---------------------------------

Alan asked:

Which is the greater good:
1. To give a homeless child a home
2. To have a suffering pet destroyed

============

Neither is good without qualification. It wouldn't be good to put a child into an uncaring home,
although he might be better off than being on the streets. If the good is that which minimising
suffering this is better than destroying a sick pet since while this might be good for the pet I have
never met anyone who has had their pet put down and felt good about. In fact, it seems that having a
pet put down is more distressing than letting it die naturally.

Good is always for someone. In the case of the child it is clearly good for him. In the case of the pet,
you are assuming it is for the pet's good and I agree with you that we consider what is good for pets,
although it is held by some that we owe no moral duty to animals. Those who take this attitude see
our feeling for pets as sentimental attachment in which case whether or not to have a pet put out of
it's misery is not a moral issue, which I think is absurd. If our feelings for pets are not misplaced
emotions and we really care for them then it could be a moral issue, although the morality here is not
one of duty. We care about our pets; they are part of the family and we believe they feel they belong
to us. There is a mutual relationship of devotion, care and dependence which makes the attachment
more than mere sentiment. At least this is so for dogs! It is difficult to think in terms of moral relations
with canaries and gerbils not because there is no care and dependence but because there is no
reciprocality of feeling.

Rachel Browne

The former since human beings are more important than animals, and the suffering of a homeless
child is greater than the suffering of an animal.

Kenneth Stern