Should it be legal to use deadly force to protect your pet from dying?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

lol this thread.

I'm not sure I would agree with Sjoyce in the moment if someone were in the process of murdering my dog, but in principle I agree that (a) human life is more valuable than animal life and (b) the circumstances in which it is morally permissible to kill another person are extremely slim. Certainly the use of non-lethal force is justified, however, and frankly I have a hard time envisioning a realistic scenario where only the pet's life is in danger and lethal force is the only alternative to letting it be murdered.

Also, I think it matters what species of animal it is: killing a dog is very different from killing a goldfish, for instance. I don't think it particularly matters is people love their pets or consider them to be family members for the purposes of this exercise: dare I say "facts don't care about your feelings."

You do realize that a (scumbag) human’s life being more valuable than another animal’s life is also a “feeling” and not an objective fact, right?

Also, I’d argue that going around and trying to sadistically kill cats/dogs, especially those that are owned by people, subtracts some points from your “worthiness of living” value. I’m sure you’d agree that someone who selflessly takes care of animals is probably more “worthy” of living than an animal abuser.

No, I wouldn't actually. But then I am not particularly interested in anything you have to say. Go back to 2006!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think that you’re just overthinking this scenario by trying to come up with a bunch of excuses for why the person would be doing this besides just being a sadistic asshole.

Again, the person imagining reasons to kill another person is probably not in a position to be making this sort of personal attack.

No one is in any position to justifiably make any sorts of such personal attacks here - you, Donerail, VBNMWEB, me, or anyone else.
Please can we avoid a rhetorical race-to-the-bottom?

[VBM]

lol this thread.

I'm not sure I would agree with Sjoyce in the moment if someone were in the process of murdering my dog, but in principle I agree that (a) human life is more valuable than animal life and (b) the circumstances in which it is morally permissible to kill another person are extremely slim. Certainly the use of non-lethal force is justified, however, and frankly I have a hard time envisioning a realistic scenario where only the pet's life is in danger and lethal force is the only alternative to letting it be murdered.

Also, I think it matters what species of animal it is: killing a dog is very different from killing a goldfish, for instance. I don't think it particularly matters is people love their pets or consider them to be family members for the purposes of this exercise: dare I say "facts don't care about your feelings."

You do realize that a (scumbag) human’s life being more valuable than another animal’s life is also a “feeling” and not an objective fact, right?

Also, I’d argue that going around and trying to sadistically kill cats/dogs, especially those that are owned by people, subtracts some points from your “worthiness of living” value. I’m sure you’d agree that someone who selflessly takes care of animals is probably more “worthy” of living than an animal abuser.

No, I wouldn't actually. But then I am not particularly interested in anything you have to say. Go back to 2006!

So let me get this straight, if someone kidnapped you, a selfless person who loves to take care of animals, and some psychopathic douche who tortures animals for fun, and kidnapper was forcing to to shoot one of them, or else all 3 of you die, you’d be so conflicted about who to chose that you’d be incapable of making a choice? Any rational human being would be the 1st person

[VBM]

Ultimately I agree with VBNMWEB enough that I voted Yes. But rational people can disagree on this.

I’d vote no if restraining the person was a possibility, but I’m assuming that it not being a possibility is the OP’s intention

[VBM]

I think that you’re just overthinking this scenario by trying to come up with a bunch of excuses for why the person would be doing this besides just being a sadistic asshole.

Again, the person imagining reasons to kill another person is probably not in a position to be making this sort of personal attack.

I’m not trying to “imagine reasons” for being able to kill people, I’m just trying to say that if I had to choice but to choose between saving the life of my innocent and beloved pet or letting an animal killer achieve his sick desire and kill my pet, I’m choosing the first option.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I think that you’re just overthinking this scenario by trying to come up with a bunch of excuses for why the person would be doing this besides just being a sadistic asshole.

Again, the person imagining reasons to kill another person is probably not in a position to be making this sort of personal attack.

I’m not trying to “imagine reasons” for being able to kill people, I’m just trying to say that if I had to choice but to choose between saving the life of my innocent and beloved pet or letting an animal killer achieve his sick desire and kill my pet, I’m choosing the first option.

