Re: Nick's, Animal's and Ethic's #2

In Nick's post he gives two scenarios. One about a dog accidentally killing a child and the other about a lion attacking and killing people. He then asks, 'Is killing the lion is more reliable than killing the dog because we invite the dog into our home? Do we automatically shed the responsibility of the owners?'

In the case of the dog accidentally killing an infant (one moral agent killing another) I can't help but feel that it is the responsibility of the owners. Yes, I do believe that society automatically sheds the accountability of the owners, but these cases should be looked at more carefully. Dogs act like they are taught to act, and if a dog is misbehaving then behavior interventions can take place to change the behaviors of said dog. The owners must have known that their dog was aggressive, and they did nothing to change that. Dogs don't just start acting vicious randomly one day. Since they had known that their dog was capable of harming their infant and they let the dog near the infant it is clearly their fault. Yet, society blames the dog and then they kill it to prove that they are more powerful.

As for the lion, I do believe that we have more justification for killing it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should. It's behaviors are purely instinctual and not influenced by humans. If it possible to get the lion back into it's natural habitat without killing it, then that's what should be done, but if not, that gives justification for terminating it's life. If the lion persisted, it would just keep killing and attacking several people. Therefore by terminating it, they are taking one life to save many.

Do you think that as humans, it is an instinct to prove that we are more powerful?