In principle—though I can’t say I’ve been consistent about it. I’ve supported ending our family dog’s misery when she was diagnosed with pretty bad cancer, and I still stand behind that decision. On the other hand I don’t think I would ever apply this to an animal one has had no interaction with.
On a meta level, and I’m adding this because it’s relevant to your other comment: I think it’s fine to live with such contradictions. Given our brain architecture, I don’t expect human morality to be translatable to a short and clear set of rules.
On the other hand I don’t think I would ever apply this to an animal one has had no interaction with.
Would you be against painlessly enthanising a stray dog with a similar condition as your family’s dog? If you would support ending their misery too, why not supporting efforts to decrease the number of wild animals with negative lives?
If I somehow ran into such a dog and decided the effort to take them to an ultrasound etc. was worth it, then probably yes—but I wouldn’t start e.g. actively searching for stray dogs with cancer in order to do that.
No, that’s not what I think. I think it’s rather dangerous and probably morally bad to seek out “negative lives” in order to stop them. And I think we should not be interfering with nature in ways we do not really understand. The whole idea of wild animal welfare seems to me not only unsupported morally but also absurd and probably a bad thing in practice.
In principle—though I can’t say I’ve been consistent about it. I’ve supported ending our family dog’s misery when she was diagnosed with pretty bad cancer, and I still stand behind that decision. On the other hand I don’t think I would ever apply this to an animal one has had no interaction with.
On a meta level, and I’m adding this because it’s relevant to your other comment: I think it’s fine to live with such contradictions. Given our brain architecture, I don’t expect human morality to be translatable to a short and clear set of rules.
Thanks for sharing, Guy!
Would you be against painlessly enthanising a stray dog with a similar condition as your family’s dog? If you would support ending their misery too, why not supporting efforts to decrease the number of wild animals with negative lives?
If I somehow ran into such a dog and decided the effort to take them to an ultrasound etc. was worth it, then probably yes—but I wouldn’t start e.g. actively searching for stray dogs with cancer in order to do that.
Makes sense. I think that suggests you consider decreasing the number of negative lives good in principle, although not always worth it in practice.
No, that’s not what I think. I think it’s rather dangerous and probably morally bad to seek out “negative lives” in order to stop them. And I think we should not be interfering with nature in ways we do not really understand. The whole idea of wild animal welfare seems to me not only unsupported morally but also absurd and probably a bad thing in practice.