The moral philosophy of favouring pets over humans

[MarchHare]

Aside from having an aquarium when I was a kid, I've never owned pets, so I guess that probably affects my opinion on this matter...

But I would never in a million years considering saving someone's dog or cat over their child or grandmother. I can't even begin to understand the logic that would lead someone to value the life of an animal more than the life of a human.

The below sentence doesn't seem too uncaring or uncommon:

"Remember when your dog died when you were seven and you cried and cried until we got you another one?"

Now replace the word "dog" in that sentence with "brother" and it just doesn't work.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 8 2005, 10:10 AM
So why are cats and dogs put on equal footing but cows and pigs and sheep and goats are not?

I've heard on other boards that the only reason you can't go kill the neighbors dog is not because the dog has rights, but you have destroyed the property of your neighbor who does have rights.

Well, that's another can of worms right there.

There is a vast argument among well meaning people in the pet community over what is better - animals having rights or keeping things the way they are, where humans have property rights over animals.

One of the kindest, more determined Golden rescue persons in the USA - we were greeted by 10 Golden's of various disabilities mushing us when we went to visit her in San Francisco a few years ago (she's now deceased from cancer) - would crush your head if you tried to argue that animal rights should supercede property rights.

On a second point, I also don't think we're talking about people - we shouldn't be - making a direct decision to pick saving their cat or pick saving a human.

As an example, I would save my wife from a burning building first, then go get the dogs and cats. . . . . but I wouldn't leave the dogs and cats behind without making an effort.

But people in that situation might singe themselves pretty good in the flames making the attempt.

In fact, just last year, a lady in Calgary - about 28 years old - lost her life going back into a burning house to get her animals. They found the pooch dead beside her, guarding her, after she had succumbed to the smoke.

Similarly, in new Orleans, people are making decisions that they will stay together - husband and wife - to their mutual peril because they won't leave their pets behind in New Orleans.

But people can be found prone to contribute more to a pet disaster relief or pet rescue fund than they might to the American Red Cross.

I read somewhere earlier today - danged if I can remember where - that people have contributed three times as much to helping pets as Clinton/Bush Sr. have collected through their charity to help people.

Pets are great friends, unqualified friends. Would you leave your friend behind? Tough call.

Cowperson

[Cheese]

well Cow...Goldens are a wonderful breed...wonder what you or others might think if it were a Pitbull or Dobie caught in the flames?

[Cube Inmate]

Damn it Cow...you had to go and stir up trouble this morning. Not only have I wasted time posting here, but I think I just realized I'm an existentialist! Great...just great!

[habernac]

While I have to echo some of the sentiment here that alot of humans are scum, I'd still have a very hard time leaving a human to perish while saving an animal instead.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Cheese@Sep 8 2005, 11:05 AM
well Cow...Goldens are a wonderful breed...wonder what you or others might think if it were a Pitbull or Dobie caught in the flames?

If you have an emotional bond with the animal, it wouldn't matter what breed it is.

You might well make a best effort to get them out of the flames.

Some would throw themselves in the buidling and not come out until they'd finished the task, obviously, as per the tragic real-life example I cited above.

Others would get their hair singed and turn back, comforted in knowing they did their best.

Others wouldn't make the attempt but cry as the building burned down, feeling genuine remorse.

Others would be slapping themselves on the back for getting out alive and saying "Geez, too bad about Muffy."

There are all kinds.

Cowperson

[FireFly]

Originally posted by Frank the Tank@Sep 8 2005, 11:32 AM
So by most peoples logic here, you would leave my 1 year old son alone on a rooftop in flooded New Orleans (or wherever) to take your cat/dog instead. Thats fata'd up.

We have emotional attachments to our pets. No doubt. I'm as big a sap as anyone when it comes to my pets. But if I found out that somebody saved their dog over my son/grandma/cousin I'd hunt you down and smash your teeth in with a bat.

If the person is helpless, either a child or the elderly, that's different. If a person is able bodied, why can't they help themselves? I'd certainly do what I can to help someone out, but I'm not all that strong, so if you expect me to carry someone out of a burning building, you've got another thing coming. I'll help whatever/whoever I can SAFELY carry. Which most likely would be my cats.

[Igottago]

I think it comes down to the fact that people feel genuine, unconditional love and loyalty from their pets. People betray you, upset you, break your heart, but your pets are always there with you, on your side. I don't have pets and never really, have, so I can't really understand the line of thinking that ones pets are valued more than other humans, but I can see where it comes from.

[shoestring]

A human would come first but I would exhaust all possibilities before I left my dog.
I would probably die with him or at least stay with him.
Same with the little woman,she stayed overnight in a locked Vet cage when he was hit by a car.Not the same but she couldn't have been anywhere else.
And she loves people unlike me who could give a hoot for most.

Funnily enough I don't have the same feeling for my rescued cat. More independent and less of a buddy (as she crawls up my leg and into my lap).

Geez I am conflicted or what ?
That decides it though; I am not moving to potential earthquake or hurricane zones till my dog and cat pass on.

Just thought of another problem; my dog would follow me back in to get that person, so I would have to get that person/s out or nobody would be safe. :stupid:

[Vulcan]

Anybody ever read a short Scifi story or seen the movie "A boy and his dog"? In the story it's after an atomic war destroys civilization and this boy survives with the help of his dog. The dog also helps him find a girlfriend and the three head off on a trek through the wastelands. Part way through he concludes that they won't survive without one of them being used for food. He chooses to keep the dog as it is more important for his survival. Interesting take on the situation but not usually applicable today when our animals are pets or hobbies rather then working partners and or food sources.

I think there is something wrong if we contribute more to animal shelters then human shelters, still I like my dog.

