That’s right. We are all familiar with this scene from Independence Day. In the moment when a single person could have saved scores of human lives this person decides to save the life of her dog… and didn’t we all breathe a sigh of relief when we saw that the dog was safe and paid little or no thought to the countless human lives just lost? What relevance does this have to real life, you may be asking. Well, let me postulate.
We (the UK) own more than 7.3 million dogs! The cost of keeping a dog reaches thousands of pounds a year, yet we do it. Why? My Father’s wife has correctly noticed that not only are his dogs his best friends, they are his only friends. My in-laws have a beautiful golden retriever which has become part of the family, so much so that he is often included in family photos. What is wrong with this, you may ask. Well, in these two cases, probably nothing. My Father’s dogs not just his only friends, they are his guard dogs… he has 2 Rottweiler protecting his property in a remote part of South Africa. The money spent on my in-laws dog is easily over-shadowed by the money they donate to charitable causes. These justifications, however, are the exception rather than the rule. Most people own dogs as a luxury rather than as a necessity and pay out huge amounts of money in ensuring their dog’s well-being. It is often these same people who shudder at the thought of parting with any of their well-earned cash in the support of another human being through charitable organisations. Does this not make them just as accountable for the death and suffering of others as is the character from Independence Day described above? So why do we do it?
We develop an attachment to our animals. They are loveable pets with unique characters and we think of them as almost human. There is nothing wrong with this but surely there is something wrong with feeling less attached to others of our same species than we do to our pets. The philosopher Lecky described human concern as an expanding circle. We are initially concerned with our own well-being, then with that of our family, our class, our nation, neighbouring nations and then all humanity. Only when we are concerned about and engaged in ensuring the welfare of all of these should we then concern ourselves with protecting animal life. This seems to make sense to me but what is apparent is that many, mostly within affluent nations, have taken the final priority, animal life, and placed it after their family and before any other human-being. Despite our exposure to the poverty and suffering in the world (to which we belong and for which we are responsible) through the media we manage to feel sorrow but few of us feel any attachment or responsibility. Yet we are willing to create unnecessary attachments to and accept responsibility for a creature less worthy of our attention. While I do not doubt that animals have feelings I know that the thoughts and feelings of a human-being are deeper, more complex and more important than that of any other animal. While there is nothing wrong with forming emotional attachments to animals, such as dogs, can the time, effort and money expended on these animals be justified if we do any less for our own species, especially those who have little opportunity to raise themselves above the suffering of poverty?
Peter Singer, a philosopher from Australia (I hope I am not the only one who was pleasantly surprised that such a combination existed) uses the analogy of a drowning child to portray our responsibility to each other. He asks us to imagine we are walking to university or work and we see a child drowning in a shallow pond. Does the fact that there are others who could help closer to the pond than you are make your responsibility to help any less? No. Does the fact that you will get muddy and wet and no-doubt be late for work/university justify your inaction? Of course not. You are obliged to do all within your power to help that child. For a relatively insignificant cost on your part (soggy shoes, muddy trousers and an hour or so missed at work) you are able to make a hugely significant change in the life of another.
Independence Day may be fiction but there is some reality to it. We seem to value animal life more highly than we value human life. The cost of keeping a dog is significant yet 22% of British households decide to make that sacrifice. The cost of funding the digging of wells, the building of sanitation facilities, the teaching of effective irrigation practices, all of which preserve human life, is relatively insignificant yet we are reluctant to part with our money for such projects. I know/hope that I am not the only one who thinks that it is strange and immoral that some people are less likely to part with their money to benefit the life of another human being than they are to keep a pet.
4 comments:
It reminds me also of a nature program I was watching in which one conservationist was sort of berating a lot of these wildlife preservation organisations for the fact that they put so much time and money and effort into preserving these endangered animals and completely ignore the impoverished and starving human communities which share the animal's habitat. It's all very well and good to be trying to protect endangered species, but what about when that seems to be more important than saving endangered humans?
ah, now what would happen to the dogs if we didnt invest in the up keep of them? yes human life is without a doubt more important but you can't just stop looking after them, it is sad that we have made dogs so dependent on us, but we have so now we have a responsibility to them. like the blog, very good! :)
Good point Josh. Unfortunately, to answer that question, we need to think of dogs as just another commodity. If we could simply decrease our demand for dogs then the supply would have to fall also. Whilst more of our dogs are bought from rescue centres (32%)than from any other source, 23% are still being bought from breeders and pet shops. This indicates that we still buy dogs for our luxury, not simply to ensure their well-being. If our demand were to decrease fewer dogs would be bred.
If dogs were meant to live in houses they would have evolved so to do. As a mother of young children I never once allowed them to urinate on lampposts, defecate in public places and beauty spots or run at total strangers as if their only intention were to rip open the jugular. If my children did misbehave I would not excuse them by telling the recipient of unacceptable behaviour; “He’s only being friendly,” or “Her bark is worse than her bite.”
I cannot understand how owners of dogs can consider themselves dog lovers when they destroy the natural instincts of the animal and call it ‘training’ which removes from it the dignity afforded other animals by imposing human will over natural instinct. I know that we domesticate other animals for the sake of food but dogs serve no such purpose and are not allowed the freedom afforded to cows which are allowed to remain in fields for most of the day and are not asked to roll over and play dead for the amusement of the farmer.
The extreme of this dominating and cruel behaviour is manifested in the over specific breeding of the multifarious dog ‘types’ If the great-great-grandfather wolf ascendant of the chichowa or pug had been able to look into the future at such progeny he would probably have castrated himself!
Post a Comment