Criminals or dogs?
 

Often one hear the opinion that a human always is more worth than an animal. But now and then one can question that notion. One can for example take a case with a hardened criminal. He is a murder and rapist. He have molested and killed several children and women. His deeds have caused a lto of suffering, not only of the victims but also of the parents, siblings, relatives and friends of the victims, who have got their lives destroyed. The gruesome deeds have spread like rings on the water and affected many people in a negatie way.

On the other hand we have a dog. In a situation of catastrophe (earthquake, storm or similar) it finds and contributes to the rescue of several people (some dogs have run several kilometers to get help to rescue people trapped in fallen houses). The good behaviour of the dog have not only saved the lives of the people who were in need but also spread joy and hapiness among relatives, families, friends who got their loved ones back thanks to the dog.

Now, the question arise. Is the hardened criminal more worth than the helping dog, just because he happens to be a member of the human race, whilst the dog happens to be an animal? Does ones worth just depend on what species one belongs too? Does not ones deeds and actions also affect ones worth, or how others shall look on ones life?

We are all animals, so I think that the "human = always intrinsic value" is just USI. In this situation I'd say the best reasoning approach to take would be which one helped foster life vs. which one destroyed life. And if that's the case, the dog is worth more BY FAR.

Hell, just ask any soldier that works alongside animals. Many view them as just as much brothers in arms as their human comrades.

What more needs to be said really?

We humans sometimes have a rather high opinion of ourselves, that is not always that justified.

Instrumental worth doesn't really go that well hand in hand with the value of life though. If I were to be rather cheesy, I would say that life in itself has value, and deeds then serve to add or detract from it.

By virtue of their existence other forms of life and nature provide us with a means to live, much joy, and much to be grateful for. Thus humans owe them kindness and it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. But it is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. We should not, in my opinion "over-personify" other creatures. The behaviour of the dog may have saved the lives of the people; however, it did not do this with any sense of understanding remotely comparable to the level a human. It cannot rise beyond these physical circumstances.

And while a criminal may have done horrible things in the past, he or she can still see, realize, understand, or regret what was done and (hopefully) make restitution however slim the chance may be. It is that present or possible future capacity that points us in the direction of which action to take. I have not hinged my moral reasoning on a mere categorization, the term species. If another species of aliens possessed the same capacity to understand, realize, and judge now or in the future, they would be worthy of ethical treatment. Nor have I hinged it upon the past deeds or actions which I do not see as justifications for basic moral treatment. Whether a person has done good or bad in the past is irrelevant; all are worthy of living.

I have a feeling that my view isn't going to be popular here, but by moral reasoning, I think the line is drawn once higher life forms are at stake.

/me runs for cover

Just throwing it out there - The concept that animals act only mechanically and have no higher mental functions is starting to become obsolete. Animals have emotions, they have memories that they act upon, some have forethought, and all animals (even insects) have some form of rudimentary consciousness, varying in complexity. So as we discuss this, let's avoid the old worldview that the animals are simply fleshy robots. The animal mind (including our own ;)) is much more complex than we ever could have imagined. The dog could very well know the direct consequences of its actions.

What if it's a criminal like John Wayne Gacy, who went to the gas chamber feeling no remorse for his crimes (his dying words were "kiss my ass"). If, for instance, to save his life, you had to kill a dog that has done heroic deeds, would you?

I never made this claim.

Does this imbue them with any sense of understanding, justice, mercy, guilt?

Yes, rather reluctantly and as an absolute last resort. It may be easier to save a dog or cat than to save or convince a human that killing himself is wrong but ultimately I think the latter takes moral imperative regardless of how difficult it may be.

1. I never claimed you did. It's just that there are a few here that do take a robotic approach to animals, and I thought I might as well toss it out there now to cut that mindset off at the knees before someone brought it up, and your post that at least could have been interpretted by these people to mean that animals lack consciousness was a good place to insert it.

2. How do we know they don't? Animals know when they do right or wrong if we condition them to. This demonstrates they have the capacity to make these connections, and they likely do in the wild. Animals have also been witnessed mourning their dead (one specific example I heard was Magpies, which brought small bits of foliage to a fallen bird and stood around it for a while in a sort of vigil before flying off). Animals also demonstrate compassion and love beyond simply mating (elephants, for example). Animals are more complex than our old vision of them used to be (eat, sleep, and screw). Before we declare them to have intrinsically less value than even the lowest humans, I think we need to learn more about who we are sharing this planet with, and just how powerful their minds truly are.

