| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/10/2007 11:04:56 AM · #1 |
Since my last thread raised no interest, how about this ethical dilemma.
Shambo is a bull living in a Hindu temple in Wales. He is revered as a representative of Nandi, Lord Shiva's bull.
It is a religious tenet that he be looked after and his life is valued by followers as the same as that of a human.
Unfortunately, Shombo has developed the highly infectious disease bovine tuberculosis. It is the policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that all cows with TB be destroyed in order to prevent the spread of TB.
It is possible that Shambo could be saved, but in doing there would be a risk that he would spread TB.
Should Shambo be saved?
|
|
|
|
05/10/2007 11:10:18 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Since my last thread raised no interest... |
Looking for a spark? :P
Originally posted by Matthew:
Should Shambo be saved? |
No.
Solution? Quickly make a clone of him (minus the disease of course). :D |
|
|
|
05/10/2007 11:33:42 AM · #3 |
| I believe if they are willing to fully quarantine the cow then they should be able to keep him alive and treat him. (It's just that seldom in the agriculture business is it cost effective to completely quarantine a cow for a prolonged period in such manner. However, said temple may be willing to expend the $ and energy to do so. |
|
|
|
05/10/2007 11:50:33 AM · #4 |
I agree with theSaj, they've already gone to extraordinary lengths to isolate him and are prepared to bear the cost of keeping him isolated and his treatment so I think he should be allowed to live.
Message edited by author 2007-05-10 11:51:06. |
|
|
|
05/10/2007 01:03:06 PM · #5 |
I'm going to jump on theSaj's train, it should be spared if ample isolation is guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2007 01:13:34 PM · #6 |
This is one issue that is best left to those in the know, as it involves a myriad of issues that need to be addressed. Items dealing with religion, laws and heath all need to be dealt with, monitored and evaluated.
At issue is not only the animal, but the well being of the people in its surrounding, the possibility of infection and transmittal of the disease to both animals and humans alike.
The simple way to deal with this is to eradicate the cause... but at what price. We have already witnessed a not so veiled threat in the plea of the organization.
This is one that calls for the wisdom of Solomon.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/10/2007 02:40:17 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
This is one issue that is best left to those in the know, as it involves a myriad of issues that need to be addressed. Items dealing with religion, laws and heath all need to be dealt with, monitored and evaluated.
At issue is not only the animal, but the well being of the people in its surrounding, the possibility of infection and transmittal of the disease to both animals and humans alike.
The simple way to deal with this is to eradicate the cause... but at what price. We have already witnessed a not so veiled threat in the plea of the organization.
This is one that calls for the wisdom of Solomon.
Ray |
Yes - TB is nasty, it can kill, and it can spread from cows to humans. The government has determined that the best approach for public safety is for the cow to be destroyed.
Does that change the mind of anyone who says that the cow should be spared? |
|
|
|
05/10/2007 04:07:41 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Yes - TB is nasty, it can kill, and it can spread from cows to humans. The government has determined that the best approach for public safety is for the cow to be destroyed.
Does that change the mind of anyone who says that the cow should be spared? |
In my opinion, this fundamentally irrational act/belief (worshipping a cow) cannot stand on the same ground with well-reasoned arguments.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2007 09:51:45 PM · #9 |
The primary reason that destruction of animals with TB is the standard policy, is that under normal circumstances, it wouldn't be economically feasible to quarantine an animal, and treat it adequately. However, what would the problem be if the temple is willing to pay for the isolation/treatment?
If the temple can show adequate isolation, then what is the risk to the public? Sure you could say there is a risk for the monks/people treating the animal, but then you could say the same for health professionals who look after people with TB.
Why is it a necessity that the animal needs to be killed? "because its policy" isn't really a valid explanation |
|
|
|
05/10/2007 10:19:03 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I'm going to jump on theSaj's train, it should be spared if ample isolation is guaranteed. |
Ample isolation cannot really be guaranteed in any situation. The cow poses a threat and should be dealt with.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2007 10:27:20 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
In my opinion, this fundamentally irrational act/belief (worshipping a cow) cannot stand on the same ground with well-reasoned arguments. |
What is irrational to you may very well be the fundamental religious basis to another. Well reasoned arguments are so only in the mind of the person making the assertions... they are not necessarily so in the minds of all.
... A point to ponder.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/10/2007 10:46:10 PM · #12 |
| I think we should bomb Wales with bunker busters. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 05:37:42 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
I think we should bomb Wales with bunker busters. |
Only way to be sure. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 07:55:24 PM · #14 |
Shambo the cow should be destroyed. Reason and sanity dictate it. To do otherwise, and in my view to condone and support this action, is to continue the mindless drift toward the second dark age.
