A legislative move to ban the consumption of dog meat is losing steam as rival parties have yet to reach a consensus over the issue amid fierce opposition from dog meat traders.
Well, I kinda agree with you, but I also kinda don’t. On one hand, animals are animals, so one should either object to eating all or not object to eating any. And if one is going to make any distinctions, they should be for sentience, the ability to be miserable on a farm, and the ability to feel pain. But that means that even though you found yourself a moral foundation for objecting to dog eating while being ok with fish eating (and possibly bird eating), it’s still hypocritical to object to dog eating, but not cow or pig eating (or kangaroo eating in the Oz).
On the other hand, there are things that do make dogs special. We started domesticating them about twice as long ago as we did pigs and cows. We were domesticating them for companionship, not meat, so the selection pressure favoured different traits in the domesticated wolves than it did in the domesticated auroch or boar. Which, for example, includes a special muscle that evolved in canis familiaris above its eyes to give it the ability of giving you that look that we humans can’t help but interpret as cute. Also, if I recall correctly, human and their pet dog gazing into each others eyes is the only documented instance of cross-spegific interaction that leads to the secretion of oxytocin in the brains of both gazers involved.
All of this to say that, actually, I’m leaning towards the notion that there is something special about dogs, that cows and pigs don’t have.
There’s something special about every animal, dogs are no exception. If you spend time with cows and pigs, you’ll know they’re capable of being gentle, loving creatures. Pigs are arguably smarter than dogs in some ways.
Many people will argue that it is morally permissible to eat non-human animals because of the difference in intelligence. This isn’t a very good argument though. Suppose an alien species with an IQ of 300 visited Earth. Using the logic above, you would have to concede to their request to eat you.
At a bare minimum, the benchmark should be based on suffering. But even this has flaws. If I was to raise my human child until they were 10, then kill them painlessly in their sleep so I could eat them, people would be mortified.
I personally don’t think there is an ethical basis for eating meat of any kind, provided you don’t live in a food desert.
Eating any farmed predatory species is also inherently about 10x more unsustainable enviornmentally than farmed herbivorous species (which are already unsustainable both water consumption and CO2 wise) as about 90% of the energy is lost at each step of the food chain. So essnitally not only do you have to farm these dogs (that haven’t been selectively breed for thouaands of years to have a large quantity of tender meat), but you also have to farm their food. Dogs aren’t obligate carnivores but they do still need a significant amount of meat in their diet.
I agree that there is something special about every animal, but you seem to be talking about generic specialness, about intelligence and capacity for suffering, but you haven’t really addressed my points, i.e. there are actual biological hallmarks of humans and dogs having forged a stronger mental and emotional connection in the course of evolution than humans and any other animals that we eat.
I wouldn’t phrase it in black and white terms (permissible - not permissible), but to answer a question similar to yours - yes, I think it’s normal for people to feel stronger repulsion on the thought of eating animals with which we can form stronger bonds. So I, for example, cringe more at the thought of eating a dog, than eating a cat, than eating a cow, than eating a fish, etc…
On one hand, animals are animals, so one should either object to eating all or not object to eating any.
I feel like this is a sort of ironic dichotomy we humans find ourselves in due to our evolutionary development that lets us reflect on our actions, along with our empathy stemming from our understanding of suffering of life in general.
On one hand, we are omnivores, we eat plants and animals, it’s not that we decided to eat animals, it’s that we’ve evolved to do so. Vegan diets end up relying on supplements and lots of hoop jumps to achieve the same results an omnivores diet would have. That, while commendable on those who try, shows us quite clearly that we’re going against our most fundamental evolutionary traits.
On the other hand, we understand we are causing suffering to other beings in order to sustain ourselves. No matter how humane out treatment of such animals may become, it’s still something that we will struggle to accept, or that we will ignore outright to not have to struggle with the thought.
It’s a terrible situation to find ourselves in, because that’s literally the solution life itself has come up with, we steal nutrients and energy from other life, period. Yet we understand we are denying other life forms their chance to life, and a lot of the time they suffer while being denied that chance. But what other solution is there? We haven’t come up with better solutions, and we may never do so. We defined a certain threshold for what we deem acceptable, some of us move that threshold, but none eliminate eating life entirely, because it’s not possible. Plants are still alive, fungi are still alive, bacteria are still alive, insects are still alive, and we never ever stop to think about them like we do our farm animals, we only stop to think about life that resembles our own. And that’s, unfortunately, necessary to not starve ourselves out of the equation.