3. Why, though? One is a murderer, the other a hero. Does the precedent that each one set for themselves not matter? Even if Gacy continued to rape and murder for the rest of his life, would you still say he has more intrinsic value than an animal which has proven itself a useful counterpart to the human race, and would continue to be had it lived?

One takes lives, the other saves them. That information alone would tip the balance of value toward the latter, but all of a sudden simply learning of species flips this? That just seems off to me...

PS: Welcome back. :)

I vaguely remember seeing a thread like this a few months ago, and what I thought then (as well as what I think now), is that this can't really be discussed until a concrete definition of "value" is agreed upon.

Two Sick Puppies Walk To Human Hospital, Wait In Lobby (VIDEO)

Take this, for example. I think it's a good example of just how much critical thinking ability animals might have.

Normally I would be much more into a thread like this, because humans often seem to downplay many animals without understanding anything about them, but I guess Tsyal has things pretty well in hand, so I don't really need to repeat the same things twice.

I guess I will have to go in depth to deconstruct these arguments otherwise neither of us has any chance of convincing the other. I will say that you are a good debater Tsyal Makto but with all due respect, I think that you cover many small logic errors with semantics sometimes which can add up quickly. Your choice of words tends to confuse cause-and-effect with associations. Jumping back to your first post in this thread, I will use this as an example.

This is something that strikes me as simply judging things by associations i.e. appealing to common ground. While humans, dogs, cats, and chimpanzees are all considered to be animals, we have to, in logic, look at whether the causation bears any relevance to the point in question. We are animals because we share common biology. Now, does our biology factor in as determinant in basic moral treatment? I do not think so. If we take for example, an alien who is not part of the animal kingdom, not even of common chemical makeup, a silicon based life forms, this being would still be considered equal if it had the capacity to reason and understand. The difference in biology has no effect; therefore, throwing around the saying that we are all animals carries no real weight. This is called an "accidental" attribute as opposed to being a "substantial" attribute. It is therefore not part of the "essence" (essential properties) of an object deserving moral treatment.

Now I know you may not have intended this to be used particularly as evidence but I'm just using it to introduce my methodology, the process, and manner in which I'm arriving at the conclusions that I arrive at. So onto the points being discussed:

This is the first case where I think semantics cover a small error in logic. We need to separate the concepts of acting in a manner in accordance with right and wrong and acting with understanding of right and wrong. I can train my cat not to attack other cats but regardless of how good of a cat trainer I am, I do not think I can hope to make it understand why.

Be careful about another semantic error here. You seem to be conflating some animals with all animals. I feel that, throughout all your posts, you are trying to make a defense for all animals when only some animals possess these qualities. I am aware that research also supports the idea of animal grief but not all animals do grieve. A lion, for example, upon seeing its dead comrade would eat it, only pausing to sniff the carcass to make sure it’s not rotten.

The key here is that these specific animals you list are social animals that by their very nature form bonds and social groups. I would think of them as more deserving than other animals who do not form social bonds and therefore we should do our best not to disrupt these social groups whenever possible but I still see them as being below humans which have an even greater capacity for this and many other things (like moral understanding, full capacity for reasoning, etc.).

I think you make this error again. Is the dog functioning as a hero? Is it acting with any inner qualities such as having moral courage, or rather is the dog simply function in manner similar to a "hero"? I think it is the latter. I've seen some police dogs myself, but I've noticed that many of them seem to think that they are simply playing when they take down or chase down a criminal.

In certain manners, yes. If someone was known to be a murderer, we would probably restrain him to ensure he does not physically harm anyone else. But in a matter of life or death, death is not the preferable option unless it cannot be avoided by other means.

There is something I forgot and should have clarified in my earlier post which should settle this specific matter. You can end someone's life as an act of self-defense for you or intervene in behalf of someone else in clear and present danger. If you know, for example, with great, clear, and obvious certainty that a murder was going to kill someone tomorrow, you can end the murderer's life in defense of the would be victim so long as all other options have been exhausted (like calling the authorities). If faced with that specific choice, you could choose to save the dog over a criminal, but it was not for the dog's sake but rather for the sake of the future victims. I'm not saying the dog's fate is an accidental characteristic in this scenario but rather a secondary (but still important) concern compared to the humans at stake.

If I understand this correctly, you are arguing that we should save the dog for its utility in saving human lives--that we will end up keeping more humans alive in the end by choosing to keep the dog. Hmmm... I cannot really give much of an answer because I do need to think this over more. But off the top of my head, I would think that utility is an accidental characteristic. I'm sure neither of us wants to see people having to justify their utility to society to live but on the other hand, I can think of a few customary examples of where utility is the deciding factor in matters like this so I cannot really say for now. If you look at the paragraph above this one, you can tell my answer for some cases but when the outcome is uncertain (when it’s probable but not obvious that the person will kill someday), that’s where I run into some personal confusion.

