Why do we kill animals if they attack us?

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

I realize the title may be a bit misleading here as it applies to certain circumstances and certain animals. This thread is based on SPECIFIC examples so as to not trail off to defending oneself against an animal attack so please do read the scenarios below as that is what the thread is based on.

After responding in the Animal Rights thread within the Philosophy sub-forum I resumed thinking about this which I'll describe soon as it seems to just boggle my mind. So here is where I get my mind boggled: suppose someone owns a dog and suppose this owner beats the living hell out of the dog. If the dog attacks the owner (i.e. bites), the dog may be put down. Alternatively, if another person owns a dog and is kind to the dog but the dog one day just out of a freak accident bites someone, the dog may be put down. My question to both these situations is why does the dog get put down?

When one owns or approaches a dog, although one knows that dogs are generally more civil than other "wild animals", there's still a risk of the dog attacking. So why go as far as put the dog down? Why have it ordered to be put down by the victim or if it's a child, the child's parents or a fellow family's dog/other pet? If a human adult is generally nice and friendly but one day when a child approaches, something happens regarding their first meeting and the adult clobbers the child, the adult isn't imprisoned forever nor is the adult killed. So if one knows the risk about approaching a random dog with its owner, if the dog attacks, then why kill it? It's as though one keeps the dog and loves it but once it attacks, it's ordered to be killed.

I'm not suggesting the dog gets a "doggie prison time" or anything but why not simply order the owner to pay a fine or to take the dog to an obedience center? Why is it that in some cases, even if the child, adult or other animal is still alive and fine after the attack do we sometimes order the dog to be killed? Something happened during the interaction and the dog reacted naturally by its instincts. This is known to happen and it's a risk one takes when approaching a dog whether the dog be on a leash or off-leash.

I'm using these examples specifically in order to avoid such issues as defending ourselves from an attacking dog. All these examples are for after the attack the dog is ordered to be killed.

So my questions are two-fold: why do we sometimes order the dog to be killed? And, what alternatives does one see to happen to the dog or owner other than killing the dog?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think in the case of the owner beating the dog, the dog should be taken away and put into a safer environment and the man arrested (even if the dog attacked back).

I also think a person should be free to defend a dog who is being savagely beaten.

If we are to take a human's suffering into account, then we should for other living things as best we can.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

I think in the case of the owner beating the dog, the dog should be taken away and put into a safer environment and the man arrested (even if the dog attacked back).

I also think a person should be free to defend a dog who is being savagely beaten.

If we are to take a human's suffering into account, then we should for other living things as best we can.

What about the second scenario whereby the dog owner treats the dog kindly but the dog has a freak event whereby it attacks an adult, child or other animal that's a pet?

 

[whereismynotecard]

People are crazy and think they are better than other animals.

Baggins bites me occasionally, but only if I am breaking up a fight between him and the schnauzer. I know he wouldn't do it on purpose. I'm never mean to my dogs, but if they attacked me often and it became a problem, I wouldn't have them killed, because I'd feel bad. I might see if I can get someone else to take care of them. I think I'd let Baggins stay and abuse me though, because I love him too much.

I think, if you don't have a problem with putting your pets "to sleep" aka: killing them, you shouldn't own them. Even if they attacked you, you should still feel very iffy about killing them as punishment. If your child attacked you, would you want it dead? Probably not. Pets should be the same as children, I think. If you love your pets so little that you can just throw them away if they make you mad, you shouldn't have pets at all.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

I think, if you don't have a problem with putting your pets "to sleep" aka: killing them, you shouldn't own them. Even if they attacked you, you should still feel very iffy about killing them as punishment. If your child attacked you, would you want it dead? Probably not. Pets should be the same as children, I think. If you love your pets so little that you can just throw them away if they make you mad, you shouldn't have pets at all.

This is something that has boggled me and you summarized it perfectly.

 

[John D]

What about snakes, spiders, mozzies, ants, fleas on your dog.......we kill because we can. It lies embedded in the human psyche.
If you can kill a fly you are able to kill a human being.....

and​

The survival instict of man is alive and well ...we fear, we kill....
......Irak, Somalia, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, South - Africa, your home town...
..It's great to be human...Ha ..( wish I were a dog!!!!)​

 

[zenzero]

Friend MdP,

Why do we kill animals if they attack us?

It is simply *survival instinct*.
Man has evolved from animals and so the basic instincts remain till we can consciously change those old habits with new evolved ones!

Love & rgds

 

[Reverend Rick]

People are crazy and think they are better than other animals.

Baggins bites me occasionally, but only if I am breaking up a fight between him and the schnauzer. I know he wouldn't do it on purpose. I'm never mean to my dogs, but if they attacked me often and it became a problem, I wouldn't have them killed, because I'd feel bad. I might see if I can get someone else to take care of them. I think I'd let Baggins stay and abuse me though, because I love him too much.

