Re:Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even i...
by tptacek on Thursday February 09, 2017 @12:58PM
(#13609132)
Can you help me understand how an extant dog could have a desire to live so ethically powerful that it overrides suffering, while it being simultaneously the case that it is unethical to bring such a dog into existence? It seems to me that your (a) implies that a living dog suffering from these defects is generating some benefit from living. Isn't it: maximum benefit > some benefit > no benefit?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even i...
by MarkMc on Thursday February 09, 2017 @02:26PM
(#13610013)
That's a good question. I suppose I'm arguing for ethical framework in which I'm not the sole judge of costs and benefits.
I think the pug will suffer so much that its life is not worth living. But if the pug feels differently then to some degree I should respect that.
I guess my view is shaped by my empathy for the dog. How would I feel in his situation? Similarly, if I end up in a hospital bed racked with pain, do I want the doctor to make a cost-benefit analysis without regard for my own feelings?
Re:Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even i...
by tptacek on Thursday February 09, 2017 @02:38PM
(#13610128)
Respectfully I want to creep up towards a presumptuous argument and say that you won't argue for euthanizing pugs because your gut tells you that whatever trouble pugs have due to their (many) health problems, a well-cared-for pug is generally a happy dog, and is not in fact living a life of overwhelming suffering.
We own a rescue mutt and a brachy purebred, and while I can't get inside the heads of either of my dogs, I would have absolutely no trouble telling you which of the two dogs is enjoying its life more. :)