Deb,
I've been confronted with the "put it out of its misery" dillema a few times and haven't done too well. I could never do that to a mouse for example.
idiotically enough - I don't think I could do it to an adult mouse. The babies were SO hurt - and so small - that I knew that anything I did was better than what was happening - and I knew I could kill them very fast. It was pure horror that let me do it - I was only about 8 - and I was sick and cried for hours afterwards. It was VERY quick, though - I was little, not stupid.
I would like to think I would cope as well now...but I am panicked by larger, hurting animals - phobic, in fact. Sigh...
What's really odd is that I couldn't reconcile the charitable purpose with killing the animal. I'd not have a huge problem with hunting mice but to kill a suffering one would pose more of a dillema.
Odd that.
Oh...yikes. Sorry, Craven.
I'm not sure what I would do -- I think I agree more with Deb, but I don't know about the sudden smashing. I couldn't do it.
I could go along with the nature is violent idea, except that I'm not sure if I could handle seeing the healthy fish eat the dying fish.
Would a sick fish live through a toilet flush?
Dunno, for some reason being sadistic and killing a mouse seems easier to me than killing one for charitable motives.
I'm sure I could do it. It's just odd that it'd be easier to kill without feeling for the creature.
Maybe the charitable element involves sentimentality while the converse doesn't?
Can't see why they would not live through a flush - natural bodies of water get quite violent.
I have certainly only been able to kill when the adrenaline caused by the awfulness of the animal's situation has caused me to just move - their suffering leaving me no room for squeamishness.
I have no problems with euthanasia - grown up with hordes of beasties all my life - birth, death and all that. If I am responsible for a beastie, I see my job as absolutely clear and compelling. Make decisions well, and fast - no room for thinking of myself - it has always been easy, decision wise- but hard, emotionally.
You hate sentimentality that much?
I don't see it as sentimental - just as a toll we pay for being powerful, if we can.
I mean, if a wild animal is hurt, but nor suffering dreadfully, I tend to leave it (though I have the scars from when I didn't) but an animal we have interfered with? Pure responsibility.
You see euthanasia of animals as sentimental?
Not over-sentimental but it has more of a sentimental emotional connection than does brutality.
"Sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality"
Hmmm - sentimentality is, almost by definition, not true emotion. Do you regard humane treatment of aminals as stemming from a sugary, pseudo-caring?
Interesting word, sentimental:
sen?ti?men?tal
Pronunciation: (sen"tu-men'tl), [key]
?adj.
1. expressive of or appealing to sentiment, esp. the tender emotions and feelings, as love, pity, or nostalgia: a sentimental song.
2. pertaining to or dependent on sentiment: We kept the old photograph for purely sentimental reasons.
3. weakly emotional; mawkishly susceptible or tender: the sentimental Victorians.
4. characterized by or showing sentiment or refined feeling.
The short answer to your question is no. Mainly because I'd never use the words pseudo-caring. :-)
Cheap shot - over-used - non?
(I know - I know - an infinite tu quoque regress......sigh...)
On his race to be the first to reach the South Pole, Amundsen killed sled dogs as the load lightened and fed them to the other dogs. That was the way the expedition was planned, not an unexpected necessity.
Was it ethical for him to sacrifice dozens of dogs for his own personal glory? How could anyone callously kill the faithful creatures who had worked so hard for them?
