|
Oh, I understand that radar. I just don't see how that equates to 'human life trumps all in my book.' Human life trumps all in my book also, but that doesn;t mean i won't move heaven and earth to keep my pet healthy and happy.
I cuold see how those two things are related if you were intending to spend the money on helping starving children; in that case it's a choice: do you spend money on humans or on animals. But that's not the issue is it?
How you relate to animals is how you relate to animals. But by somehow equating that with the value you assign to human life you are falsely ennobling your perspective. One can value human life and also value animal life. The two are not necessarily in competition with each other.
I don't really see the purchase of a pet as an 'investment' in the same way as the purchase of a car or computer is an investment. Computers and cars are not alive. My dog very much is alive. A computer does not rely on me for its survival; it is an inanimate object, without emotions or the capacity for pain, distress, or joy.
I can understand someone having a more pragmatic view of animals. Hell, i eat meat and am not camping down at the local abbattoir with protest signs. Nor am I attempting to release caged monkeys from the nearest research lab...
But the idea that a dog exists at the same logical level as a car, or television, or computer for you is disturbing (to me). I am not suggesting they should exist at the same logical level as people...but the world is not made up solely of 'things' and 'people'. There are levels in between.
|