You get how absurd of a hypothetical this is, right? In any plausible scenario--not that I could imagine any--where you're presented with a binary choice of a pet or a person dying, I think most reasonable people would err on the side of not killing another human. Why are YOU making this a hill to die on, anyway?

[VBM]

I think that you’re just overthinking this scenario by trying to come up with a bunch of excuses for why the person would be doing this besides just being a sadistic asshole.

Again, the person imagining reasons to kill another person is probably not in a position to be making this sort of personal attack.

I’m not trying to “imagine reasons” for being able to kill people, I’m just trying to say that if I had to choice but to choose between saving the life of my innocent and beloved pet or letting an animal killer achieve his sick desire and kill my pet, I’m choosing the first option.

You get how absurd of a hypothetical this is, right? In any plausible scenario--not that I could imagine any--where you're presented with a binary choice of a pet or a person dying, I think most reasonable people would err on the side of not killing another human. Why are YOU making this a hill to die on, anyway?

I guarantee you that a vast majority of non-Atlas pet owners would agree that in such a scenario, they choose to save their pet. Btw, I’m only inventing this scenario because I’m assuming that the OP intended for restraint to not be an option, so I just made up this scenario to clarify that for the people I’m arguing.

[Kingpoleon]

You get how absurd of a hypothetical this is, right? In any plausible scenario--not that I could imagine any--where you're presented with a binary choice of a pet or a person dying, I think most reasonable people would err on the side of not killing another human. Why are YOU making this a hill to die on, anyway?

A person without regard for the life of pets is unlikely to have regard for the life of said pets’ people.

[politicallefty]

I voted yes. A pet is an irreplaceable living being. If someone is trying to kill your pet (assuming said pet is not acting violently or threatening), I would argue that you have the right to exercise any means possible to stop it.

[LBJer]

So let me get this straight. If someone came into your home, explicitly told you that they don’t want to physically harm you in any way, but they just want to shoot your dog, and then they pull out a gun and prepare to shoot it, you wouldn’t try to kill them to save your dog? Let’s say you also have a gun in your pocket and can pull it out to quickly shoot him before he shoots your dog, you wouldn’t do it because the life of an animal-abusing psychopath is more important to you than the life of your dog? It seriously baffles my mind that a majority of Atlas is voting no. Is this some weird woke nonsense like “it is literally never ok to shoot someone no matter what”?

Yes, that's broadly accurate. I don't think the idea that human life has inherent value  was invented by tumblr teens in the mid-2010s—I think it's the consensus view of most people—but the rest I agree with. Taking someone else's life is a brutal act and should be limited to situations of absolute necessity — what you describe is bad, but not worth killing over. And if I were posting my fantasies about murdering someone because they harmed a dog, I'd be a little more restrained in throwing around the word "psychopath."

Of course, if an armed stranger enters your house and pulls a gun, you're justified in using deadly force no matter what weird stuff he's saying. But that's because of the threat to your life, not potential danger to your dog.

Bro what? This guy is straight up trying to shoot your dog for no reason, not just “harm” it. It may surprise you to hear this, but some people actually deeply love their pets and even consider them to be a member of their family

Then I'm all for murder in that situation.  Murdering someone is not always a bad thing to do.  NOT everyone's life has moral value.  If someone threatens/brutalizes innocents--whether people or animals--it's ridiculous to expect the recipient to say: "Well, I still value your life so much I'm looking for ways to avoid taking it."   If someone tried to kill any of my dogs--or even threatened to do so--I would kill them without compunction.  And if I was caught and prosecuted, I'd tell a judge and jury that I had no remorse whatsoever and was only sorry I couldn't kill the person again.  

[LBJer]

Just to be clear there's a massive difference between using lethal force to protect your pet, and revenge killing the guy who has already killed your pet. The former is obviously okay and the latter is not.

Both are okay in my book. 

[VBM]

Just to be clear there's a massive difference between using lethal force to protect your pet, and revenge killing the guy who has already killed your pet. The former is obviously okay and the latter is not.

Both are okay in my book. 

The latter should be illegal, but I personally wouldn’t hold it against you