This, to me, is a puzzle.
Why is euthanasia considered not only an acceptable, but indeed, the single most humane end-of-life procedure when it comes to animals, while evoking dread, hesitation, and often many prohibitory laws when it comes to humans?
I really have no idea. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The simple answer would seem to be because we don't value individual animal life as we do human lives.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's that we don't value animal life. If that was the case, we wouldn't care about euthanizing animals. But that's not the case -- rather than indifference, we actually think it's a *good* thing to euthanize animals. We think that when an animal is reaching the end of its life, has an incurable illness and is suffering, it is *better* to euthanize it than not. That, to me, is the real mystery.
ReplyDeleteIf we really value human life (not quality of life, but being alive itself) more than animal life then we'll want to keep suffering people alive precisely because they still have what is valued--life.
ReplyDeleteThe hesitancy about euthanasia also suggests that people often value human life more than human quality of life. This is probably culture-specific though.
So we value human life, but animal quality of life? Interesting, but why?
ReplyDeleteWell, again this looks culture specific (hey can you guess who this is? This entry and prev, but not the first)... so the explanation could come down to something like religion, historical factors, etc. There are really good 3rd person reasons, though. That is, if you think my life is really miserable, it would be pretty bad if you could decide I shouldn't be able to live it, and mercy kill me. And then, the next step is to say, that maybe I'm not that well equipped to make the decision about myself either--after all many people with reasonable lives unnecessarily commit suicide... But I don't know that we need a deep answer here, again because its probably culturally specific.
ReplyDeleteA slightly different take: We value human and animal quality of life, but we value human life above human quality of life, whereas we don't value animal life much.
ReplyDeleteThat we don't value animal life too much is clear from the fact that we eat animals, and euthanize stray animals, etc. Even many people against eating animals, would mind doing so far less if the animals didn't suffer (ie. being farmed in cruel conditions) again suggesting that we don't value animal life so much. Likewise many cultures have promoted painless methods of killing animals.
This solution to your puzzle is perhaps cognitively interesting, because it suggests two separate systems, or bases for morality:
1) An empathy system which makes suffering seem terrible, regardless of whether the sufferer is human or not.
2) Another system/rule prohibiting the killing of people (even painless killing), which does not extend to animals.
I personally always saw it as a problem with free choice and the idea that animals do not have any. I think that the above posts on quality of life are also important. If we have a choice (and an animal does not), and the quality of life is poor, then we may feel more comfortable ending the animal's life, and even feel like it is our responsibility to do so.
ReplyDeleteWith other humans, I think that we may always fear that they did not want to die, and that they may protest our decision.
I could be easily wrong, however, because I have never had a pet, and have never formed a loving bond with a non-human animal. I would really love to hear the opinion on this issue of somebody who has had a pet that they had to put down. Maybe it changed their minds on human euthanasia?
To Anonymous: I'm not sure who you are (want to share?) I completely agree that we generally value animal life less than human life. But again, why does that make euthanasia the /right/ choice for animals, as opposed to merely an /acceptable/ choice? This is what is really puzzling me.
ReplyDeleteTo Darko: I really like your idea about choice and free will. That's a very plausible way out of the problem. The snag for me is that it seems we're against euthanasia even when it is 100% clear that the person does not, and never will, have any choice or be able to think a thought of protestation. For example, people in permanent comas, or the severely mentally retarded (to the point that they are effectively vegetables). It could be that the free will intuition holds there anyway, but I think why that would be requires a little bit extra justification.
I think perhaps it may be because the Human is viewed as also being possessed of a sovereign 'will', some substance that we would be violating if we took that person's life out of his hands, over and above the loss of life - whereas the animal... isn't.
ReplyDeleteWe recognize life, and quality of life, for both. Quality of life *is* more important than life, but the question becomes confused when we apply it to a Human, because we worry about this third factor, on which we place even superior importance.
Of course, that just comes down to 'most people don't sympathize with non-Humans as much as they could.' I do not believe this "substance" exists.
Moreover, I can't agree with the valuing of quality of life over life. So for me, the decision in the case of Humans is right for the wrong reasons, and just wrong for other animals. I have a parrot. He has a soul as surely as I do. I would not stand for his death before that of my own brother. The only reason I would ultimately choose (in some villainous philosopher's contrived scenario) would be society's laws.