It’s learning of the person-hood in one of the choices that flips this.

Thank you very much.

I would agree with this statement, it’s just that I think in this case, we have gone too far in the opposite direction. I think there is a certain danger to be said of over-personifying other animals. What immediately comes to mind are animal hoarders or owners who overly "baby" their pets, over indulging them with human affections (the latter being more common).

Animals, while they can show love and affection, are no proper substitute for the personal qualities that a human provide. We have properties that set us apart. We should not say to a farmer that "you cannot farm the land to make a living because you kill all these trees" or to a fisherman that "you cannot fish because you are killing fish." While you might argue that these actions are justified because of their intent, intent is clearly not the only factor here. A person can kill live animals for food but could a person kill another live person (or sentient alien) for food? I'm certain most of us would say no. There is something to be said for what we do possess. Let us not go too far in the other direction.

No malicious intent intended, I tend to speak in a rather esoteric manner.

It does carry weight, because we are all of this Earth, and are an intricate part of a biosphere that we all put into, take from, and depend on each other (all life) to sustain. We all form an intricate web of life. I tend to take the methodology that many indigenous cultures take in that most or all lifeforms are existentially equal because of this fact (yes, things are killed and sacrifices are made, but the line is set at merit rather than species, which is where spirituality and thanking an animal after they are killed for their sacrifice comes in). I am also guessing this is the major difference between us. I take a holistic morality while you take an anthropocentric one.

Let me just as you this, though: Do you think the current status quo in most industrialized societies of the relationship of the human animal to his brethren, in it's current form, is fine or healthy? Don't you think that, at the very least, a move to a more humane treatment of the life we share the Earth with is called for?

As for aliens, if they were ever to arrive to Earth, I think humanity would be best to put them on..."probation." Make them prove their merits as a peaceful species that will not harm our planet (environmentally and our civilization), before we let them into our sphere.

Closely examine the behavior and body motions of a cat or dog that has done something wrong. For example, my mother was once bitten by her dog (it had cataracts and she spooked him). Almost immediately the dog put it's tail between it's legs and it's head down, in a sense of shame. It is very well possible, IMO, that a dog understands it is doing wrong.

And according to that article I posted, they may also understand cause-and-effect (the mother cat, for example, knew that if it alerted the human, she could get help for her kittens).

Grief was only one example, I'm sure lions have many emotions that they exhibit, it's just that grief isn't one of them. At least, they do not show it in a manner we can interpret as grief.

Even if an animal does not make social bonds doesn't mean it might not possess complex consciousness. And even if not a high level of consciousness, I fall back onto the argument that because all Earth life forms a web of life that we all depend on, all complex lifeforms (which are shown to have consciousness, it's just a matter of degree of how much they deviate from instinct, but the freedom of mental movement is there) deserve to have a certain set of basic rights (yes, I'm an animal rights buff. :)).

How do we know that a dog does not understand the benefits of it's actions? I explained this above.


So keeping someone alive who is no benefit to themselves, society, or nature as a whole is preferable to saving the life of a non-human creature that is benefiting society and nature, and very well could have an understanding of this (and thus is benefiting itself), simply for principle?


So I'm guessing that you believe a person cannot act so badly that they lose their person hood? Do you believe it is right or wrong for societies to banish those who have committed crimes?

Which brings up another point. What if the criminal was not to be killed, but simply banished to a barren land or prison colony? They'd still be alive. So in this case: Would you kill the dog to allow the criminal to remain in our social sphere, or would you let the dog live, but the criminal is banished forever (not dead, though, at least not by our hand, they could still die by the elements)?

Thoughts?

This is all my personal worldview. (Let's leave it at that, we went down the debate about relativistic morality rabbit hole once before and I do not wish to do it again). Sorry if this isn't very easy to read, it's the best I could hobble together at 2 in the morning.

Having a dog is no different than having a child, because they both need to be taught how to behave and fit in this world. If you have children, they need both love and boundaries, and same goes for animals.

Affection and guidance are both required in sufficient quantities, because a child grown with only affection will turn into a spoiled adult, and child grown only with discipline will turn into a violent adult. These are of course only rough and rather bad examples, but I just put them there to illustrate my point.

Our Austrailian Shepard is our "child" in that she depends upon us for food, water, shelter, and affection. In return, she gives unlimited love, and devotion. No matter what kind of day I have had, she loves me just the same, and goes crazy happy when she sees me pull onto the property, even if I have only been gone an hour. Show me an teenager that does that.
Niri Te

The name itself is so sad and cute. ; __ ;

Yeah, there are definitely many examples of incidences where a dog saves its owner's life.

