a pet, is not acting immorally because their intention is to succeed. Sometimes it happens that we do not, and it’s tragic, but not immoral.
Click to expand...
I am not sure about this. The Church does recognize the concept of putting oneself in grave risk, and it seems odd that this would be permitted for the sake of an animal.
 
I would say that one should never risk their own life to save an animal. Running into a fire is very dangerous and there would be a considerable chance that one might be injured or killed in the process. If you were to die you would also be burdening your family, especially if you were the primary income provider.
 
I’m not sure this is the sort of thing one would stop to make a conscious, deliberate decision to do; I think it would be more instinctive behavior.
 
meltzerboy said:
A hypothetical scenario: there is a fire and you save your family first and then go back to rescue your pet, realizing you will thus not be able to escape. You are basically sacrificing your own life in the process. Is this regarded as a moral or immoral behavior?

I know that according to Catholicism as well as Judaism, we are to respect and care for animals but, at the same time, not place their needs above those of humans. But what do you think about this example, in which we are putting the life of our pet above our own?
Click to expand...
This would be wrong, especially since the person in question has a family, who loves and needs him. He would basically be putting the animal above his family. I think it would be wrong even if you take the family out of the scenario, though. I love animals and believe in taking care of them, but it is wrong to put an animal’s life above a human life, whether your own or someone else’s
 
Animals are here for our benefit, not the other way around. Loving a creature without an eternal soul more than loving a human being with such a soul, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit, is misguided and potentially immoral, all the more so with people who literally depend on me to take care of them whether there’s a fire or not. There is a hierarchy of priorities in life, with God first, mankind second, and non-human creatures toward the bottom of the list.

That does not eliminate our obligation to be compassionate stewards of Creation, but in your case, yes, I believe it is immoral. It’s a hard pill for me to swallow, all the more so consideration my loving relationships with pet dogs and cats over the course of my lifetime, but I didn’t make the rules–He did.
 
Baelor said:
I am not sure about this. The Church does recognize the concept of putting oneself in grave risk, and it seems odd that this would be permitted for the sake of an animal.
Click to expand...
I think St. Francis might disagree with you on that one 🙂
 
Baelor said:
I am not sure about this. The Church does recognize the concept of putting oneself in grave risk, and it seems odd that this would be permitted for the sake of an animal.
Click to expand...
Everyone has to do what they have to do. I don’t accept that it wouldn’t be permitted for the sake of an animal. But everyone has an opinion. Yours is important to you, and mine is important to me. I’m sure we’re not going to change each other’s mind, but that’s okay, we don’t have to 🙂
 
Fire can destory a house in under what, 2 - 3 minutes? You get your family out, say that takes 1 minute, you then have 1 - 2 to think about the moral degree of saving your pet.

A person will react. If they hear their dog barking, their cat meowing, the flames are quickly taking the house, the smoke is thick and suffocating. If a person runs into that, the last thing they are doing is thinking “I wonder if I will go to Hell because I knowingly sacrificed myself saving Fluffy”.

I’d say the morality of placing an animal’s life above a human’s depends on the thinking of the person doing the place. Like the 3 rules for mortal sin. Full knowledge and full consent. What is the state of that person’s mind? Are they a gentle soul? A vegetarian who loves all animals and skips through feilds of flowers on Sunday after Mass? Do they view all life as equal value? Or are they wounded by man? Cruelly treated by family and others until they find solace only in animal company?

I do know people who put animals above humans. These people are hurting individuals with sad histories. Some of them are people who see the wickedness of man and see that as reason for placing animals above them. Some of these people are simply very gentle souls who truly beleive animals have souls.

Its easy to look at this situation and lay the moral highground with rationality. But faced with a fire burning your house, your family safe and your beloved pet inside crying in pain, panic? It’d be hard for even the staunchest animals-don’t-have-souls proponent to not run in - especially since any action would be one based on pure instinct, you just wouldn’t have time to think the logistics of survival through. Fight or flight.

I’d run in for my cat if I thought I had a chance. If it was obvious there was no hope for me surviving, then there’d be no hope for the cat, so I wouldn’t.

Heck, knowing my cat’s personality, half the neighbourhood would want to run in for her.
 
Here’s something I just want to add.

WE brought our pets into our homes. WE made them dependent on us for all of their care and needs. WE made them vulnerable to injury by making them incapable of getting out of our homes in an emergency. God didn’t make them that way. We did. That makes US responsible for them and their welfare. Don’t agree? Then don’t bring a pet into your home, where you have made them vulnerable and unable to care for themselves. Leave that animal to someone who will take their responsibility seriously. They’re not garbage or disposable. We are stewards of the earth, not destroyers of the earth. Do your part as a steward: either take responisbility for that which you made dependent on you for everything, or don’t have a pet.

So, while I will agree that a human’s life is more ‘important’ than an animals, I don’t agree that we absolve ourselves of our responsibilities when things get rough. That said, obviously we’re not required to run into burning buildings to save our pets if it’s too dangerous to do so. But if you CAN and are ABLE to get a pet out of trouble, you SHOULD because you made them unable to do so themselves. How we can just abandon them to injury and death because ‘they’re only animals’ if we can help them is just beyond me. Your the one who closed them up in that burning house, with no way to escape, so you should get them out if you can.

Running into a burning building takes courage, and it’s not something that anyone considers lightly. The person’s intention isn’t to die, but to succeed, and the decision is usually made in the heat of the moment. No, it’s not immoral to save your pet. No, it’s not immoral if you can’t save your pet. But it is immoral to think you don’t have any responsibilities due your pet, because you do. YOU made them. You take care of them.
 
meltzerboy said:
A hypothetical scenario: there is a fire and you save your family first and then go back to rescue your pet, realizing you will thus not be able to escape. You are basically sacrificing your own life in the process. Is this regarded as a moral or immoral behavior?

