Should we allow the eating of dog and cat meat?

[Darat]

I'd say it is a matter of emotional attachment, those animals that we consider pets/companions we tend not to eat. One way of seeing if that opinion holds water would be to see if in societies that do eat dogs if they also have dogs as pets/companions and if they do, do they eat those pet dogs?

Even if the above does hold some water I don't think it says anything really about the underlying "why" as we also know of societies in which the opposite is true - they at least eat a symbolic portion because of that attachment. And many farmers can be fond of their animals but still are fine with them being slaughtered.

In the end I do think the reason is simply "tradition" - what we are brought up to consider the norm is the norm. That doesn't mean it is logically coherent or anything like that but such behavioural traits are part of human social behaviour. Sometimes trying to look for a "reason" requires us to remember that we are not rational creatures, we are irrational creatures that have learnt some clever tricks such as logic to help us survive!

 

[Darat]

The above is why I think even the great and the hero of our times will have to have their abhorrent practice of eating what were living animals apologised for, such as we today apologise for the great people who also kept slaves, in a hundred years time.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The above is why I think even the great and the hero of our times will have to have their abhorrent practice of eating what were living animals apologised for, such as we today apologise for the great people who also kept slaves, in a hundred years time.

I think it's more likely that in two hundred years time, people will say "the people of the past ate animals!" and other people will say "what's 'animals'?" and other other people will say "these things that used to live on Earth" and more people will say "at the time of St Snooki, before The Event?"

 

[angrysoba]

I think it's more likely that in two hundred years time, people will say "the people of the past ate animals!" and other people will say "what's 'animals'?" and other other people will say "these things that used to live on Earth" and more people will say "at the time of St Snooki, before The Event?"

We can hope. Ever been to the zoo? The things that make it stinky are the animals.

 

[TragicMonkey]

We can hope. Ever been to the zoo? The things that make it stinky are the animals.

Especially penguins.

 

[Darat]

And what will our ancestors make of how much we revel in our eating of penguins?

 

[Zelenius]

I think a big part why cat and dog meat is illegal is due to those animals not being unconscious automatons, but intelligent thinking organisms with a first-person point of view who can and will suffer being bred for slaughter.

Pigs are at least as intelligent as dogs, so this doesn't make sense.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And what will our ancestors make of how much we revel in our eating of penguins?

Our ancestors are already feasting on penguins in Valhalla. If you mean our descendants, they will not know what a penguin is, as those things will extinct along with the polar ice.

 

[Zelenius]

Why does being genetically similar to a human make it unethical to kill an animal?

What if there were a creature that looked nothing like a human, and had little to no genetic similarity with us, but this creature were as smart as a chimp?

Also, I don't understand why cannibalism should be inherently unethical. In certain circumstances, I think it can be the right thing to do.

Actually, for me, it's mainly emotions rather than ethics that tells me that eating similar species and cannibalism are "wrong". It's kind of like why I find incestuous sexual relationships so objectionable, even if they do not harm anyone outside(or inside) of the incestuous relationship(no pregnancy results). If a woman regularly has non-coercive sexual intercourse with her adult son(no offspring result from it), I find this very "icky", even if no harm comes from it. I may even have no problem with this being legal, so long as birth control is used.

As far as the Great Apes go, many are endangered or threatened with extinction, largely due to human activity. I think they are worth keeping around(in their natural environment) for scientific and environmental reasons. Allowing humans to eat other apes may accelerate their extinction, so it should be illegal.

I think cannibalism should only be allowed when the dead gives permission in his/her will or by other means, sort of like how organ donation requires permission from the deceased. With the exception of lawyers, for obvious reasons.

It must also be said that there really is no legitimate nutritional reason(outside of a starvation situation), in which a human has to resort to cannibalism. It doesn't fulfil a need that can't be addressed by countless other means.There are plenty of other sources of meat and protein out there; hence, a ban on cannibalism would affect the "rights" of only a tiny percentage of the population.

Can you imagine a conversation like: "Damn! Why did they have to ban cannibalism for? I wouldn't have had to spend so much money on meat after uncle Ralph died, he was a big buy, he would have lasted almost 2 weeks!"

 

[Hattrick]

I have had dog as well as feral cat. That being said I have had horse, roo, wapiti, wolf, and a few other meats that most people will never eat due to availability or aversion.

Now where I had cat was in rural china. Their protein choices were limited to beans and a little bit of meat. All the other animals that were around had a purpose to the farmers, goats for milk, chickens for eggs, yak to pull the plow, pigs to be the garbage dump. All of these in my opinion are tastier than cat, but that was the animal of least use to them to survive, and therefore became table faire.

ETA: from my experience, it was an economic choice rather than moral choice to cat. I will say they did say that as soon as the hen stopped laying eggs they are fair game for the table.

 

[DonJunbar]

I have had dog as well as feral cat. That being said I have had horse, roo, wapiti, wolf, and a few other meats that most people will never eat due to availability or aversion.

Now where I had cat was in rural china. Their protein choices were limited to beans and a little bit of meat. All the other animals that were around had a purpose to the farmers, goats for milk, chickens for eggs, yak to pull the plow, pigs to be the garbage dump. All of these in my opinion are tastier than cat, but that was the animal of least use to them to survive, and therefore became table faire.

So they were eating cats for nutrition? I'm pretty certain, outside famines, Koreans have almost exclusively eaten cats for "medicinal" reasons, and even then it's in some form where it's not recogniseable as meat.

 

[Dessi]

The fact that someone chooses to take advantage of a luxury we have, does not make them a better or worse person, simply a person who is making a different choice.