I wonder if we will ever solve this riddle for ourselves. Will we simply accept this forever as a given that some animals just have to suffer for our sake? Will we start growing our own meat, and declare the threshold to be “organisms without a complex neural system”? Will we be able to forego depending on other life entirely and develop our nutrition in factories or through biological modifications without even relying on other cellular organisms? Where will we draw the line next, and will we be able to satisfy our moral qualms?
I can’t be for or against any of this, all I can do is hold my own actions to my own moral line and accept that everything else is just how things have to be due to the cruel reality of being alive. I’m unable to kill, and I’m convinced I’d first die than kill even a chicken to survive (or if I do, the guilt will eat me alive), but I eat chicken every day and I will continue to do so until the day I die, even though there’s a strong cognitive dissonance there, since I can’t really do much about it without compromising my own nutrition in some way, I can’t go against the very rules of life. It’s truly a cruel joke that life has played on us, forcing us to depend on taking life from other organisms to stay alive, while also allowing us to empathize with other life forms and enter such a dissonant state of mind. That’s just the torture of life, I guess.
[Vegans diets require supplements to achieve the same results as omnivore diets]
This is really a non issue, it’s not hard, it’s just a minor change. I’ve been vegan for about 3 years now. Every morning I have a vitamin B12, and in the evening I have an Omega 3, Vitamin C, Magnesium and Calcium.
Every six months I get my blood tested. My GP is always surprised that I’m consistently landing in the centre of the recommended range on all metrics, including iron.
While I largely agree with your post, I did want to argue with:
On the other hand, we understand we are causing suffering to other beings in order to sustain ourselves. No matter how humane out treatment of such animals may become, it’s still something that we will struggle to accept, or that we will ignore outright to not have to struggle with the thought.
There is a third option. We accept that our continued existence is predicated on the death of other life forms and stop being bothered by it. You seem to have a foundation premise that people must be bothered by killing other living things. That’s an assumption on your part and one which doesn’t hold true for all others. This also comes up again in your post when you state:
I’m unable to kill, and I’m convinced I’d first die than kill even a chicken to survive (or if I do, the guilt will eat me alive), but I eat chicken every day and I will continue to do so until the day I die, even though there’s a strong cognitive dissonance there, since I can’t really do much about it without compromising my own nutrition in some way,
This is an expression of how that foundational assumption builds your moral system. You have drawn a line at the direct killing of another animal while being less clear about the line of allowing an animal to be killed. This isn’t a terribly surprising distinction, and is often explored via The Trolley Problem. Most people end up viewing allowing harm as less morally problematic as causing harm. Though, any hard lines are then exposed to be less hard by pushing the parameters of the problem about.
This is also one of the places where your base assumption clashed with one of my own assumptions: that outsourcing the killing of an animal for consumption is tantamount to killing it yourself. I don’t expect to convince you of that, nor do I expect that you’ll convert me any time soon. However, it’s useful to try to understand the positions of others and how they likely arrived at their beliefs. And this why I pointed out the line at the start of this response. You created a false dichotomy by which one must either give up meat or give up morality. There is a perfectly valid third option, which is, I don’t agree with your moral premise and therefore do not face such a dilemma.
You’re absolutely right and it is something I sometimes fail to account for since it nourishes hopelessness in me. I do, however, believe that such empathy is developed and not something you’re born with. You see it in varying degrees by how much someone cares for their families, friends, their community, and really even themselves. Some just care about themselves, some care about their peers but not their communities, and some don’t care about themselves but would bend over backwards for others. Empathy for lives beyond our own species is something that would be nurtured just like empathy for other humans is.
When I talk about our options as a species, I am inclined to believe that most of our species leans towards having empathic feelings for lives beyond our own species. It may just be a matter of hope that I’m reflecting on my comments, but it is also an evolutionary advantage for us to develop such empathy as we further develop our abilities to morph this world to our needs and wants, since we do depend on other species for almost everything.
Maybe I’m intertwining the necessities of our species with our individual feelings over those necessities, but I would believe this moral conflict would surface for most of us, with the level of such moral conflict varying greatly from person to person. My previous comment mostly wonders of the possibility that a great number of us start to develop such moral conflict over more than just domesticated species or cute mammals or such.
With regards to the trolley problem, you’re right. By me profiting from the atrocities of others, I’m a part of such atrocity. It’s a fact of more than just harvesting farm animals. It affects our economies, our climate, our biodiversity, our social norms and behaviors towards outsiders and minorities, as well as our digital lives. It’s a cop-out to just wash my hands from such actions and only hold myself responsible for my direct actions regardless of those of others that my benefit me, and that’s why I said it was a cognitive dissonance, one that I just have to live with of my own choosing.