I think, if you don't have a problem with putting your pets "to sleep" aka: killing them, you shouldn't own them. Even if they attacked you, you should still feel very iffy about killing them as punishment. If your child attacked you, would you want it dead? Probably not. Pets should be the same as children, I think. If you love your pets so little that you can just throw them away if they make you mad, you shouldn't have pets at all.

I agree with you Hannah. In principle you are correct. Here in the real world, some folks do not deserve to own pets. They neglect them or abuse them. Once an animal is taken away from this terrible person, it may or may not be able to socialise with people in the future. It should be given time and love and eventually evaluated.

Me personally, I love my dog more than most humans I know. Some times I play rough with my dog, (he likes it). Some times he gets too excited and may bite me. I don't have a problem with that. I do worry about him playing rough with the grand kids however. I am smart enough to watch him carefully or isolate him from them when they visit.

I don't care if people want to own vicious dogs as long as they keep them under control. They should be responsible for their control at all times.

I will say this, if a vicious dog is attacking me and I cannot get away or a dog is attacking my family, it will be a dead dog in short order. This is the rules in my territory. If I am visiting some place and I am in the dogs territory, this is my mistake not the dogs.

Personally, I believe every dog should be forgiven once if possible. Everyone makes mistakes. You can't have a dog running around the neighborhood biting folks every day however.

 

[mattbee]

Though I don't agree with Rev. Rick on most of his other philosophies, I think he is spot on here. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

What about snakes, spiders, mozzies, ants, fleas on your dog.......we kill because we can. It lies embedded in the human psyche.

It may lie in the human psyche but it's not what I'm referring to because killing the flees on a dog is an act to protect the dog and others. The issue I'm referring to is after the dog has attacked and after the attack, others order the dog to be killed. After the attack, some time has passed whereby the person is no longer in harms way but for the dog-flees interaction, the flees remain there.

I agree with you Hannah. In principle you are correct. Here in the real world, some folks do not deserve to own pets. They neglect them or abuse them. Once an animal is taken away from this terrible person, it may or may not be able to socialise with people in the future. It should be given time and love and eventually evaluated.

Agreed on all of this.

Me personally, I love my dog more than most humans I know. Some times I play rough with my dog, (he likes it). Some times he gets too excited and may bite me. I don't have a problem with that. I do worry about him playing rough with the grand kids however. I am smart enough to watch him carefully or isolate him from them when they visit.

I wrestle with my dog also but it's not the WWE wrestling or actual greco-roman wrestling, it's more of a puppy play and I don't use my full strength or weight on him at all because of the size, strength and weight difference. He can be pretty tall when he jumps on his hind legs. I'm about 6ft1 or so and when he jumps on his hind legs, he reaches just a few centimeters from my collar bone. So I do what you do also and watch him when he's around others, whether it be family members and especially around strangers.

I don't care if people want to own vicious dogs as long as they keep them under control. They should be responsible for their control at all times.

Agreed.

I will say this, if a vicious dog is attacking me and I cannot get away or a dog is attacking my family, it will be a dead dog in short order. This is the rules in my territory. If I am visiting some place and I am in the dogs territory, this is my mistake not the dogs.

Agreed on both, you're protecting yourself and your family. If a vicious dog is attacking my dog, I'm not one to simply lean back, grab some popcorn and watch my dog get mangled. I'm going to try to go in there and do my best to get the attacking dog off or at least distract it long enough to get a good hit in to bring it down. Ideally I wouldn't want to kill it but if I have to, then I have to. As we learned in some self-defense and karate classes at a dojo not too far from us, if someone has a knife and you don't, then if need be, have one arm get slashed a bit (ideally not near the wrist area) so you can go in for various techniques. The same would apply here for me, I'd be willing to take a bite or two from the vicious dog if that means getting my soon-to-be mangled dog out of harms way.

Personally, I believe every dog should be forgiven once if possible. Everyone makes mistakes. You can't have a dog running around the neighborhood biting folks every day however.

True and I tend to use more forgiveness to my dog. He's bitten me a few times, such as when he grabs some napkins from the table and starts shredding them, sometimes he eats them and well.. you can guess the rest of what happens, so I try to get the napkins from him and he's bit me on a few occassions but I know he's not going to go around taking chunks out of people as he's not a vicious dog.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

What about the second scenario whereby the dog owner treats the dog kindly but the dog has a freak event whereby it attacks an adult, child or other animal that's a pet?

One should do what one needs to do to defend oneself and other loved ones, since we live and wish to extend our lives.

One of the questions behind ethical philosophy is where does the "ought" come from in "we ought to" statements. What is the source of its power? God? Physical laws? In this case it's human sympathy; we act to lessen suffering because it is undesirable and recognize that need in other animals.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

One should do what one needs to do to defend oneself and other loved ones, since we live and wish to extend our lives.

One of the questions behind ethical philosophy is where does the "ought" come from in "we ought to" statements. What is the source of its power? God? Physical laws? In this case it's human sympathy; we act to lessen suffering because it is undesirable and recognize that need in other animals.

