Here’s my question, and please someone, persuasively answer it.

NFL quarterback Michael Vick has been charged and will likely see jail time for fighting dogs and inhumanely killing them.

They say that his surviving dogs are likely going to be killed because they are too dangerous to be kept in kennels with other dogs having lived a life of brutal conditions and conditioning. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are saying it is the most humane course of action.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/23/vi ... index.html

If these surviving dogs were humans, then no matter what, we would spend the tax dollars necessary to ensure that they live humanely until a natural death even if it required a special facility. We would not exterminate them, because we as a culture value the life of the animal species known as Homo sapiens.

But if we say that they are not humans, in other words that their lives are not significantly valuable, then why is it legal for the meat industry to practice inhumane treatment of non-human animals and unnecessary killing of most animals (necessity (if at all) being relative to those humans who need meat to live as opposed to those who merely ‘want’ it)?

It seems as though when we say that dogs are ‘different’ than cows, pigs, and/or chickens (such that Michael Vick, a human, can actually be put into jail, thus HURTING him, while humans who legally own and operate meat related companies can live freely by inhumanely killing other animals, and even be rewarded for that through money, praise, etc), then we are saying that unlike cows and pigs for example, dogs do not deserve such inhumane treatment because they are in a higher class of animals.

Are we simply saying that this 'higher' class is simply not 'high enough' to do what we need to as a society to keep them alive, like we would do for humans that were raised in brutal conditions?

Somebody please explain this to me.

It's true that some species of animal have higher levels of intelligence that others. I'm pretty sure that's what these "classes" are referring to. And personally, I don't doubt their judgment.

These dogs were trained to kill. And the truth is, some very well may never be able to break away from that. They are intelligent creatures... but they can't change their lifestyle like a human could. I man can say, "I'm not going to drink again because it could kill me." A dog will never realize that if they don't stop fighting, they will be uthanized.

And look at it from the standpoint of PETA. How would you feel to release on of these dogs to a family, beleiving it to be cured of it's previous lifestyle... only to maul the family's child for pulling it's tale?

But yeah... I never really cared for this whole "class" scale. But I guess you technically say that they are... in fact... saying that they are are a spieces that isn't "high enough" keep them alive. At least, that's what I get out of it.

It's kinda a sad truth. Those dogs aren't likely to be trained out of their agressiveness. There isn't anything to do other than put them in cages where they'd wind up spending the rest of their lives. If there is, I can't think of it.

@ The responses above,

I hold that trying to retrain these dogs may or may not lead them to being less aggresive, but that the risk to other animals (incuding humans) is too great to put them in society, but I wonder if PETA is saying that the most humane thing to do is kill them, or the most humane thing that they can GET DONE is have them killed because they know that humans don't really care enough about these dogs to provide a special facility to keep them alive. Thus killing them is the 'realistic' 'humane' alternative.

Unless they are saying that they would be so miserable to be alive that killing them is better in which case, shouldn't consenual euthanasia be allowed for human seniors, the sick, etc.

What constitutes as "miserable"?

They would live a life of seclusion, because around any other dog, they'd fight. The only contact would be with whom ever feeds them. All the while spending the day in a kennel. Some people might find that perfectly fine... and others could veiw that as a miserable lifestyle. Granted, it's better than what they WERE doing... but do you think those animals would truely be happy?

I'm not necessarily saying the'd be happy.

Let me put it another way.

It seems as though, humans do not considered the dogs 'lives' to be valuable (as not only can they kill these dogs, but even other dogs that have simply waited in kennels too long and are now a 'burden' to keep alive) but rather value their 'feelings' so it is OK to kill a dog so long as it is done humanely, and it is even better to put a dog out of its misery when it is done humanely.

OK, fine.

But then I don't understand why it is not OK to humanely kill a person through consentual euthanasia or to humanely kill a human fetus.

In these cases it is not about the feelings or the humaneness of it, it is about the actual LIFE of it.

It seems inconsistent for many people who share both the thought that it is ok to take away the LIFE of a dog (so long as it is done humanely) but it is not OK to take away the LIFE of a sick person, senior, or fetus (even when it is done humanely).

I've always been of the opinion that if a senior cosents to it, they should be allowed have their way. But that's anothet topic. I guess I see where you are coming from. And tbh, I don't think I really have any way to justify this... inconsistancy.

I guess human life is valued higher than canine life. At least in most people's eyes... harsh as that may sound.

Well, dogs can live, but they can't feel anything 'humanely'. And I bet the dog wouldn't even feel 'miserable'. I bet dogs don't feel anything that's based on human conceptions. Human conceptions being morale and society conventions.

As an illustration of that idea, I can imagine a race of aliens coming to Earth and telling humans, "oh my. You must feel miserable for destroying your planet so much. Poor you. But there's nothing you can do about it, you've been raised and trained to do so. I think the most 'humane' thing to do would be to exterminate mankind, eh?"
And boom.

Really, mankind takes pride in being a 'rational' being, but actually we're not that rational. You found a rather interesting paradox of human 'ethics and morale' there that you can't explain simply because there's no reason for it.
The best reason I can come up with is that people are inconstant, fake, and mostly make up arguments depending on the situation that they want to win.

My conclusion: raise your point to a defender of the "let's-not-kill-a-fetus-ZOMG-it's-got-a-soul-!!1!oneone" movement and you'll have one embarrassed person at a loss for words right in front you.
EDIT: and oh, yes, we're actually selfish too. So Lantis' point about canine life being less valuable than human life will probably be heartily embraced by the person.

IMHO.

Actually I think that's Bo's point.