Philosophy Now Forum

John Shand doubts there is a moral difference.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/129/Putting_Animals_and_Humans_To_Sleep

The 'argument' against euthanasia is the same as the 'argument' against choice for women who want to teminate their pregnancies: religion. Christianity worships suffering (particularly other people's suffering) and thinks it makes one closer to god. They know that most people won't buy it if they simply say 'Jebus suffered so you should too', so they make up ridiculous horror stories and scenarios to brain-wash and manipulate the gullible into siding with them (similar to the lies they put about in their anti-choice crusades). Every sperm is sacred, and the more you suffer the closer you get to Jebus.
Mother Teresa von Vomit — 'Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus'.
'There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering'.

do sheep count humans?

-Imp

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:18 pm For it to be true that in the same or similar circumstances PTS is right in the one, animal, case, and wrong in the other, human, case, there has to be a relevant moral difference. (PTS = Put To Sleep)

The difference is that humans can put animals to sleep, whereas animals cannot put humans to sleep (at least not unless they want to eat them.)

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:44 am
The difference is that humans can put animals to sleep, whereas animals cannot put humans to sleep (at least not unless they want to eat them.)

Very true. Also, that Humans can put Humans to sleep, but dogs can't put dogs to sleep, fleas can't put fleas to sleep, etc.