It seems as though you're answering it more geared toward when a dog attacks your dog or family and reacting in the hereandnow. That's NOT what I'm asking; I'm asking after the attack, the victim or the victim's family order the attacking dog to be killed and the issues around that.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It seems as though you're answering it more geared toward when a dog attacks your dog or family and reacting in the hereandnow. That's NOT what I'm asking; I'm asking after the attack, the victim or the victim's family order the attacking dog to be killed and the issues around that.

Hm...okay. It seems that if we are willing to let a predator into our house--domesticated or not--any attack is a possible consequence. I think we owe the animal the benefit of the doubt and maybe try a different home or shelter.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I have never heard of a dog being put down for one bite. It is my understanding that the dog would have had to develop a pattern that would lead a sane person to believe that the dog is vicious. That is, of course, unless the dog is rabid.

 

[Draka]

I have never heard of a dog being put down for one bite. It is my understanding that the dog would have had to develop a pattern that would lead a sane person to believe that the dog is vicious. That is, of course, unless the dog is rabid.

Not so. Several years ago in my town there was a 2y/o that was bitten, and consequently died, by the family Pit. The Pit was not only put down, but used to spearhead a city ban on all Pit Bulls. NOW...the 2y/o was outside, alone, at 6am while her parents slept, and the dog, which according to several extended family members was abused by the parents, was chained up outside. I ask...who was really to blame for the death of that little girl. I don't for one second believe it was the Pit. The blame lay squarely with the parents and it was they who should have suffered at least legal charges instead of the dog serving a death sentence as well as leading to the deaths of other Pits in the city as they were nearly hunted in this town for a while after the ban first went into place. I hate BSL.

 

[whereismynotecard]

If you can kill a fly you are able to kill a human being.....

I don't think so... flies don't have personalities and people don't relate to them. Just because you can kill a fly and not feel very bad, doesn't mean you'd be able to just as easily kill another different animal with a personality. The thing about killing things, I think, is that it's easier to kill things which don't have distinct personalities and which you cannot relate to. I've killed lots of bugs, but I wouldn't kill anything that clearly has feelings and a personality. I've been told before that it's mean to kill bugs, but they scare me and I don't empathize with them very well. That's just the way it is. Killing a bug is not the same as killing a human, or a dog, or a cat, or even a mouse.

 

[Ba'al]

I live in western Canada and occasionally someone will come into contact with a bear when hunting or hiking. If it's a mother bear with cubs nearby, the bear will sometimes attack. These bears are then hunted down and shot. What really bothers me is they shoot the cubs too. They will do this with cougars, wolves, and coyotes too. Is it morally right to kill them for acting like animals?

 

[Draka]

I live in western Canada and occasionally someone will come into contact with a bear when hunting or hiking. If it's a mother bear with cubs nearby, the bear will sometimes attack. These bears are then hunted down and shot. What really bothers me is they shoot the cubs too. They will do this with cougars, wolves, and coyotes too. Is it morally right to kill them for acting like animals?

If the human that was attacked was out in the wild they were at fault, not the animal. The animal was only doing what was natural for protection. Would we do any different if our home were invaded by some unknown variable and we had our children to think of too? If someone were to break into our home and we defended ourselves by attacking them and possibly killing them, should we then be killed and our children too?

No. It is not morally right to kill them for doing what they, and we, naturally do...defend and protect homes and family.

 

[Erebus]

Humans are extremely retributive by nature and this shows in the punishments we administer to both animals and one another. This vengeful streak is arguably a large part of what earned humanity their role as Earth's top predator (top predator for the time being anyway ) but is now a fairly useless trait.
A simple way to understand this is by example of a wasp sting. If a wasp stings you and tries to fly off, the automatic human reaction is to try and kill it. We earn nothing from the wasp's death, but it appeals to our retributive nature. We apply this same rule to all creatures (including humans) though with larger, more advanced creatures we dress up our mean streak with laws.
Very few punishments dished out by humans actually seek to solve a problem, they seek to punish for the sake of punishment. Putting down a dog does not undo the fact that a person was attacked, it doesn't compensate the victim in any way and it isn't as if killing the dog is the only way to prevent future attacks.
Humans need to at least attempt to understand the animals they share the planet with (if Humans can be said to share the planet at all...) instead of simply resorting to their own bloodlust to deal with any problems they may have. If you own an animal with lots of sharp teeth, make sure you treat it with the proper respect.

 

[Reverend Rick]

It seems as though you're answering it more geared toward when a dog attacks your dog or family and reacting in the hereandnow. That's NOT what I'm asking; I'm asking after the attack, the victim or the victim's family order the attacking dog to be killed and the issues around that.

OK, if it was a simple bite, I am inclined to forgive the animal once.

If it was a vicious attack and severe damage was inflicted or even death, killing the animal should be looked at as preventative action for the safety of others in the future, not retribution.

In the case where a dog was chained, the parents who allowed their child to enter the dog's territory should have been punished, not the animal.

If you climb into a lions den at the zoo, who made the mistake?