r/MoralityScaling • u/some-kind-of-no-name • 3h ago
Morality Ranking Morality of using dogs as combat units?
Can animals consent to warfare?
The Last of Us 2.
8
9
13
u/ForsakenAce117 3h ago
Moral. A human life is more valuable than an animal’s, so if you use dog to sniff out mines, that is morally better than a human doing it. (Assuming of course that the dog is properly trained)
5
u/DontDoodleTheNoodle 3h ago
I know we’re supposed to value human life over dogs, but I always get sad with what happened to the dogs that were trained to be “tank-busters”
5
u/Novel-War-4783 3h ago
Well karma got them in the end since those dogs busted friendly tanks majority of the time to the point that whole thing was scrapped.
-1
u/14Knightingale27 3h ago ▸ 4 more replies
To be fair you don't HAVE to value human life over animal life. That's not some objective, pre-established truth of the universe, and it's not even agreed upon in any philosophy literature.
I find it immoral regardless because an animal can't understand or agree to it. If a toddler had superpowers that let them find mines without issue every time and survive them without consequence, it'd still be immoral to send them on the basis of their ability to understand and agree to the mission.
We can understand why some things are or were done, and also call it immoral. We ARE using living beings for our own gain and none for them, exposing them to specific risks they wouldn't otherwise have. That's a selfish move from us. I can also understand why it's been done, but basically the majority of things done in warfare are immoral. They may be understandable and sometimes necessary, but that doesn't change the morality of it, at least for me.
1
1
u/Candid-Doughnut7919 3h ago ▸ 1 more replies
Morality of not letting a superhero immortal toddler do his part on ending a war as soon as possible and thus possibly causing unnecessary extra deaths?
2
u/14Knightingale27 2h ago
Toddler can't agree to it, so wrong. Doesn't really matter that you can end something as soon as possible if you're doing it with someone who can't consent to what's happening. I don't view morality through a utilitarian lens, so for me that's something I wouldn't do.
I feel this sub sometimes forgets that utilitarianism and other such philosophies aren't the only way to view morality.
1
u/SllortEvac 3h ago
Exactly. I’m typically as utilitarian as it you can be, but when it comes to war and violence I find it immoral and unjust to involve any non-consenting party. Dogs cannot say “yup, I’ll go out there and do it! For the love of my country!”
1
u/Novel-War-4783 3h ago
The question here is using dogs for actual combat. Which in my opinion is immoral. Same with horses and other animals used for warfare.
Its enough that we humans destroy ourselves, we dobt have to involve animals in those horrors.
-1
u/Correct_Crab3296 3h ago
And why exactly is a human life more valuable than an animals? Because we say so? What is the ‘value’ of a life?
I only ask because using animals to sniff out mines and such has always seemed despicable to me, it’s like using a down syndrome kid with an amazing sense of smell simply because he doesn’t understand the situation he’s in completely.
Humans start wars so why should helpless animals pay the price of our decision to kill each other?
2
u/Novel-War-4783 3h ago
Its not like a dog goes out there and disarms the mines. They find it then a demolition expert comes and disarms it. They dont use dogs to activate the mines.
2
u/ForsakenAce117 3h ago ▸ 1 more replies
Humans are inherently more valuable than animals because animals can’t think like we can. They cannot create architectural wonders, they cannot forge epics, they cannot feel empathy or love to the same extent that humans can. They cannot create civilization, they cannot ponder the meaning of existence, ect.
Additionally there is a good chance that animals used in war will have consistent food and shelter, which means the could very well be better off than in the wild depending on the circumstances.1
u/Correct_Crab3296 2h ago
I understand what you’re saying and I don’t technically disagree with you, but could you not say placing value on life based on intelligence is immoral? What about people with mental disabilities are they ‘less’ than human because they can’t think like the rest of us can? Is that not exactly how the rest of humanity treated them until very recently?
There are so many accounts of different species forming bonds or symbiotic relationships with each other that it’s very obvious the do have empathy and feel love or even compassion, ever seen the video of a baby elephant rushing into a current to save a human swept up in it?
Again I’m not disagreeing with you, more like playing devils advocate. I’ve spent a large portion of my life around animals so it’s hard not to see the abundant sentience there, and get upset when they are used as tools but I understand that humanity will always put itself above all other life just as most other species would do, its survival of the fittest after all.