For more on how religion poisons everything, please read God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens. Though I've only just picked it up, it is the latest on the list of recent refreshing atheist discourses. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 11:47:30 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
In my opinion, this fundamentally irrational act/belief (worshipping a cow) cannot stand on the same ground with well-reasoned arguments. |
What is irrational to you may very well be the fundamental religious basis to another. Well reasoned arguments are so only in the mind of the person making the assertions... they are not necessarily so in the minds of all.
... A point to ponder.
Ray |
Ray, are you suggesting that we should respect and defend the rights of people to act upon their religiously fundamentalist beliefs, no matter how irrational those beliefs may seem or how they may impact on others?
In the case of Shambo, you may be relieved to know that he has been shown to be TB-free and has been saved. But I remain interested in whether anyone has any serious grounds for defending the right of the Council of Swamis to keep alive a cow with a dangerous disease?
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:44:54 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
[quote=Judith Polakoff]
In my opinion, this fundamentally irrational act/belief (worshipping a cow) cannot stand on the same ground with well-reasoned arguments. |
What is irrational to you may very well be the fundamental religious basis to another. Well reasoned arguments are so only in the mind of the person making the assertions... they are not necessarily so in the minds of all.
... A point to ponder.
Ray |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Ray, are you suggesting that we should respect and defend the rights of people to act upon their religiously fundamentalist beliefs, no matter how irrational those beliefs may seem or how they may impact on others? |
Actually NO... The specific issue of contention for me was that part of the comment dealing with the rationality of another religious group's form of veneration. It could be argued that some of the pratices of Judaeo-Christians might seem "irrational" to others... but that is an issue I prefer not to engage in at the present time.
Originally posted by Matthew:
In the case of Shambo, you may be relieved to know that he has been shown to be TB-free and has been saved. But I remain interested in whether anyone has any serious grounds for defending the right of the Council of Swamis to keep alive a cow with a dangerous disease? |
In my initial submission you will note that I did make reference to the fact that the group in question did state that they were prepared to sacrifice their own lives to preserve that of Shambo... a factor that does merit some serious consideration.
In addition, it was indicated that the group in question was quite prepared to absorb all costs associated with the monitoring of this animal, as well as those associated with whatever vetenarian services were deemed warranted.
If indeed such is the case, surely the authorities can devise and implement mechanisms to ensure that the animals and personnel are quarantined, and that any possible risks of transmittal and infection is eradicated.
Under such a scenario, given that this undertaking would pose no threat to the general population, and would not incur additional cost to be borne by the taxpayer... then YES, by all means we can acquiesce to such demands as they would truly demonstrate our respect for the religious rituals of other segments of society.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 02:39:22 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Actually NO... The specific issue of contention for me was that part of the comment dealing with the rationality of another religious group's form of veneration. It could be argued that some of the pratices of Judaeo-Christians might seem "irrational" to others... but that is an issue I prefer not to engage in at the present time. |
I agree with you that religious groups will consider their acts rational - that is for all religions (I am not sure why you would highlight two of the three Abrahamic religions for different treatment). I don't want to probe onto gound that you feel uncomfortable discussing, but are you saying that you would support behaviour that the adherents believe to be rational?
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Under such a scenario, given that this undertaking would pose no threat to the general population |
I don't disagree that if the cow could be kept so that it was 100% non-harmful, then no issue. But the ethical issue here is that the cow is dangerous and cannot be kept 100% safe. The disease could infect and kill nearby people or animals by airborn transmission. In the situation that the cow cannot be kept safe (which is probably the case), what would your answer be?
Message edited by author 2007-05-14 14:39:48. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 02:55:43 PM · #18 |
| I would think that this would be proof that they've been worshipping the wrong cow. |
|
|
|
07/03/2007 02:45:06 PM · #19 |
In case anyone is interested (the art of the rant forum seems to be almost dead)...
Shambo is back on death row. Tests are disputed but show that he has TB.
The ethical question remains - should this object of religious veneration be slaughtered because he poses a risk to human and animal life?
|
|
|
|
07/03/2007 02:58:07 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The ethical question remains - should this object of religious veneration be slaughtered because he poses a risk to human and animal life? |
Let's assume that 100% containment is indeed impossible and then ask the question another way: Is it acceptable to allow TB to spread among innocent people, some of whom are likely to die, become gravely ill and/or have to live the remainder of their days in quarantine because of a cow?
(Also, I'm confused. You refer to Shambo as a "cow" and also as a "he". Unless Shambo is a hermaphrodite, a "cow" is female and the correct term for a male is "steer" or "bull", depending on whether Shambo was castrated or not.) |
|
|
|
07/03/2007 08:52:16 PM · #21 |
I have questions. If the monks are willing to pay for the tests, why haven't they had them performed already. Hire a vet to conduct them. Does the government have a monopoly on the tests?
