"Cruelty is cruelty whoever the perpetrator is, and when violence is performed against any living creature it can never be justified...or can it?
War upon other nations, battles against enemies who are out to kill and destroy you, violence perpetrated in the cause of self-defence: are not these actions sometimes justifiable when they cannot be avoided? Can we possibly imagine what life would have been like for Europe had the Ally forces not stood up against Adolf Hitler during the 1930's? Whom among us can know if the death of one creature/person is justifiable on the grounds that it can lead to the saving of lives of much more in their place? For example, many historians believe that the two Hydrogen bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, at the end of the 'Second World War', despite killing at least 129,000 people, not only brought that terrible war to an end much earlier than otherwise, but saved at least another 129,000 deaths in the process!
My heart goes out each time I see an overloaded craft of economic migrants making the perilous sea crossings from their African countries to seek a better life in Europe, and yet my head tell me that to turn them back to the shores from which they first came and to seek to help them exist better and safer in their own land is more humane in the long term than positively encouraging them to continue to make the crossing by assisting their passage to their destination. The only people that gain long-term in this economic equation are the human traffickers of people who are out to make a killing from the lives and deaths of their clients.
The government, whose resources are solely provided by the taxpayers and which are not infinite, is obliged through the laws it enacts to positively discriminate and direct its largess towards different sections of the community(usually the neediest and least able-bodied). This very act of political discrimination effectively denotes that some citizens will be treated less fairly and equally than other citizens and may result in some dying from lack of heating instead of lack of medical or home care resources. Even taxing the rich more has perversely proved in the past that less overall tax is subsequently received by the government to distribute to good causes, and ironically, more of our citizens are untreated, uncared for and unheated than would otherwise have been the case!
Vegans, who seem very concerned with their own health seem not to know that the absence of meat eating for some sections of the population can prove health debilitating. Even the people who try to help by donating money to good causes, by giving to a dog's home instead of providing for a guide dog for the blind or some other human life-saving purpose, are placing a greater value on the life and comfort of a pet as opposed to that of a human being!In the man and beast equation, which one matters most?
It seems to me that in all conscience mankind can only do so much to positively help their neighbour, although the amount we collectively do is clearly insufficient to justify entry into heavenly abode. And whoever we choose to help, our choice for one will sadly prove to be in deference to another. Dilemma! Dilemma!
Questions worthy of asking before one inflicts pain upon another is, "Will the pain hurt them any less than it would hurt me? Is it absolutely necessary to inflict such hurt? Does the suffering become more or less acceptable/unacceptable because it has proven necessary/unnecessary to commit?" William Forde: July 8th, 2017.