Meri, our nantang, would lay her life on the line, to protect either Ateyo or myself in a moment, as I would for her.
Niri Te

And I intend to speak in a rather direct and concise manner. I have a feeling that the posts I've written may seem rather impersonal to some here. This is because I purposely wanted to avoid any appeals to emotions in a debate. Part of me regrets jumping into this debate amongst some strongly held views but I'll continue.

I have been operating as if there were no other factors in consideration other than those listed. I suspect that people have been substituting the vague notion of a dog with a personal notion of their own personal pet whether it be named Max, Buddy, or Fido. I have not been doing this.

So I come to this specific point that was made:

Yes, because despite of whatever preconceived bias, strong emotions, or reservations we may hold, he or she is still a person.

Let me tie in with what I had said in the previous section: Let us remind ourselves of what could be the case. Let us imagine that: The criminal's name is Fredrick. He was born into a typical income-wage family that fell into hard times. Fred's father was an alcoholic who often beat his wife and later his son, Fredrick.His mother filed for divorce and the court awarded her custody but Fredick served as a reminder of his mother's failed relationship so she too began to mistreat Fedrick. Fedrick grew up bitter at the world. He failed school and got into fights because he could not focus and his mind too peturbed. After he dropped out of high school, he joined a street gang because they were the only ones who would "provide" for him.

If we were given that story, I'm certain a few people would switch sides. I think this shows that we cannot base judgement on merit, let alone our hastily put together preconceived notions. There is too little consistency in my opinion.

I must also add that I hold out on this issue because I seek to keep consistency across my ideas and political views. I do oppose the death penalty. If I had reason to believe that the actions of a person can strip anyone of his or her humanity or that it is possible to define a subset of humans to not be persons, I do not think I can logically maintain my opposition and I am sure quite a few folks (based off the usual demographics) reading this thread are against the death penalty.


I think differently. One can actively defend the ecosystem against present danger and over encroachment by other humans because we all, whether it be us here, a country, or some idigenous tribe, depend on it for survival but the only caveat is that we should not feed people to the environment for the environment's sake. We cultivate the environment to feed people sustainably instead.

I think its a bit more fundamental; its because our notions of equality are slightly different.

The status quo in the world is unsustainable in my opinion and does need to be changed. We probrably agree on most minor political and environmental issues but once we start arriving at extremes, we start running into differences.

I wouldn't dispute this as being a sensible policy but this is besides the point.

Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by knowing right and wrong . In general, I think of four specific criteria. The first is called moral sensitivity, "the ability to see an ethical dilemma, and how our actions will affect others." The second is moral judgment, "the ability to reason correctly about what 'ought' to be done in a specific situation." The third is moral motivation, "a personal commitment to moral action, accepting responsibility for the outcome." The last is moral character, "courageous persistence in spite of fatigue or temptations to take the easy way out.

I think the majoriy of animals fail all four. Our pets and some social animals fulfill the last criteria and to a much lesser degree the first. The dog maybe felt remorse for biting you but it could never hope to reason in advance not to bite when scared. Instinct is still a primary drive in the dog and cat'as actions (though I confess that the cat's scenario you listed is quite exceptional and perhaps your strongest point). I discuss a little more about instinct vs teaching in my last point in this reply.

We look at its behavior and judge whether it signifies knowledge or understanding. If you can prove that a dog can exhibit all four of the qualities mentioned, we might have some basis for saving the dog but we still have to sort through all the other issues such as merit, personal background, etc.

The underlying principle is that we take care of all our fellow human's basic needs lest providing for our own needs be called into question by other people if we fall into the same situation. Being in a state of no benefit to themselves, society, or nature as a whole is irrelevant in my opinion. An ederly person in a nursing home or hospital bed cannot work, go out and meet other people, etc, yet we still take care or him or her regardless of utility.

I'd let the dog live unless the human in question would obviously be killed soon as a direct result of being banished.

Fair enough.

Not what I had in mind. I was thinking of something more extreme. When I say "there is a certain danger in overpersonifying them" I phrase it as an ethical imperative because one not need to look further than this animal planet tv series:

Fatal Attractions

In their channel, they don't show whole episodes but you can geuss with great certainty how each scenario plays out:

Fatal Attractions - YouTube

Many of the people in those videos tried to teach or train the animals but to no avail; it does not change the physical nature of the animals and the fact that they are primarily dominated by instincts. I know many people who work with and greatly care for animals personally but even they acknowledge the differences between persons and other creatures.

