Abstract
This essay raises the question why there is a difference between the way we treat animals and humans, when it comes to killing. The question is analysed with the help of two special cases. On the one hand, a non-autonomous patient whose suffering is immense and hopeless. On the other hand, an old dog that equally suffers badly. The differences and similarities are analysed and discussed from the perspective of ethical theory. The discussion includes an analysis of the taboo on killing humans and the possible biological explanation for this phenomenon. It is argued that overriding this taboo causes existential moral doubts. This burden can serve as a moral justification for operating (even) more cautiously in case of the human patient. The conclusion has an impact on both our dealings with animals and humans.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | The end of animal life: a start for ethical debate:a start for ethical debate |
| Subtitle of host publication | ethical and societal considerations on killing animals |
| Editors | Franck Meijboom, Elsbeth Stassen |
| Publisher | Wageningen Academic |
| Pages | 103-114 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 978-978-90-8686-808-7 |
| ISBN (Print) | 978-90-8686-260-3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2016 |
Keywords
- taboo
- patient
- suffering
- autonomy