A case study:

Fairtrade cocoa, a thread discussing very young children sold into slavery to collect cocoa beans. At least one thoughtful contributor commented that the nay-sayers trying to take away his cheap chocolate are smug, self-satisfied, getting their panties in a bunch with emotional manipulating arguments that people should "think of the children". Its ok if some people don't want to eat chocolate themselves, but don't force that view on everyone! If the free market comes out with superior, less expensive product, then maybe think about switching. Until then, if it tastes good, DO IT!

That's how luxuries work. If its there, USE IT!

 

[RelativeSpace]

Actually, for me, it's mainly emotions rather than ethics that tells me that eating similar species and cannibalism are "wrong".

In that case, it's probably fair to say that it would be unfair to legislate based on that.

As far as the Great Apes go[...] Allowing humans to eat other apes may accelerate their extinction, so it should be illegal.

Poaching (which is already illegal) != farming.

It must also be said that there really is no legitimate nutritional reason(outside of a starvation situation), in which a human has to resort to cannibalism.

There's no legitimate nutritional reason in which a human has to resort to eating meat either. This is not an argument against something.

There are plenty of other sources of meat and protein out there;

You can say that for any type of meat. Dog? Plenty of other sources or meat and protein. Cat? Pig? Cow?

That's not a valid argument for banning it. That's only an argument against an imagined argument against banning it- not at all the same thing.

hence, a ban on cannibalism would affect the "rights" of only a tiny percentage of the population.

Making gay marriage illegal also only affects the rights of a small percentage of the population. Or how about red-heads? There aren't many of them- it should be fine to keep them as slaves, since that only affects the rights of such a small minority.

Again, this is not an argument.


How about real arguments for cannibalism?

Like:

Cannibalism would allow us to displace a portion of farmed meat which is damaging to the environment, and causes animal welfare concerns, thus alleviating some environmental and ethical problems.

Cannibalism would solve the problem of disposing with human remains- which is otherwise very costly to families, and the government- without burning them and releasing more greenhouse gases and wasting resources.


I don't necessarily support cannibalism, but there are more arguments for than against. The only good argument against is simple: Prions.

 

[Darat]

Our ancestors are already feasting on penguins in Valhalla. If you mean our descendants, they will not know what a penguin is, as those things will extinct along with the polar ice.

Duh!

 

[TragicMonkey]

Unless, of course, some future person finds a penguin trapped in amber, and clones it for a theme park. Splice in some alien DNA to fill any missing bits, what could go wrong? 2525: The Ides Of March Of The Penguins. Fishbreathed doom comes waddling over humanity!

 

[Hattrick]

So they were eating cats for nutrition? I'm pretty certain, outside famines, Koreans have almost exclusively eaten cats for "medicinal" reasons, and even then it's in some form where it's not recogniseable as meat.

The Chinese did, I have no idea about the Koreans.

 

[Nihilianth]

No, it isn't. That's just the practice you prefer. Can I assume you're some kind of Ayn Rand Objectivist, Satanist, or libertarian?

That's not best practice at all- that's called chaos.

When one neighbor morally offends another (who loves and owns cats), by skinning live cats in the yard for giggles, he's going to get it- and in a non-legal way.

Even in the U.S. there are restrictions on "free speech" that take that form, and moral offense is even more likely to provoke action than verbal offense.

It makes practical social sense to ban extreme deviation from social morals- particularly crimes that are certainly *not* victimless, whether or not that victim is in the social contract, because other people care about it.

It's why slavery and infanticide are outlawed, and it's why women have rights- despite all of these individuals being, or having been, disenfranchized from the social contract at one point.

If you're advocating a society based strictly on social contract, you should at least understand what you're actually advocating. I assure you, it is not a society you would want to live in.

Slaver? Infanticide? Skinning cats alive? Wait a second here, dude! sadhatter wasn't commenting on any of those things. He was commenting on whether or not people should eat meat! lol.

His position, clearly stated as I read it, was that nobody should force another person to abstain from eating....whatever it is they want to eat (other than other people.) That is not saying the same thing as allowing slavery, if some people want to own other people. Completely different topics altogether. I believe you would call that a "slippery slope" argument in any case.

However, I find it morally repugnant that a vegetarian is going around lecturing meat eaters about how morally corrupt it is to eat animals. We do have canine teeth for a reason, ya know.....

 

[deaman]

A dose of reality.

Many people are squeamish about eating dogs and cats, because they grew up with them in a domesticated manner, where the pets in the family, were considered an important "part" of the family.

We wouldn't think of eating Aunt Martha in a pot pie, nor would we consider Fiddo for taco filling.

However, the "humane" aspect is a little puzzling.

We all know that cows and chickens are treated, in some cases, very inhumanely by the industries that process them for consumption. (Just Google, or YouTube the subject.)

So the reality seems to be: As long as the food is unfamiliar and far away during the inhumane processing, it's cool.

Try to process and feed me "my cat", in my kitchen and I get really upset and "we" have a problem!

Of course there are those who live by their morals and only eat vegetables. Good for them. But, that philosophy is not what everybody believes, and it certainly isn't a reality that people will quit eating meat anytime soon.

 

[Dessi]

We do have canine teeth for a reason, ya know.....

I find it alarming that self-identified skeptics fall back on fallacious appeals to nature so readily.

 

[asydhouse]

Those are not arguments for cannibalism. You have simply made the point that the meat industry is a major source of CO2 and a daily holocaust of slaughter.... in the case of pigs, the slaughter of highly intelligent animals. The notion that we need cannibalism to reduce the amount of meat people choose to eat is ridiculous. We are not biologically bound to eating meat.

And it would be far better to use human corpses as fertiliser for the growing of nut trees etc. The year after we buried our cat at the foot of the apple tree, we had a bumper harvest of apples.... ok maybe that was the only year we've had perfect growing conditions in the 13 years we have lived here (I don't know)...

You said it: prions. So, save the cannibalism for the lifeboats.