And I will add this. After some thinking, I shall ask these two questions:

Does having responsibility to a particular animal or individual affect the decision?

If we were forced to choose between killing a random stranger and killing your best friend whom you've promised to protect, what would you do?

We might have plausible grounds for saving the dog if it was your pet or an esteemed member of your respective society, but I'd have to think over this more.

That story about Fredrick" is SOOO full of bleeding heart, PSYCHOBABBLE, it almost makes me PUKE!! NOW, let ME give you a story. A child in born in 1950, the child is born with BOTH sets of external Genitalia, and being 1950, it's biological progenitors, (it takes FAR more than simple biology to EARN the title "father" or "mother"), are given the CHOICE of what they want. This is the first born child to the couple, ant it's male progenitor is a U.S. Navy Carrier Attack Pilot, so there is ZERO discussion, is it to "be" a boy. As the child grows up, it is small in stature, and has a very thin build, a FEMALE skeleton, so to speak. The child also does not like to fight, but uses its verbal skills for conflict resolution,
(Oh, gee whiz, a FEMALE trait), in it's interactions. As a result, it is beaten to the point of unconsciousness on a regular basis starting at age FIVE by a man who looked like the character "Ice Man" in the volleyball match in the movie "Top Gun", not because he was drunk, he was STONE SOBER. The reason that the child was beaten mercilessly while being called ******, QUEER, LOSER, and BUM.
The child was later beaten up for getting beaten up by the local bullies on the School Bus when it got home.
Starting at twelve years of age, the child was told routinely that it would NEVER be a pilot, "because QUEERS were not allowed to become pilots". A year later, when Vietnam was just starting to heat up, the male progenitor would tell the child a number, then throw it on the ground, and try to get the number out of the child, "in case that the Army got so hard up for fresh meat that they started taking in FAGS" the child wouldn't give up any information. This child at age fourteen had the same "Rope Tricks" pulled on it for hours, that the pilots in the "Hanoi Hilton done to them.
The childs male progenitor gets killed in Nam when the child was 15, and the child's female progenitor picks up where the male left off, trying to have it thrown into a "Children's Home", but failing miserably.
At eighteen, this child who has KNOWN since it was FIVE, that it was actually FEMALE got a draft letter, Went to the local recruiter's office, and enlisted into the Army with a class date to Warrant Officer Flight School, seeing as the child started flying lessons while it's male progenitor was in Vietnam for the last time, and got it's Pilot's License on it's sixteenth birthday. (So much for being too stupid to fly).
So now the young adult in in Basic Training, does not have a SINGLE hair on it's face, and is marching with 50 other apparent males, Singing
I want to be an Airborne Ranger
I want to go to Viet--Nam
I want to live a life of danger
I want to kill some Charlie Cong.
All of the trainees except one sing that song as either a Bass, Baritone, or Tenor, this particular young adult was a SOPRANO!! Care to guess what THIS trainee went through in Basic Training?
It went like that until it was discovered in the second week of training, that this trainee could field strip ANY weapon blindfolded faster tan the D.I.'s and could out shoot ANYONE in the Basic Training Company, including the Cadre.
To make a long story sort, this person went on to be a decorated Military Flight Officer in the Army, was on several Division level National Match Rifle Teams, and had a SPOTLESS Military Record!!
When this individual was 28 ears old, a routine ultrasound for kidney stones, found a pair of partially formed OVARIES!!! Well WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT!!
The person had the offending genitals removed, and went through the rest of the program as well.
THE POINT OF THIS STORY???
That person did NOT become a drunk, or drug addict, or thief, or rapist, or murderer, THAT person had moral fiber and was not some worthless VRRTEP.
THAT PERSON IS ME!!!!
They should take out the trash that tries to cry on some SHRINKS shoulder, line them all up against a wall AND SHOOT THEM!!!
Niri TE

I think you misinterpret what I was saying. I only proposed it as an extremely brief thought experiment, not to write some long drawn out story to empathize with. That said:

It is good, even admirable that you possess such strength of character. In the face of great adversity, there many who persevere. I have many examples of characters in my own life I can look up to but there are still those who fail. I also suspect we have different types of people in mind when the term "criminal" is used. I was taught to always hold out for reform of the guilty no matter how seemingly hopeless, to forgive even the greatest misdeeds. A single person willing to reform his life and make amends was worth any amount of patience. I didn't pick my side in this debate easily. But regardless:

Let us just say that our differences in thought on this matter stem from very deep convictions in worldview, belief, and outlook. Let us call this debate over. Enough on the topic has been said.