3 ms·

I'd say the desire for the dog to live should be considered. That is, even if (b) has zero weight, (a) can outweigh (c)

• tptacek 10y ago
  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?
  • MarkMc 10y ago
    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?
    • tptacek 10y ago
      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. :)