Ethically speaking, what's the difference between eating a dog and eating a pig?

Question

Or between eating a cat and eating a bunny? Basically, in ethical and logical terms, what justification is there to consider some animals food and others pets or simply non-food? What credibility is there to an Animal Welfare Act that allows atrocities to be commited against cows, pigs, chickens and so many more that would be considered criminal and barbaric if commited against cats or dogs?

So, michelle, according to you, the definition of pet is an animal that is sold at a pet store...? OK. And that is relevant to this question how? Or are you trying to say that only those animals deserve ethical consideration? I bet you're not even aware that when you buy animals from a pet store you're more often than not actually supporting the suffering of countless dogs and other animals you cherish because they're considered pets. I bet you have no idea what goes on in puppy mills, or even what they are!

Really, if you're just commenting to show your ignorance, why bother?

I should add that it's a confirmed fact that pigs are actually smarter than dogs. Chickens are also quite intelligent too, as several studies have prooved. And as for the cuddliness... what about bunnies? I can't think of many cuddlier animals. Not that it could be considered an objective criteria anyway, but just for the ones who see things like that.

Answer 1

There is no difference.

I notice many people are saying its a cultural difference, they are not answering your question. Maybe they don't want to think about it too much in case thier moral fabric collapses.

people create a shield and try to pretend that somehow farm animals are not the same. Its just a defensive strategy to hide from all the pain, torture, abuse and death that meat-eaters pay for.

If people really accepted the truth about animals they would stop eating them. Unfortunately, modern farming allows people to keep away from the screams.

We have pet cows, sheep and chickens on our land and you can be quite sure that they have character, feelings, thought, suffer pain, enjoy playing, enjoy companionship....

I do thing its rather strange that because they are too big to be in a house as a pet that somehow humans value these animals lives less - it seems a bit of a random reason to me.

Answer 2

Ethics in this case is personal ,you say "atrocities" against cows chickens etc.If someone would prefer to eat dogs and cats do so in a manner that does not differ than the existing practises used for harvesting beef or chicken in doing that you have not eaten pets you have eaten livestock and the only justification you need is that you prefered the taste.The fact of the matter is that most meat is potential food and eating meat is primal i would tend to think that beef and chicken was originally eaten because of the amount meat on cattle and the ease of catching chicken and then as time progressed farming them and other so called food animals and then it just becomes common place and widely accepted but it is only ignorant people that cant justify any meat as potential food Even if it barks or is very cute

Answer 3

Ethically, no difference at all. The only justification is social acceptance in your community (however large that is). On a global scale, in order not to offend anyone, we would not eat cat, dog, cow, horse, pig or in fact most animals. On a global scale cat, dog, cow, horse and pig (and more) are all eaten and accepted (albeit only locally in some cases) as legitimate food sources.

Atrocity against man or beast should be discouraged at all levels.

Answer 4

There are some nutritional differences, i.e., like eating steak instead of chicken. But, It comes down to a matter of culture chief. In the US, we view cats and dogs as extended family, hence it makes it more difficult to buy a rump roast dog or cat. Eating rabbits are not as bad because they are not common housepets, but, they are perceived as cute animals and have been infused into popular culture (bugs bunny) and are rarely found in any grocery store in the U.S. It comes down to culture.

Answer 5

Technically speaking laws are written from a bias... if you start from the beginning you can assign all animals equal rights and protection from killings.

But you also have to look at the fact that, politics and ethics aside, we are biological ominovores and we choose different animals, by culture, to eat. You cannot legislate vegan diet to all the world's populations. You can, however, legislate kinder means of killing for food consumption.

Answer 6

I guess the thinking is that certain animals were domesticated over time for the sole purpose of being a food source, so of course we feel ok about eating them. Others were domesticated to be pets and working companions, so they aren't ok to eat. I guess the idea of eating animals that live in our homes, hunt with us and such, just doesn't sit well with most people.

Answer 7

Many meat eaters were raised with dogs and cats; I for one was, but I'm vegan now. So they see farm animals differently from pets.

The USA is going to the...the...HUMANS! (I won't say dogs, as dogs would rule this nation better than we do.) Yeah. The USA is going to the humans, because we discriminate against so many species. Why? For the sake of protein (which would easily be obtained elsewhere) and for tastebuds.

Answer 8

None really and it depends on your culture and how you were brought up. In some cultures that Big Mac would be blasphamous! Plus when one is REALLY hungry, meat is meat. In some Native American cultures (not now, but centuries ago), the dogs were used to carry belongings but if times got tough--dinner. Most of us don't have to experience the killing and butchering of our meat and only see animals "Disney" style.

Answer 9

There is no difference at all. The animals we commonly keep as pets are just lucky enough to be too cute or personable or easy for us to include in our daily domesticated lives for us to see them as food. Unfortunately, humans tend to value animals only by what benefit they serve to us, instead of having value of their own unrelated to us. It's something that so many of them have paid too dearly for.

Answer 10

Our barbaric ancestors were cannibals. They ate their own kind. As the humanity progressed further, some decided it is not right to eat people from the same tribe. Later it was adopted that eating human beings is altogether uncivilized.

When we consider the evolution of the species, we can relate to other animals as well. So it can be deduced that as we become more and more civilized, we will exclude various living beings from our diet, according to their closeness in relation to us. Finally a day will come when we will be able to produce food without killing any beings, including plants.

The way of life of people of India will give you a good idea about the practice of excluding meat in diet as people become more and more civilized.

20–42% of the population in India (one fifth of the entire human race) is lacto-vegetarians. They do not consume meat of any kind of animals. When asked, You guys consume milk and milk products, why not the meat of the animal that gives you milk? one Indian answered, "I drank my mother's milk as a child, do you expect me to eat her meat when she dies?"

Of the rest of the population of India, about half consume fish and fowl but never eat any mammals. To eat things that are similar to us in anatomy is not okay to them. It is a mis conception that this applies to cows only. This section of population do not eat any mammals, including goat, hunted animals etc.

The rest of the Indians are regular meat eaters, and they eat fish, fowl and mammals.

India is Hindu 80.5%, Muslim 13.1%, Christian 2.31% and Buddhists 1.05%.

You can also observe that those that are better off in the society are mostly vegetarians, the middle class eat fish and fowl and the poor people eat all kind of meat.

Please note that I am not talking about the small section of westernized, highly successful people of India. These figures are that of the general population.

Now to answer your question, if it seems to you dogs are related to human beings more closely than pigs, you will rather eat pig than dog.

The show of emotion, the way of life and the general social relations of animals to human beings count more than the scientific (genetic) closeness. That is why you find people hesitate to eat dog and horse meat in some cultures.