[Cowperson]

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 law, in judging humans, that would probably be called the difference between manslaughter and murder.

Someone is dead, but we are advanced enough as a society to know there is a difference between the evil of pre-mediation and an accident.

Dog are not people, and therefore are, and should be held to a different level of moral codes and standards.

Frankly, dogs should be held to a lesser standard than humans because the humans can reason and understand morality, even as I agree that we should put down a dog that cannot be rehabilitated.

In general, a dog has no moral code you're familar with. They live among us because they can be trained to accomodate our moral code.

If I ingrain in my two Golden's that they are not to attack my four much smaller cats, they understand the instruction and get along amiably with the cats and are even close friends with them.

If I encourage my Golden's to attack cats, they'll probably do so.

Then again, if I had kids and encouraged them to be neo-Nazi's, they'd probably turn out that way.

The dog in this case had no experience or instruction with babies beyond relying on an instinctual reaction of picking it up by the neck to move it.

I wouldn't have put a kitten in that situation, let alone a baby, without ensuring the dog was clear and understood its instruction and that usually takes some time and correction while keeping the kitten safe.

To me, the human is at fault here.

I gave you another example in an earlier post with my Golden Retriever Abby and a child. Fortunately, I was watching the child and my dog interacting, reading the dog's reactions, and prevented something that might have happened. If my dog had mauled the child, it would likely have been ordered put down . . . . yet that dire consequence would have been my fault and the fault of the parent, both of us standing right there.

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.

My one sentence answer is: "Without animals, your hypothetical society would have no hope."

How are we changing as a Society?

Through to the mid-1990's, when a disaster struck in North America and authorities ordered people to abandon land, buildings and animals and flee the scene, compliance was high.

In the ice storms in eastern Canada and the USA, authorities found many people disobeying and refusing to abandon their pets, even at peril to their own lives. It was a confusing reaction and not seen on such a large scale before.

This reached a climax during Hurricane Katrina, when many refused to abandon their pets and some lost their lives.

Modern disaster service plans in first world countries are recognizing this shift in sentiment and building contigencies to evacuate pets, ensuring humans will follow as well.

The second hurricane situation in New Orleans a few years later had a massive pet evacuation plan in place.

Shifting sentiment and the place pets have in many families, as full-fledged family members, is a reality.

Of course, we all love a good hamburger and wouldn't want to visit the kill floor at the local Cargill plant.

Cowperson