Interesting read, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I personally think that in many ways, we do simply choose to eat meat. I’m vegetarian, and even by avoiding some animal products like milk and eggs, I find that since doing so since my early thirties it has had no impact on my health whatsoever. My iron and vitamin levels are fine and in checkups my blood work always looks good.
Well, I kinda agree with you, but I also kinda don’t. On one hand, animals are animals, so one should either object to eating all or not object to eating any. And if one is going to make any distinctions, they should be for sentience, the ability to be miserable on a farm, and the ability to feel pain. But that means that even though you found yourself a moral foundation for objecting to dog eating while being ok with fish eating (and possibly bird eating), it’s still hypocritical to object to dog eating, but not cow or pig eating (or kangaroo eating in the Oz).
On the other hand, there are things that do make dogs special. We started domesticating them about twice as long ago as we did pigs and cows. We were domesticating them for companionship, not meat, so the selection pressure favoured different traits in the domesticated wolves than it did in the domesticated auroch or boar. Which, for example, includes a special muscle that evolved in canis familiaris above its eyes to give it the ability of giving you that look that we humans can’t help but interpret as cute. Also, if I recall correctly, human and their pet dog gazing into each others eyes is the only documented instance of cross-spegific interaction that leads to the secretion of oxytocin in the brains of both gazers involved.
All of this to say that, actually, I’m leaning towards the notion that there is something special about dogs, that cows and pigs don’t have.
There’s something special about every animal, dogs are no exception. If you spend time with cows and pigs, you’ll know they’re capable of being gentle, loving creatures. Pigs are arguably smarter than dogs in some ways.
Many people will argue that it is morally permissible to eat non-human animals because of the difference in intelligence. This isn’t a very good argument though. Suppose an alien species with an IQ of 300 visited Earth. Using the logic above, you would have to concede to their request to eat you.
At a bare minimum, the benchmark should be based on suffering. But even this has flaws. If I was to raise my human child until they were 10, then kill them painlessly in their sleep so I could eat them, people would be mortified.
I personally don’t think there is an ethical basis for eating meat of any kind, provided you don’t live in a food desert.
Eating any farmed predatory species is also inherently about 10x more unsustainable enviornmentally than farmed herbivorous species (which are already unsustainable both water consumption and CO2 wise) as about 90% of the energy is lost at each step of the food chain. So essnitally not only do you have to farm these dogs (that haven’t been selectively breed for thouaands of years to have a large quantity of tender meat), but you also have to farm their food. Dogs aren’t obligate carnivores but they do still need a significant amount of meat in their diet.
I agree that there is something special about every animal, but you seem to be talking about generic specialness, about intelligence and capacity for suffering, but you haven’t really addressed my points, i.e. there are actual biological hallmarks of humans and dogs having forged a stronger mental and emotional connection in the course of evolution than humans and any other animals that we eat.
Edit: clarity
So?
Is the implication that it is ethically permissible to eat other animals like cats, because they haven’t had the same evolutionary privileges?
I wouldn’t phrase it in black and white terms (permissible - not permissible), but to answer a question similar to yours - yes, I think it’s normal for people to feel stronger repulsion on the thought of eating animals with which we can form stronger bonds. So I, for example, cringe more at the thought of eating a dog, than eating a cat, than eating a cow, than eating a fish, etc…
What is normal, what we’ve been conditioned to believe, or what produces feelings of repulsion are not good moral foundations.
I’m only interested in what is ethical. I’m not convinced there is any reason to consider cows, or even fish, to be less deserving of life than a dog.
I feel like this is a sort of ironic dichotomy we humans find ourselves in due to our evolutionary development that lets us reflect on our actions, along with our empathy stemming from our understanding of suffering of life in general.
On one hand, we are omnivores, we eat plants and animals, it’s not that we decided to eat animals, it’s that we’ve evolved to do so. Vegan diets end up relying on supplements and lots of hoop jumps to achieve the same results an omnivores diet would have. That, while commendable on those who try, shows us quite clearly that we’re going against our most fundamental evolutionary traits.
On the other hand, we understand we are causing suffering to other beings in order to sustain ourselves. No matter how humane out treatment of such animals may become, it’s still something that we will struggle to accept, or that we will ignore outright to not have to struggle with the thought.
It’s a terrible situation to find ourselves in, because that’s literally the solution life itself has come up with, we steal nutrients and energy from other life, period. Yet we understand we are denying other life forms their chance to life, and a lot of the time they suffer while being denied that chance. But what other solution is there? We haven’t come up with better solutions, and we may never do so. We defined a certain threshold for what we deem acceptable, some of us move that threshold, but none eliminate eating life entirely, because it’s not possible. Plants are still alive, fungi are still alive, bacteria are still alive, insects are still alive, and we never ever stop to think about them like we do our farm animals, we only stop to think about life that resembles our own. And that’s, unfortunately, necessary to not starve ourselves out of the equation.
