MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down?
Comments
-
A quick response on the "this shouldn't be discussed its not appropriate" notes a few have listed.
This is a more common situation than you think it originates from a similar (though no identical) question posed to me about what the options were for pets when the money had run out.
In the past I once did a money makeover on a woman who's was massively overspending due to her animals and causing financial problems. As some in the thread have said they have been put in severe debt due to animal costs.
Just because the consequences of this aren't nice - doesn't mean we don't need think how to deal with it.
Being open to debate is important
This is a pure money moral dilemma - putting animals down is not illegal. Financially not having the animals adds up, yet is it morally acceptible. It's a moral v a money situation - exactly the type of MMD many people need face.
We live in a meat eating society - animals are killed for food all the time - the moral difference between that and putting an animal down so someone can afford to eat - is a relatively fine line. Different people draw conclusions on both sides of it. It's also worth noting at some point if she loses her home and is declared bankrupt the animals may be homesless and without food too.
Of course its to be hoped sancturies and animal welfare charities would take the animals - indeed she is very obviously an animal lover as are many - and no one wants to think of animals suffering - and it will cause great emotion to get rid of them. Yet I've heard reports that especially old and sick animals can't always be catered for (though have no empirical evidence).
Why debate it?
The point of the MMD is to make people think - to come up with a situation where different people will have opposing views and learn from each other.
Hopefully anyone in a similar position will be able to learn from the tips, solutions and options given above.
Please lets try and have a sensible rational debate about what some people face as a real economic and ethical reality.
MartinMartin Lewis, Money Saving Expert.
Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.Don't miss out on urgent MoneySaving, get my weekly e-mail at www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips.Debt-Free Wannabee Official Nerd Club: (Honorary) Members number 0000 -
PhiltheBear wrote: »The basic point of this is that Anne kept those animals for a reason. If it was for food then the question posed doesn't arise. However, the implication of the question is that she has an emotional attachment to the animals - hence the dilemma.
I'm pretty sure that many people are as emotionally attached to their animals as they would be to a child (some more so) - therefore the idea of killing either is repugnant. The issues of people giving more money to animal charities than children's charities is irrelevant.
I don't doubt some people form an emotional attachement to their pets, but to start comparing pets with children is in my opinion utterly ridiculous and without reason.I find this topic objectionable because the question boils down to "is it OK to kill"? People who start by killing animals needlessly are often those who go on to kill people needlessly. And what is occurring here is that there are 2 broad categories of contributor - those who say 'don't kill' and those who say 'kill'. Those in the second category, who can't be bothered to look at any other solution, are seriously worrying.
Surely by that logic most vets would eventually become serial killers?
"We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein0 -
There is absolutely no way in the world that you should even be allowed to consider putting healthy animals down even if it means you go without yourself as a result of having them.. after all you chose to bring them into your life.
When you take on owning a dog/cat/fish whatever else you are taking on, the responsibility to look after them is yours from that point onwards, and that means being responsible for them on every level.
They are completely dependant upon you for everything.
You wouldn't consider having a child or any other family member killed because times were difficult so why should it be an option with an animal that can't look after themselves and has no choice but to depend on you?0 -
...........so what do you all propose, given that the dilemma has already stated that nobody will take the animals. suggesting shelters, the PDSA, neighbours, friends, etc. is not helpful, because as far as we know, there is nobody willing to take the animals. given this restrictive set of circumstances, what do you propose the woman does?
She could always become a hooker.
What?! It's 'only' a hypothetical. :whistle: Anything goes apparently. Herman - MP for all!
0 -
MSE_Martin wrote: »For those that say "this shouldn't be discussed" I'm sorry I can't agree.
This is a more common situation than you think (i once did a money makeover on a woman who's was massively overspending due to her animals). As some in the thread have said they have been put in severe debt due to animal costs.
Now I don't propose a solution - but I do believe it must be open to debate.
We live in a meat eating society - animals are killed for food all the time - the moral difference between that and putting an animal down so someone can afford to eat - is a relatively fine line and one suitable of being discussed.
Many people offer solutions such as sancturies - yet others say that their animals have been rejected - so what then?
The point of the MMD is to make people think - to come up with a situation where different people will have opposing views and learn from each other.
This question came because it a similar real life situation was relayed to me. Hopefully anyone in a similar position will be able to learn from the tips, solutions and options given above.
Yet to simpy not discuss it because its an unpleasant concept seems a little 'brush under the carpet' to me.
Martin
100% agree :T "We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein0 -
MSE_Martin wrote: »Yet to simpy not discuss it because its an unpleasant concept seems a little 'brush under the carpet' to me.
Martin
That quote might come back and bite you on the bum one day. Herman - MP for all!
0 -
She could always become a hooker.
What?! It's 'only' a hypothetical. :whistle: Anything goes apparently.
:T That's the spirit, all options should be considered in any serious debate. "We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein0 -
so what do you all propose, given that the dilemma has already stated that nobody will take the animals. suggesting shelters, the PDSA, neighbours, friends, etc. is not helpful, because as far as we know, there is nobody willing to take the animals. given this restrictive set of circumstances, what do you propose the woman does?
I'm afraid the dilemma as proposed is too simplistic. There are always animal charities that will take animals. The Dog's Trust, for example, will always take in dogs. Always. So the dilemma posed is faulty. Therefore, trying to give an answer is a bit like asking someone to say yes or no to the question "Do you still beat your wife?" It's a nonsense question.0 -
Clive_Woody wrote: »:T That's the spirit, all options should be considered in any serious debate.
It'll be interesting to see how serious this debate gets later on when the night shift gets here.
Ach maybe I'm wrong and everyone will play nice.Herman - MP for all!
0 -
Clive_Woody wrote: »to start comparing pets with children is in my opinion utterly ridiculous and without reason.
And I find your opinion quite ridiculous. Na na na na na.:rotfl:
So, that's that evened out.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards