This is wrong. While I agree that factory farming is bad, suffering among livestock is awful; still, doing the same (eating, killing, torturing) a dog is far far worse.
One reason is intuitive/instinctive. We recoil from some things naturally, a "disgust" reflex. Things like incest or beastiality, which we call evil based more on instinct than reason.
Another is purpose. Animals have different purposes, and this is reflected in what is considered acceptable treatment. Let's take pigs and dogs for example. Some say pigs are as highly intelligent as dogs; for now, let's grant that premise. Pigs are ruminants; their only joy seems to be eating. I have heard many times that it is in fact dangerous to fall in a hog pen, as the pigs will start eating you. So long as the hogs are fed, they are suffering less than if a work animal (dog, horse) was so confined.
Dogs, on the other hand, have a much broader purpose and importance, as companions, workers, protectors, etc. Violating that distinction, except for true necessity, by eating a companion or even "work" animal like a horse, is abhorred because it is in fact abhorrent and goes against this distinction by purpose.
The last reason, particular to dogs, is duty. Mankind might not have survived without the domestication of dogs, as protectors and alarms to danger. Even if "we" had, you or I might not be here without them. From those times we continued to rely on them for hunting, working, and rescue, up to this day, as they intercept drugs and find trauma victims.
Dogs are the first and greatest species that we, man, have truly created. We have bred them to serve us, AND bred out of them the instincts (prey, kill, etc) they need to survive without us. And we--even if not you and I--share the burden of irresponsible people letting these dogs breed and turning them loose on streets in which they lack the skills to survive. We all inherit this debt to them, shared with no other creatures.
I volunteer at the local shelter. I take dogs out for walking and exercise. Most people think that the dogs, cooped up in kennels, need the exercise the most. That is incorrect: a dog, brought outside and placed in a locked and large dog run, will immediately whimper. What it wants is the human companion. It's purpose, is us.
Killing and eating our only friend in nature is miles more horrible than doing so to any other animal.
Every animal is different from every other. It is always therefore possible to determine these differences and retroactively declare them important.
We are disgusted by eating dogs. But there are cultures where people are not. That's the whole premise of the slander against Hatians.
Dogs were bred for companionship. But in some places, dogs are bred for food. If we can breed value into them why can't we breed value out of them?
Pigs aren't necessarily as peaceful as they seem. But some dog breeds are violent as well and I'm sure breeding them for food would also outrage people.
Sure, there are counterpoints to all of these, and counter-counterpoints, etc. If you do the moral math and conclude that dogs have more value, that's fine and I'm even inclined to agree. I don't think you can't make these distinctions at all.
But then multiply that by the degree of cruelty on factory farms, where the animals suffer fates much worse than death.
And then compare that to the indifference many self-identified animal lovers have to this abuse, not just accepting it but paying for it on a regular basis and not even trying to do it less frequently.
I think the chasm is striking no matter how many "dogs are not the same as pigs" bullet points there are.
"roughly 90% of pigs have osteoporosis because of the stress of constant egg-laying combined with no exercise and an inadequate diet;"
I didn't realize that pigs could lay eggs. Presumably you meant chickens/hens instead?
As a side note, there is some evidence that vegetarians and vegans have worse mental health that people who aren't vegetarians or vegans, but this evidence might not be conclusive, because there are also studies that show the opposite:
I don't see that he's arguing that there's nothing wrong with eating dogs, only that it's hard to argue that there isn't the same amount of something wrong with eating cows and pigs that there is with dogs.
I had this feeling back in the 90s in a market in Guangdong province. All kinds of stuff was on offer, and you would order what you wanted to eat at one restaurant by going outside, having it killed on the spot, and cooked inside (I ordered pheasant and the seller picked it up and cracked its neck like a whip.) It would have felt no qualitatively different if there had been a dog or a cat there because I could barely recognize the subtypes of the various animals to begin with. I thought, the only reason I'd feel different here is if there was an animal to which I had socially awarded personhood to, and I don't feel that way about snakes or civet cats or whatever.
The other outrage in Ohio was Haitians slaughtering ducks in the local parks. Ducks are a normal (if uncommon) food in America and the objection was to the slaughter happening in a disorderly way rather than in a regulated way.
There may also be concerns about the ecosystem: cats are predators to pest animals, and the removal of ducks from parks may have similar unintended negative consequences.
I don’t think there is something intrinsically different between eating dogs and cats, on the one hand, and eating cows, pigs and chicken on the other. I think a different technical question is whether some animals are less nutritious or tasty and whether the civilizing process (Norbert Elias) has made us collectively see certain behaviors towards certain animals as barbaric.
And that said, I get your argument about the moral incoherence of being outraged at dog eating while not caring about cows or pigs. In my case, the avoidance of eating dogs is definitely based more on utilitarian grounds (in the vulgar sense) than on any moral consideration.
Ultimately, taking away the sentimentality with which the issue of animal rights is treated, I do consider that questions regarding our relationship to nature, both technical and vital, are not deeply enough considered. I find that common views about animal rights, which are related to conservation indirectly at least, leave something to be desired.
TL;DR you maid an apathetic omnivore reflect on the issue.
A side note: I agree that unnecessary harm towards animals, brutality and “zooicide” can be considered morally wrong and of bad taste. But I don’t think this derived, or needs to be derived, from a belief in animal rights. I think the case can be made for such moral behavior the same way the case can be made for treating other people’s property, lended goods and, generally speaking, all the different things that we use and own in a right and reasonable way.
It is obvious that you can adhere to human rights without adhering to animal rights, even acknowledging that humans are an animal species. I am willing to discuss that view of course, but the burden of proof when it comes to animal rights definitely do not lie with those who make the claim that humans have rights.
Even your definition doesn't explain the line between humans and animals: consider slavery, for example. Many humans of the past were unswayed by the treatment of slaves, and now they are.
I think that once one thinks "counting as a member of our family" is a better foundation for moral patient status than a being's own level of sentience and capacity for happiness or suffering, then the ship to Evil Insanity Town has already sailed.
But I doubt you really fully think that way, anyway. You'd see that what was fundamentally bad about kids throwing rocks at ducks in the park was the harm to the ducks, even if you could find other explanations like "it will probably make them more likely to hurt humans".
The value of the Christian concept of the soul in these cases is as a marker which we can use to anchor our sentiments of self while we cast our moral sentiments outward as far as we can.
This is wrong. While I agree that factory farming is bad, suffering among livestock is awful; still, doing the same (eating, killing, torturing) a dog is far far worse.
One reason is intuitive/instinctive. We recoil from some things naturally, a "disgust" reflex. Things like incest or beastiality, which we call evil based more on instinct than reason.
Another is purpose. Animals have different purposes, and this is reflected in what is considered acceptable treatment. Let's take pigs and dogs for example. Some say pigs are as highly intelligent as dogs; for now, let's grant that premise. Pigs are ruminants; their only joy seems to be eating. I have heard many times that it is in fact dangerous to fall in a hog pen, as the pigs will start eating you. So long as the hogs are fed, they are suffering less than if a work animal (dog, horse) was so confined.
Dogs, on the other hand, have a much broader purpose and importance, as companions, workers, protectors, etc. Violating that distinction, except for true necessity, by eating a companion or even "work" animal like a horse, is abhorred because it is in fact abhorrent and goes against this distinction by purpose.
The last reason, particular to dogs, is duty. Mankind might not have survived without the domestication of dogs, as protectors and alarms to danger. Even if "we" had, you or I might not be here without them. From those times we continued to rely on them for hunting, working, and rescue, up to this day, as they intercept drugs and find trauma victims.
Dogs are the first and greatest species that we, man, have truly created. We have bred them to serve us, AND bred out of them the instincts (prey, kill, etc) they need to survive without us. And we--even if not you and I--share the burden of irresponsible people letting these dogs breed and turning them loose on streets in which they lack the skills to survive. We all inherit this debt to them, shared with no other creatures.
I volunteer at the local shelter. I take dogs out for walking and exercise. Most people think that the dogs, cooped up in kennels, need the exercise the most. That is incorrect: a dog, brought outside and placed in a locked and large dog run, will immediately whimper. What it wants is the human companion. It's purpose, is us.
Killing and eating our only friend in nature is miles more horrible than doing so to any other animal.
Every animal is different from every other. It is always therefore possible to determine these differences and retroactively declare them important.
We are disgusted by eating dogs. But there are cultures where people are not. That's the whole premise of the slander against Hatians.
Dogs were bred for companionship. But in some places, dogs are bred for food. If we can breed value into them why can't we breed value out of them?
Pigs aren't necessarily as peaceful as they seem. But some dog breeds are violent as well and I'm sure breeding them for food would also outrage people.
Sure, there are counterpoints to all of these, and counter-counterpoints, etc. If you do the moral math and conclude that dogs have more value, that's fine and I'm even inclined to agree. I don't think you can't make these distinctions at all.
But then multiply that by the degree of cruelty on factory farms, where the animals suffer fates much worse than death.
And then compare that to the indifference many self-identified animal lovers have to this abuse, not just accepting it but paying for it on a regular basis and not even trying to do it less frequently.
I think the chasm is striking no matter how many "dogs are not the same as pigs" bullet points there are.
"roughly 90% of pigs have osteoporosis because of the stress of constant egg-laying combined with no exercise and an inadequate diet;"
I didn't realize that pigs could lay eggs. Presumably you meant chickens/hens instead?
As a side note, there is some evidence that vegetarians and vegans have worse mental health that people who aren't vegetarians or vegans, but this evidence might not be conclusive, because there are also studies that show the opposite:
https://www.vegansociety.com/get-involved/research/research-news/vegan-diet-mood-disorders-and-methodological-issues#:~:text=11%20studies%20concluded%20that%20vegetarian,between%20vegetarian%20diets%20and%20depression.
BTW, Tim Hsiao (whose work you responded to before) actually argues that there is nothing wrong with eating dogs:
https://www.prindleinstitute.org/2021/10/in-defense-of-eating-dogs/
Unsurprising since he's of Chinese descent.
I don't see that he's arguing that there's nothing wrong with eating dogs, only that it's hard to argue that there isn't the same amount of something wrong with eating cows and pigs that there is with dogs.
I had this feeling back in the 90s in a market in Guangdong province. All kinds of stuff was on offer, and you would order what you wanted to eat at one restaurant by going outside, having it killed on the spot, and cooked inside (I ordered pheasant and the seller picked it up and cracked its neck like a whip.) It would have felt no qualitatively different if there had been a dog or a cat there because I could barely recognize the subtypes of the various animals to begin with. I thought, the only reason I'd feel different here is if there was an animal to which I had socially awarded personhood to, and I don't feel that way about snakes or civet cats or whatever.
"Socially awarded personhood to".
Say those words slowly, I'm front of a mirror. Seriously.
No, I'm not going to summon you out of hell like in the Young Ones.
The other outrage in Ohio was Haitians slaughtering ducks in the local parks. Ducks are a normal (if uncommon) food in America and the objection was to the slaughter happening in a disorderly way rather than in a regulated way.
There may also be concerns about the ecosystem: cats are predators to pest animals, and the removal of ducks from parks may have similar unintended negative consequences.
I am divided here and I will be honest.
I don’t think there is something intrinsically different between eating dogs and cats, on the one hand, and eating cows, pigs and chicken on the other. I think a different technical question is whether some animals are less nutritious or tasty and whether the civilizing process (Norbert Elias) has made us collectively see certain behaviors towards certain animals as barbaric.
And that said, I get your argument about the moral incoherence of being outraged at dog eating while not caring about cows or pigs. In my case, the avoidance of eating dogs is definitely based more on utilitarian grounds (in the vulgar sense) than on any moral consideration.
Ultimately, taking away the sentimentality with which the issue of animal rights is treated, I do consider that questions regarding our relationship to nature, both technical and vital, are not deeply enough considered. I find that common views about animal rights, which are related to conservation indirectly at least, leave something to be desired.
TL;DR you maid an apathetic omnivore reflect on the issue.
A side note: I agree that unnecessary harm towards animals, brutality and “zooicide” can be considered morally wrong and of bad taste. But I don’t think this derived, or needs to be derived, from a belief in animal rights. I think the case can be made for such moral behavior the same way the case can be made for treating other people’s property, lended goods and, generally speaking, all the different things that we use and own in a right and reasonable way.
In that case, I hope you don't believe in "human rights"
It is obvious that you can adhere to human rights without adhering to animal rights, even acknowledging that humans are an animal species. I am willing to discuss that view of course, but the burden of proof when it comes to animal rights definitely do not lie with those who make the claim that humans have rights.
What's the trait humans possess and animals don't that makes it obvious you can believe in human rights without animal rights?
The image of God, for one.
Le heckin' image of G-d bro...
Even your definition doesn't explain the line between humans and animals: consider slavery, for example. Many humans of the past were unswayed by the treatment of slaves, and now they are.
I think that once one thinks "counting as a member of our family" is a better foundation for moral patient status than a being's own level of sentience and capacity for happiness or suffering, then the ship to Evil Insanity Town has already sailed.
But I doubt you really fully think that way, anyway. You'd see that what was fundamentally bad about kids throwing rocks at ducks in the park was the harm to the ducks, even if you could find other explanations like "it will probably make them more likely to hurt humans".
The value of the Christian concept of the soul in these cases is as a marker which we can use to anchor our sentiments of self while we cast our moral sentiments outward as far as we can.