I think people are confusing the value they put on things (personal value) with the
intrinsic value of things.
Roses, I read your example, and you are basically saying that it is inappropriate to spend $10k on a cat's bills when there are starving kids out there you could save with that $10k. Unfortunately, you could make that argument for almost anything. Why should you spend $10k on your own child's college education when that same $10k could
save the lives of starving children in another part of the world? It's not because your child is superior to other children, it's that you
personally value his life more than the others. Intrinsically though, all children should be equal, and cherished, and deserve the right to life, liberty and happiness.
That is what equality means, after all, isn't it? All people deserve the right to life, liberty, and happiness, because we're all equal, right? I argue that all animals deserve that same equality. No, I'm not saying we give horses the right to vote, the same way we don't let toddlers vote.
But if our actions purposefully or cruelly take away anothers' inalienable rights, then that shouldn't be allowed. I extrapolate this to pet ownership- if you are taking the responsibility of guardianship of an animal, you take on the responsibility of protecting and defending their rights until their death.
Are there gray areas? Sure. What about an animal who was on death row but gets saved at the last minute by a poor couple that can afford its food, but no medical bills? When that animal gets sick and they put it down are they criminals? No, of course not. There is a problem with the system- a huge pet overpopulation driven by human irresponsibility which leads people to commit even more irresponsible acts- a self-perpetuating negative cycle. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that if everyone started taking pet "ownership" more seriously, the problem we be much diminished.
And in response to a few direct questions/comments:
Can we at least agree that humans tend to put themselves above everything else on earth (see: destroying the earth, damaging ecosystems, etc.)? There's no real reason behind that other than a frontal cortex and superiority complex.
Completely 100% agreed. and well said!
I know you're going to say it's not a choice between one or the other but why not? Why are we so desensitized to the suffering of other human beings? But at the same time put more and more emphasis on domestic pets? It's like Hybrid says below, does the earthworm and the ant count? What about rats? Should we be like the Jains in India that sweep before every step so as not to squash an insect? So you see, I do look at it as an either or proposition. Money is finite for an individual person, even one of great means. And in a way so is our compassion.
Roses, you're right, it is a choice between one or the other. It's just that the choice you make doesn't mean that one group is more or less intrinsically valuable than another. Couples in China have killed their own female babies in hopes that their one child could be a boy. Because they made that choice, does that mean girls are inferior to boys and should have fewer rights? Like I said above, ALL creatures deserve the right to life, liberty, and happiness. So yes, earthworms, ants, great apes, whales. I don't think that we should all be like the Jains in India, there should be a line somewhere, but the place where the line is now (for the majority of the world) is cruel and unjust.
Why is it that we, as humans, think that all other species of animals are inferior to us? Why do humans "deserve" more care and better treatment than non-human animals? Because we're better somehow? Because we're smarter? Because we're different?
How is this mentality and the justifications we make for treating non-humans animals as inferior beings any different than the same justifications that people once made for treating blacks different than whites? Or for treating women differently than men?
Racism, sexism, and species-ism are all different forms of the same closed-mindedness and egocentricity that all humans suffer from to some extent.
I'm not sure how you could ask the initial question and expect an honest response when the last statement you make in your post shows extreme judgement of people who might answer honestly.
...
What's ironic here is that you're suggesting that pet ownership potentially be so expensive that nobody would be able to afford to keep one, meaning that the pet population as a whole would suffer because nobody is willing to go bankrupt to fight poor little Fluffy's stage-4 cancer diagnosis the same why the would with their own offspring and as a result would never consider taking in a pet..... meaning that they would all go to shelters and be put to sleep as they piled up.
Mykl,
I'm sorry, but the initial question was meant to be rhetorical. I truly didn't think there was another answer besides the one I provided. If anyone has a real, justifiable reason for why we, as humans, are better than everything else, I would love to hear the explanation.
You're kind of on to something there with your assessment of pet ownership being too expensive for anyone to keep pets. I think that pet ownership is *very* expensive, but that 99% of all pet owners never see the
true cost of owning pets. Unfortunately, the millions of starved, abused, homeless and euthanized pets that suffer each year pay the cost, while our pocketbooks get protected.
Just like 99% of people never pay the true cost for the goods and service they use- the earth does in the form of mass pollution. A worldwide carbon market would help solve this problem. Some might say, "with what you're suggesting taxes on foreign goods would be so high I would never be able to afford fancy Japanese electronics again!" Well, sadly, yep. That's the
true cost of doing business.