I know that according to Catholicism as well as Judaism, we are to respect and care for animals but, at the same time, not place their needs above those of humans. But what do you think about this example, in which we are putting the life of our pet above our own?
Click to expand...
The family is already saved so you are not putting the loved animal above that of a human. Your act in running in there to save that animal you love so much, is just a very normal human act. These things are done out of compassion without much thought for yourself. It’s human nature.
 
vera_dicere said:
Fire can destory a house in under what, 2 - 3 minutes? You get your family out, say that takes 1 minute, you then have 1 - 2 to think about the moral degree of saving your pet.

A person will react. If they hear their dog barking, their cat meowing, the flames are quickly taking the house, the smoke is thick and suffocating. If a person runs into that, the last thing they are doing is thinking “I wonder if I will go to Hell because I knowingly sacrificed myself saving Fluffy”.
Click to expand...
On the flipside, I don’t even want to know a person cruel enough to hear an animal crying out for help and in pain, and just shrug their shoulders and say, “you know, it’s just an animal. They have no soul. They’re not important.”. I don’t even want to know such a person. If they treat an animal like that, how will they treat a human in times of crisis.
vera_dicere said:
I do know people who put animals above humans. These people are hurting individuals with sad histories. Some of them are people who see the wickedness of man and see that as reason for placing animals above them. Some of these people are simply very gentle souls who truly beleive animals have souls.
Click to expand...
Some people are called to protect animals, while they have quite a fulfilling live with their own family. We all have our callings.
 
vera_dicere said:
Fire can destory a house in under what, 2 - 3 minutes? You get your family out, say that takes 1 minute, you then have 1 - 2 to think about the moral degree of saving your pet.

A person will react. If they hear their dog barking, their cat meowing, the flames are quickly taking the house, the smoke is thick and suffocating. If a person runs into that, the last thing they are doing is thinking “I wonder if I will go to Hell because I knowingly sacrificed myself saving Fluffy”.

I’d say the morality of placing an animal’s life above a human’s depends on the thinking of the person doing the place. Like the 3 rules for mortal sin. Full knowledge and full consent. What is the state of that person’s mind? Are they a gentle soul? A vegetarian who loves all animals and skips through feilds of flowers on Sunday after Mass? Do they view all life as equal value? Or are they wounded by man? Cruelly treated by family and others until they find solace only in animal company?

I do know people who put animals above humans. These people are hurting individuals with sad histories. Some of them are people who see the wickedness of man and see that as reason for placing animals above them. Some of these people are simply very gentle souls who truly beleive animals have souls.

Its easy to look at this situation and lay the moral highground with rationality. But faced with a fire burning your house, your family safe and your beloved pet inside crying in pain, panic? It’d be hard for even the staunchest animals-don’t-have-souls proponent to not run in - especially since any action would be one based on pure instinct, you just wouldn’t have time to think the logistics of survival through. Fight or flight.

I’d run in for my cat if I thought I had a chance. If it was obvious there was no hope for me surviving, then there’d be no hope for the cat, so I wouldn’t.

Heck, knowing my cat’s personality, half the neighbourhood would want to run in for her.
Click to expand...
Great post and your cat seems a real lovable character.👍👍👍
 
Rence said:
Everyone has to do what they have to do. I don’t accept that it wouldn’t be permitted for the sake of an animal. But everyone has an opinion. Yours is important to you, and mine is important to me. I’m sure we’re not going to change each other’s mind, but that’s okay, we don’t have to 🙂
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Rence said:
Here’s something I just want to add.

WE brought our pets into our homes. WE made them dependent on us for all of their care and needs. WE made them vulnerable to injury by making them incapable of getting out of our homes in an emergency. God didn’t make them that way. We did. That makes US responsible for them and their welfare. Don’t agree? Then don’t bring a pet into your home, where you have made them vulnerable and unable to care for themselves. Leave that animal to someone who will take their responsibility seriously. They’re not garbage or disposable. We are stewards of the earth, not destroyers of the earth. Do your part as a steward: either take responisbility for that which you made dependent on you for everything, or don’t have a pet.

So, while I will agree that a human’s life is more ‘important’ than an animals, I don’t agree that we absolve ourselves of our responsibilities when things get rough. That said, obviously we’re not required to run into burning buildings to save our pets if it’s too dangerous to do so. But if you CAN and are ABLE to get a pet out of trouble, you SHOULD because you made them unable to do so themselves. How we can just abandon them to injury and death because ‘they’re only animals’ if we can help them is just beyond me. Your the one who closed them up in that burning house, with no way to escape, so you should get them out if you can.

Running into a burning building takes courage, and it’s not something that anyone considers lightly. The person’s intention isn’t to die, but to succeed, and the decision is usually made in the heat of the moment. No, it’s not immoral to save your pet. No, it’s not immoral if you can’t save your pet. But it is immoral to think you don’t have any responsibilities due your pet, because you do. YOU made them. You take care of them.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! 👍👍👍
 
Rence said:
On the flipside, I don’t even want to know a person cruel enough to hear an animal crying out for help and in pain, and just shrug their shoulders and say, “you know, it’s just an animal. They have no soul. They’re not important.”. I don’t even want to know such a person. If they treat an animal like that, how will they treat a human in times of crisis.

Some people are called to protect animals, while they have quite a fulfilling live with their own family. We all have our callings.
Click to expand...
Well said. Yes, about a calling to protect animals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top