I wonder if we will ever solve this riddle for ourselves. Will we simply accept this forever as a given that some animals just have to suffer for our sake? Will we start growing our own meat, and declare the threshold to be “organisms without a complex neural system”? Will we be able to forego depending on other life entirely and develop our nutrition in factories or through biological modifications without even relying on other cellular organisms? Where will we draw the line next, and will we be able to satisfy our moral qualms?
I can’t be for or against any of this, all I can do is hold my own actions to my own moral line and accept that everything else is just how things have to be due to the cruel reality of being alive. I’m unable to kill, and I’m convinced I’d first die than kill even a chicken to survive (or if I do, the guilt will eat me alive), but I eat chicken every day and I will continue to do so until the day I die, even though there’s a strong cognitive dissonance there, since I can’t really do much about it without compromising my own nutrition in some way, I can’t go against the very rules of life. It’s truly a cruel joke that life has played on us, forcing us to depend on taking life from other organisms to stay alive, while also allowing us to empathize with other life forms and enter such a dissonant state of mind. That’s just the torture of life, I guess.
This is really a non issue, it’s not hard, it’s just a minor change. I’ve been vegan for about 3 years now. Every morning I have a vitamin B12, and in the evening I have an Omega 3, Vitamin C, Magnesium and Calcium.
Every six months I get my blood tested. My GP is always surprised that I’m consistently landing in the centre of the recommended range on all metrics, including iron.
While I largely agree with your post, I did want to argue with:
There is a third option. We accept that our continued existence is predicated on the death of other life forms and stop being bothered by it. You seem to have a foundation premise that people must be bothered by killing other living things. That’s an assumption on your part and one which doesn’t hold true for all others. This also comes up again in your post when you state:
This is an expression of how that foundational assumption builds your moral system. You have drawn a line at the direct killing of another animal while being less clear about the line of allowing an animal to be killed. This isn’t a terribly surprising distinction, and is often explored via The Trolley Problem. Most people end up viewing allowing harm as less morally problematic as causing harm. Though, any hard lines are then exposed to be less hard by pushing the parameters of the problem about.
This is also one of the places where your base assumption clashed with one of my own assumptions: that outsourcing the killing of an animal for consumption is tantamount to killing it yourself. I don’t expect to convince you of that, nor do I expect that you’ll convert me any time soon. However, it’s useful to try to understand the positions of others and how they likely arrived at their beliefs. And this why I pointed out the line at the start of this response. You created a false dichotomy by which one must either give up meat or give up morality. There is a perfectly valid third option, which is, I don’t agree with your moral premise and therefore do not face such a dilemma.
You’re absolutely right and it is something I sometimes fail to account for since it nourishes hopelessness in me. I do, however, believe that such empathy is developed and not something you’re born with. You see it in varying degrees by how much someone cares for their families, friends, their community, and really even themselves. Some just care about themselves, some care about their peers but not their communities, and some don’t care about themselves but would bend over backwards for others. Empathy for lives beyond our own species is something that would be nurtured just like empathy for other humans is.
When I talk about our options as a species, I am inclined to believe that most of our species leans towards having empathic feelings for lives beyond our own species. It may just be a matter of hope that I’m reflecting on my comments, but it is also an evolutionary advantage for us to develop such empathy as we further develop our abilities to morph this world to our needs and wants, since we do depend on other species for almost everything.
Maybe I’m intertwining the necessities of our species with our individual feelings over those necessities, but I would believe this moral conflict would surface for most of us, with the level of such moral conflict varying greatly from person to person. My previous comment mostly wonders of the possibility that a great number of us start to develop such moral conflict over more than just domesticated species or cute mammals or such.
With regards to the trolley problem, you’re right. By me profiting from the atrocities of others, I’m a part of such atrocity. It’s a fact of more than just harvesting farm animals. It affects our economies, our climate, our biodiversity, our social norms and behaviors towards outsiders and minorities, as well as our digital lives. It’s a cop-out to just wash my hands from such actions and only hold myself responsible for my direct actions regardless of those of others that my benefit me, and that’s why I said it was a cognitive dissonance, one that I just have to live with of my own choosing.
Interesting read, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I personally think that in many ways, we do simply choose to eat meat. I’m vegetarian, and even by avoiding some animal products like milk and eggs, I find that since doing so since my early thirties it has had no impact on my health whatsoever. My iron and vitamin levels are fine and in checkups my blood work always looks good.