[J pold]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Generally, cruel dogs are created by cruel humans.

Agreed.

What people are having trouble with in this instance is this seems to have been an instinctual accident - where a human was present in the room by the way - versus a cruel act

No. The issue at hand is that a human being is now dead as a result of the actions of this particular dog. What the motivations were behind the dogs actions – be it instinctual or cruel – are of no consequence in the matter.

In our society, we've somehow gotten it into our heads that there is no value in putting to death human's guilty of the most profound acts of deliberate cruelty to other humans . . . . yet we'll devalue the life of this dog for what is essentially an accident of instinct . . . . where the dog was placed in that situation by the human responsible.

Yes, and why wouldn’t we? Dog are not people, and therefore are, and should be held to a different level of moral codes and standards. To add I agree that there is certainly a large level of human responsibility in this incident which should not be discounted.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated" - Gandhi

I’ve read this quote a few times and I really don’t understand it. For example lets imagine a society were by all animals are treated to the highest moral standards and are never abused, their lives are never made worse by human, were they can live a full natural life. Now imagine this society treats the majority of its people very differently. Immoral practices such as slavery, poverty, starvation, and abuse are perpetrated on the lower and middle class by the ruling elite. Would this hypothetical society be on the path of moral progress? If one of the Nazi’s mandates was to treat animals like gods would they be a beacon of moral progress? Moral progress is judged by how a society treats its people.

I realize I’m making a distinction between animals and humans here, which I think the quote does as well.