>>If there are children in the world not receiving medical care, how can one justify spending huge sums on animals?<<
Or video games, or cars, or bicycles.
I basically agree with both of you, but I am just playing devils advocate.
Fact is, as stupid as I think spending money on pets is, how other poeple choose to spend their disposable income is not my business. I also am quite aware that, on this issue, I most definitely live in a glass house.
"Or video games, or cars, or bicycles."
Video games and bicycles don't require huge sums. Some cars do, but I'm not sure what the moral calculus is.
"Fact is, as stupid as I think spending money on pets is, how other poeple choose to spend their disposable income is not my business."
It may not be your business, but that doesn't mean that it's moral, or even morally neutral.
"I also am quite aware that, on this issue, I most definitely live in a glass house."
We have taken the maxim, "People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones," to mean that a person has no standing to make any moral judgments unless he is himself completely without sin. This misinterpretation serves only those who seek to evade the opprobrium rightfully accruing from their own misdeeds.
For instance, if one makes a habit of adultery, he is a hypocrite to pretend to virtue while criticising others for adultery. However, he is on solid ground if he wishes to say, "We adulderers are all acting immorally."
Likewise, should he see the error of his ways and reform, he is not a hypocrite to say, "I acted wrongly when I committed adultery, and people who do it today are also acting wrongly."
Unregenerate adulterers, of course, will wish to say, "You can't judge me; you have committed adultery yourself." I hope a moment's reflection on the above will show that this childish evasion has no logical or moral grounding.