Normally in society such things don't happen very often, and if they do we have people who deal with such affairs such as police officers and the legal system. So, don't take it upon yourself or overgeneralize such situations.

Seems like a moot exercise in morality considering the course of human affairs in regards to technology and science: "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway".

Interesting a dog invokes a sense of person-hood more so than say a fish or a plant. Is it just because they have complex nervous systems and mammalian brains that can emulate a form of consciousness we can detect, measure, and recognize as not dissimilar to our own?

How many dogs are we talking about? What kind of dogs? There are people who advocate for the eradication of supposedly violent breeds whose purpose has long since vanished in modern society, for the very same reasons but with an emotional modifier: the safety of *dramatic pause* the children. :gasp:

It's been the way of the world since time began that for one creature to survive, another must die. This, rightfully, stirs feelings of negative emotion in thinking, compassionate beings such as us and motivates us to strive for a better standard of living, such a thing we call 'society' that elevates us above the animal kingdom utilizing things such as innovation and creativity to satisfy our biological needs and desires as opposed to harmful, destructive actions such as theft and killing. Still, it can be argued that, absent of humans, animals kill other animals all the time and no intervention short of imprisonment will stop this. So, that's an underlying dynamic that probably needs to be recognized before anything else.

Earlier peoples hunted animals to extinction at times, unlikely for fun but for survival. Were these people "bad" for doing so? I don't think so. Foolish or perhaps ignorant maybe.

Your question has many dynamics and moving parts to it, so, could it perhaps be simplified to: "Is it wrong for a human being to take the life of an animal to survive?" Or does that remove or neglect certain aspects of your OP you wish to discuss?

First of all, thank you for such an amazing read.

I agree with all of your points. The human psyche, in my opinion, cannot easily accept the idea of other animals— especially dogs— die in order to save the human species (for the same reasons that you gave.) I won't address the debate on carnism vs veganism here, because that's a whole other topic. My point is, this is the general approach.

However, you are berated for choosing either of the two options, so you are led to wonder, is there even any "right" answer to this moral dilemma?

could it perhaps be simplified to: "Is it wrong for a human being to take the life of an animal to survive?" — Outlander

Indeed, it does.

Thank you for your insightful reply! It is much appreciated.

Thank you for your reply. You are completely right, but I cannot help but contemplate over such things. I guess I want to be able to give the correct answer to subject matters like this, even if the "perfect answer" has the possibility of simply being an illusion.

"Would you let animals like dogs die in order to create a vaccine that will save all of humanity?" — Arnie

Only if the process is completely painless for both dogs and humans, then yes of course. I think in order to do good, at minimum, the means must sustain and not be inconsistent with (sabotage) the ends. 'The good' in this example, however, might be instrumental (e.g. scientific, technological, juridical-political), but it's not moral (i.e. not eudaimonistic).

That seems to be a discussion surrounding utilitarianism or at least consequentialism. Otherwise, "greater good" will be whatever your ethical theory of choice defines as more desirable.

When it comes to utilitarianism, I think it is a failed ethical theory.

"the greater good" seems tenable only on a Consequentialist notion. Otherwise, there is no way to extend one's concept of 'Good' to 'greater' or 'lesser'. Consequentialism allows you to just run the calc and (I would recommend one engage probability here) act in accordance with that. If some die, so be it. It follows that the greater good is the desirable outcome, regardless of the act.

This would support your response about hte dog, but commit you to several very strange bullet-biting exercises I think. Such as cold-blooded murder of Baby Hitler and Baby Stalin(there may be better ways to achieve a 'greater good', but this one is infallible with regard to preventing the mid-20thC's spectacular suffering through fascism).

A greater good is as simple as a good that's greater than another good - it doesn't imply high goodness.

Thus, killing a dog to save a life is potentially a greater good, but like 180 proof said it's not definitively moral.

I’d be weary of such claims because any appeal to the “greater good” implies knowledge that isn’t immediately accessible. It implies knowledge that such-and-such an action will result in the greater good, and that one will know when the appropriate amount of good is reached. Both are articles of faith.

Better to be just in one’s actions instead of faithful that one’s actions will return a greater outcome.

:ok: :ok: :ok:

This was a question that was asked during an interview. I had to answer immediately. "Yes," I replied, "For the greater good, it would seem the logical thing to do." — Arnie

So, you automatically assume that whatever humans need is 'greater' than what any other species needs. That's a normal anthropocentric response.
It's the kind of automatic response which condones clear-cutting of forests, strip-mining, dumping nuclear waste in the wilderness and spilling crude oil in all the oceans. For the greater good.
If you form your moral structure around what humans want, you can end up supporting a whole lot of damage to humans, both directly and indirectly.

Why should dogs have to die to save human beings? I know we are talking in the hypothetical, — Arnie

There is nothing hypothetical about it. Dogs have been killed and tortured for hundreds of years to promote humans' medical knowledge and research. But if that's okay, why not bull-baiting and dog-fights? Blood sports give humans pleasure. Is that also the greater good?
We do these things because we want to and we can.

If animals were produced specifically to create vaccines that would save humanity, perhaps that could be the slightly better take to it? — Arnie

They are. Not just vaccines; all research. The rodents bred in a factory have no other purpose or life than to be used for scientific experimentation. They never see the outside of a cage, for a hundred generations, expect to be injected or grafted or x-rayed.
Pretty much like the production of meat for the greater good [to be consumed by humans].

Is there even a "correct" answer to this? — Arnie

In the anthropocentric and Old Testament view, it's perfectly fine: all the world is ours to subdue, plunder and trash.
In some world-views, it's quite wrong.
You have to make up your own mind, but first it's a good idea to learn more.

"Would you let animals like dogs die in order to create a vaccine that will save all of humanity?" — Arnie

What about using animals to test cosmetics?

Although they are not required by law, several invasive tests are performed on rabbits, mice, guinea pigs and rats. These can include skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or dripped into the eyes of restrained rabbits, without any pain relief.

Is this testing done for the greater good?