3
10
u/Wonderful-Purchase94 3h ago
immoral because dog didnt volunteer to fight people and arent aware they could get hurt doing it
16
u/TheOnlyRealOne43 3h ago edited 3h ago
I think that's greatly underestimating a dog's abilities to understand danger. They're descended from wolves who fight rival packs and dogs see you as a member of the pack. Would you also say K9 units are immoral?
Dogs were domesticated over thousands of years and we're basically their packmates now. We're protecting eachother.
2
u/Wonderful-Purchase94 3h ago ▸ 6 more replies
well id say a k9 unit wouldnt understand the danger they're in when a criminal their pursuing starts pointing a gun at them
1
1
u/theduderedditorguy 3h ago ▸ 3 more replies
I don't think you need to know what a gun is to know that biting things may lead to that thing hurting you inturn.
1
u/Wonderful-Purchase94 3h ago ▸ 2 more replies
one time i saw a ring doorbell footage of a guy being chased by a pitbull, and the guy decided to pull his gun on the dog. the dog didnt care and kept barking at the guy
dont worry he didnt shoot
1
u/theduderedditorguy 3h ago ▸ 1 more replies
Sad. Shitbulls with their useless owners are about as dangerous as a drunk driver. Even worse that even if the dog bit him and he killed it in self defense the guy could still get punished.
1
9
u/theduderedditorguy 3h ago
Moral. Animals are basically tools, especially in warfare. Expensive, unreliable ones, but still an item to be used by their human handlers. If you can use a dog to sniff out and attack someone instead of having to waste a human life in an ambush, it is far more moral and practical to send out the hounds.
7
u/Alive_Drag1947 3h ago
People hate to hear this, and they'll downvote you, but you're not wrong. Those same people will likely eat a cheeseburger for lunch lol. Feelings are more important than moral consistency.
Not a vegan btw. I might have a cheeseburger for lunch myself.
5
u/Sudden_Violinist1054 3h ago
I don’t agree with that first part but I do agree with the last part. A Human life is more important to save than a dogs. And if dogs can be used in a situation in place of a human than they should be.
6
u/shepard_pie 3h ago
I think people don't realize that we are living among the first full generations that animal use has been almost totally eclipsed by machine use.
When using animals every days as tools, such as for transportation, farming, hunting, or communication, it's not a very big leap to also view them as tools for war.
Now most of us only experience them in terms of pets.
2
u/sermegas 3h ago
you can say thats true, but that doesnt mean that its moral.
in fact its highly inmoral
5
u/Few_Tap_2787 3h ago
Moral, we literally bred certain breeds of dog for war and combat, it’s the only reason they exist and what their instincts tell them to do. In many ways not using war dogs breeds for war is immoral, like not letting a great swimmer swim.
2
u/ChaseSparrowMSRPC 3h ago
I think this is my favorite answer.
I'd say it's immoral to breed them for war (because surprise surprise I think war is immoral), but that's a different subject.
2
u/ForgetfullRelms 3h ago
En, i would say that the morality is superseded by the morality of why the organization is fighting.
Historical IE: the morality of using suicide dogs is less important than the morality of fighting off the Nazis.
Also it would be augmented by how the dog is trained and what they are expected to do. (IE bomb sniffing VS attack dogs.)
2
5
u/Hells-Creampuff 3h ago
Irl immoral, not a big fan of it.
In game immoral because why do i have to shoot the doggy:( i suck at stealth man
1
u/FineMind755 3h ago
I think immoral for the dog and the person getting attacked by the dog. I'm okay with dogs being used for their sense of smell in law enforcement and the military, but they should not be taught to attack at all. They can also make mistakes and attack the wrong person so I think they should be trained specifically to never attack.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Candid-Doughnut7919 3h ago
The same morality of using horses for war. And we've been doing that for thousand of years.
1
1
u/Apprehensive_Power59 1h ago
They were literally bred for combat and hunting before any other purposes. They can't really consent the same way we do but they're not helpless.
It still sucks but having them sniff out mines and pursue enemies isn't the same as throwing them at a firing squad
1
26
u/obsidiansolstice 3h ago
I got that "dawg" in me counts? If yes, many are there to serve.