[Cain]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Sep 8 2005, 05:48 PM
The below sentence doesn't seem too uncaring or uncommon:

"Remember when your dog died when you were seven and you cried and cried until we got you another one?"

Now replace the word "dog" in that sentence with "brother" and it just doesn't work.

I really really dislike this post. I realize that you did not say that everyone is of this train of thought, and surely a bunch of people are, but a pet becomes part of the family. It is not human, but it is a family member just the same.

Would I save a human over a pet? Probably. But I'd try my absolute hardest to save both. Those kind of questions are pointless however...

So no...for me that sentence does seem vastly uncaring, and very out of place with "dog" in it.

Another dog does not replace a dog that you have lost, just like another brother does not replace the one you already have.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

My quick 0.02

Seeing pictures of dogs being abondoned in New Orleans hit me and my wife harder than most footage of the people...I don't know why but it did.

Probably the hardest thing I have gone through was euthanizing a pet...why it was harder than family and friends who have passed on I don't know.

Maybe it is b/c animals are provide 'unconditional' affection and companionship....

Tuff topic Cow
________
JustEsteban

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by Igottago@Sep 8 2005, 12:41 PM
I think it comes down to the fact that people feel genuine, unconditional love and loyalty from their pets. People betray you, upset you, break your heart, but your pets are always there with you, on your side.

This is a very important aspect for certain. Various members of my family have had cats and dogs. One in particular I will never forget. "Dusty" was one of my mother's two shinguardzus (Edit, wow, that word filter replace turned out whack!!); "Vickie" was the other. Both were extremely affectionate, but Dusty had a very very strong affection for me.

When I used to fly down to Vancouver to visit my folks, it never failed that I could be well over a hundred feet from the car when Dusty would jump up and start pawwing on the window frantically in his excitement to see me. Over a hundred feet!! With all the people around, and regardless of what I was wearing, he always picked me right out. Uncanny.

Pets never "grow up" and leave home, unlike ones children. They are not expected to fend for themselves at some point. They are forever reliant on their owners for even the most basic and essential needs; food and shelter. Love and attention between owners and pets is a two-way street. The more one gives the other, the more one receives.

Although I would not choose to rescue a pet over a human in a life threatening situation, I sure as hell would do my best to help both, even at my own expense.

[troutman]

Another tangent: leaving aside pets, do you have more sympathy for endangered wild animals (like a Grizzly sow protecting her cubs) or a human hiker?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by troutman@Sep 8 2005, 12:15 PM
Another tangent: leaving aside pets, do you have more sympathy for endangered wild animals (like a Grizzly sow protecting her cubs) or a human hiker?

The grizzly mom who protected her cubs instinctively at Lake Minnewanka a couple of weeks ago was left to wander off unharmed by Rangers after she had beat up a hiker.

The reason is she acted instinctively rather than with prior aggression. So . . . . I guess the general concensus of society that provides for that ready made decision answers your question.

Then again, I hate snakes and I'd kill 'em all with glee for no reason at all.

I only kill gophers - lots of them - if they come on my property . . . . but I don't go looking for them for the fun of it (I forgot one of my traps in the moldering sun for a few weeks and looking inside there was a real CSI Las Vegas moment . . . but that's another story).

I always get a creepy feeling driving by Cargill outside High River where, I think, 4,500 cows a day are killed or about 1.6 million a year . . . especially when you see a big truck pulling in with more victims looking out at you. Yet I'll eat a steak later in the day.

How conflicted are humans? They give monstrous amounts of money to rescue animals from a horrifying death in New Orleans then discuss it over chicken stew.

Cowperson

[jonesy]

No conflict for me, humans >>> animals.

we are all sitting in our houses, offices in areas that were at one time the domain of animals. to say some poor sot hiking in banff deserves it, since he is encroaching on the bears is hyporcritical.

and i like bears.

[Devils'Advocate]

The hiker. Which would mean that any confliction over the cat is in regards to an emotional attachment to the cat and not based on any belief in animal rights.

I also think the other part is that if my cat is caught in a fire and some other guy is trapped in the same fire, I'm responsible for that cat. If she dies, that was my cat and I failed to protect her. But that's being selfish because not only is that MY CAT and would cause my suffering because I would miss her AND it would be MY GUILT for not keeping her safe.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I'm thinking that "Frank the Tank" is of the thought that killing 1,000,000 monkeys though animal experimentation to save 1 person is worth it. That's a very common opinion. That, simply be being sentient and able to reason, 1 human life is worth any number of animal lives. I prefer Shakespeare's "If you ****** me, do I not bleed?". (apparently Shakespeare needs censoring here :P) I don't eat or wear anything that came from a creature that bleeds.

That said, I'm a utilitarianist with the belief in the right to life (the latter is an addition to cover off the chopped-up baby exception). So, with all else being equal, would saving the human or saving the cat cause the least amount of suffering? Likely the human, by virtue of being able to appreciate the state of being alive, by default wins out.

Just like the hiker.

[Hack&Lube]

Well, there are certainly a lot of animals I'd rather be around than certain humans.

Animals are just easier to love.

[Reaper]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 8 2005, 01:31 PM
How conflicted are humans? They give monstrous amounts of money to rescue animals from a horrifying death in New Orleans then discuss it over chicken stew.

Ever walk a chicken or have one lay on the foot of your bed tending to you while you were sick?

There's a reason we don't keep them as pets and have opted to eat them instead.

[habernac]

to say some poor sot hiking in banff deserves it, since he is encroaching on the bears is hyporcritical.


No it isn't. It's their backyard. We're the trespassers.Take precautions. If you get hurt, the animal shouldn't have to pay for what comes naturally.