I have mixed feelings about animal shelters.
On the one hand, it would appear that any organization that takes in
stray, unwanted, or dangerous animals is providing a valuable service
to society. For example:
-- they take unwanted animals and attempt to place them with families
who actually take care of their animals.
-- they reduce suffering and pain by providing shelter, food, and
attention where they otherwise had none (or worse, were neglected,
abused, or tortured).
-- they provide the service of euthanizing animals that either cannot
be placed or have irreparable behavioral or physical health problems
(yes, killing an animal *is* providing a valuable service when the
alternative is a life full of pain and suffering).
On the other hand, shelters also (even if as an unintended secondary
effect) enable the continued undesirable behaviour on the part of the
ignorant/uninformed and abusive. For example:
-- if someone buys a puppy on a whim, and then later decides to
neglect their responsibility as a caretaker, animal shelters provide
that person an out. The shelter effectively acts as as an enabler.
-- although shelters do alleviate the immediate suffering that strays
and other animals experience, they also do not address the root
problems, and are therefore part of the ongoing problem.
-- if shelters did not exist, animal suffering would probably increase
in the short-term, but in the long term, wouldn't society then be
forced to deal with the underlying problems of pet overpopulation? In
that sense, aren't shelters actually covering up the problem by hiding
the true costs to society, and therefore doing more harm than good in
the long run? That is, if there were no animal shelters, wouldn't the
effects of the problem become more obvious and immediate, thereby
forcing society to deal with the underlying root causes?
Note: one could just as easily replace the word "animal" with "human"
and discuss the very same moral dilemma.
Thoughts?
|
