moral dilemma?

Question

if someone asks in their will that something be done with an animal which is a bit cruel, what is more important; the person's last wishes or the animal's welfare?

Answer 1

animal's welfare. the person's dead, so what do they care?

Answer 2

That isn't a hard question at all.

A) the law has to be followed. If the deceased's wish is cruel, it can't be carried out (e.g. "fed to the sharks")

B) The moral thing is to be carried out if the wish was not in the best interest of the animal's welfare (e.g. "kept on a two foot leash").

If the last wish was cruel and doesn't involve property or money, then the person with the living item is supposed to to the right thing by the living creature. Not the dead one.

Answer 3

The welfare of the animal is much more important than the wishes of a dead person!

How is this even a dilemma for you? Would you ever consider hurting an animal for a living person's amusement?

Answer 4

The dilemma would be for the executor of the will. Personally if I was executor and there was a cruel request I would tell the person that I would unable to carry out that wish. It would then be the will maker's choice to choose another person to be executor of the will.

Of course if the person has already died then I would just not carry out that request.

This is why it is important to go over your will with the people or persons who will be representing you.

Answer 5

Depends. Do you mean causing the animal extreme pain, or doing something like euthanization? If the animal is to be euthanized, that's not so much of a problem, because it's painless towards the animal; if the thing they want you do do is sadistic/extremely painful towards the animal, I would not do it. As mentioned above, the person is dead, they can't stop you from saving the animal.

Answer 6

It is a dying wish so should be carried out wherever possible. Even if they're dead, its in their honour, and I don't understand these people saying 'oh they're dead so who cares' BUT there are limitations, it would really depend on what the actual wish was and how cruel it is, for example don't go torturing an animal, or putting down an animal, for a dead person. But a piercing or something to that extent *has no idea what the wish could be so lets go with that* is perfectly acceptable in my opinion

Answer 7

I can see no moral dilemma here. Let your conscious be your guide. If you are referring to a request that the animal be euthanized, that can be done. It doesn't have to be done right away. I'd wait until the animal became infirm from age. Then euthanasia is a logical humane way to end the animals suffering.

Answer 8

If the person is deceased then you don't have to worry about it. We had an aunt who asked that her dog be put down and buried with her. We didn't the puppy was only a few years old and had a lot more living to do. I know that you are meant to honour the wishes of the deceased but if it something that affects your moral judgment not your monetary value then I think you have a right to say no.

Answer 9

The animals welfare is more important.

Answer 10

I would have to say the animal's welfare, and I agree with the other answerer, if the person is gone, then what does it matter?

Answer 11

Animal's welfare.

If what they want done to the animal would be animal cruelty, then the executors will not have to go through with it because they would be committing a crime.