I read the info provided by the link in the original post. Unfortunately, I was left with the feeling that it's pretty biased and I can't make a judgement based on the information provided. I don't want to have to research the "facts" they stated about btb. I would need to know what effect it has on humans if they contract it, is it treatable/curable for humans, how fast could it wipe out large herds of livestock if it should spread, what the economic impact would be on the area if herds of cattle had to be slaughtered, how dense the population is, and just so many other things.
It isn't just a matter of saying is it ethical. Is it ethical to cause economic hardship on the human population in the area if they have to put down whole herds of animals because of the monks protecting the one animal? Is it ethical to watch someone get tb because of one animal? Hard to say.
One thing I picked up is there seems to be a problem with wildlife carrying the virus. If that is the case I think it would be more prudent for the government to spend money on eliminating that risk before taking down animals that can be confined. So based on that, I'd say let them keep the bull alive as long as they want as long as they agree to keep it confined and under government supervision with the monks paying for the supervision. |
|
|
|
07/04/2007 06:40:40 AM · #22 |
"cow" can be used informally to refer to either sex. He is a bull.
For those who need more facts in order to consider the principle, here is some more background.
Here is a BBC report.
Here is some info on tuberculosis. It infects over one third of the world's population. It is spread by airborn means and by wild animal vectors. One in ten carriers becomes an active sufferer. If untreated, half of active sufferers are killed by it. Bovine tuberculosis can cause human TB, but not usually in healthy adults. Domestic herds have been kept largely TB free through a rigourous slaughter policy. Trials on the slaughter of wild vectors have been undertaken with mixed results (eg badger cull in N Ireland).
My question, however, is not whether in your judgement this is a case in which the risks are high or low, or where the religious conviction is strong or weak. Rather, I am far more interested in people's views whether, as a matter of principle, someone's genuinely held but arbitrary religious belief should be respected where it endangers the lives and the livelihoods of other people who don't share that belief?
Message edited by author 2007-07-04 06:42:38.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2007 06:57:11 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
My question, however, is not whether in your judgement this is a case in which the risks are high or low, or where the religious conviction is strong or weak. Rather, I am far more interested in people's views whether, as a matter of principle, someone's genuinely held but arbitrary religious belief should be respected where it endangers the lives and the livelihoods of other people who don't share that belief? |
Personally, I suspect you are baiting for responses to apply them to what you think is some analogous situation, but I'll bite. I definitely believe the cow must be destroyed following the same guidelines as for any other sick cow.
I won't bite on any absurd comparisons though. :)
May God bless you for your concern for Shambo. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/16/2007 02:34:38 PM · #24 |
For anyone following the story, Shambo has been reprieved by the court. The Welsh Assembly failed to take into account the objectives behind the rules when ordering the slaughter of the cow.
Originally posted by Hinckinbottom J.:
They will be obliged to reconsider the public health objectives that underlie behind the surveillance and slaughter policy, and come to a view as to whether, in the reasonable pursuit of those objectives, the slaughter of this animal (or some less intrusive measure) would be proportional given the serious infringement of the community's rights under Article Nine that slaughter would involve. |
The decision will be appealed.
Personally, I think that this is broadly the appropriate analysis - the matter was not considered on the appropriate grounds and due respect has not been given to the community's beliefs. However, I think that following proper consideration, it is likely that on these facts, that Shambo will still be slaughtered.
In my opinion (since no one else is biting), religious belief should be tolerated by the government and system of law. It is critical to the freedom of expression that freedom of religious expression be respected.
However, there is a difficult balance between the right of expression and the imposition of conflicting non-denominational law. This is particularly the case in a multi-denominational society.
Because we respect human rights and seek to tolerate religious expression, we must consider conflicting laws and apply a degree of judgment and flexibility. The "black and white", "right or wrong" approach (recently seen most obviously in US politics) is wholly the wrong approach. The European Union imports a degree of purposive interpretation into English law, permitting flexibility, and in my opinion that is a *good thing*.
However, when assessing whether a degree of flexibility should be entertained, the balance must be tipped against the religious interpretation. It should not be a lightly taken decision to overrule non-denominational laws in favour of an arbitrarily held religious belief (even if held strongly). It does offend the rule of law that some people be treated differently to others, and I would argue that it should be relaxed only lightly. I think that I probably go further than the judge in this respect.
Important to my analysis are the existence of many other constitutional safeguards to the rule of law and a broadly beneficial leadership - without those, flexibility could be used to oppress rather than empower the people.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2007 04:46:20 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
"cow" can be used informally to refer to either sex. |
It's a common enough misuse of the term that perhaps it has become acceptable in some areas, but if you were to call a bull a "cow" in cattle country, you'd be the subject of ridicule. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/24/2025 04:57:51 PM EDT.
