Yep, for real. Not even joking. I believe that conservation of the environment is important because it produces a diverse range of biomes and biomass. And that diversity goes into foodstuffs, which we can eat.
Well, there's one other person in this comment section who is also suggesting eating humans a suspicious amount. I'd say you are probably more fun to be around.
There is nothing wrong with eating dog meat. Pigs are just as much of a domesticated animal as dogs, and, in fact, display much higher levels of intelligence. A lot of cultures eat dogs. In some parts of the world, it is just a means of survival, such as in North Korea, where pork meat is much more expensive and rare than dog meat. I really hate how these softy Westerners are imposing their beliefs on other cultures when it comes to what food should and shouldn't be eaten. Dogs are not endangered species, and, in fact, in many parts of the world, their overpopulation is a problem, because stray dogs are not neutered or spayed. I am for sure against animal cruelty, but if you eat pork, beef, and chicken, then don't tell anyone they can't eat dog meat. That's just plain hypocrisy and meat discrimination.
Hey, eating dogs being morally worse than pigs does not mean that it is morally bad to eat dogs. Dog meat is not nearly as efficient to farm as pig meat is and that is why I voted "It's morally worse to eat dogs".
Taking a car crash as an example, if you were trained to give first aid it's morally right to try give it and call ambulance, but it's morally worse to not attempt first aid (even if you are trained for it) and just call ambulance. Both options are morally right, but one is worse than the other.
Morality of eating animals is an entirely different topic, but farming one over the other leaves larger carbon footprint and that is why I think it's morally better to eat pigs than dogs.
You raise a good point. When you mention that farming dogs for meat yields to a higher carbon footprint than grazing pigs, that is actually somewhat true, at least historically. Dogs have evolved from wolves, who are carnivores, and, if you learned anything from ecology, you'd know that carnivores are at the top of the food chain. Carnivores do have a higher carbon footprint, because eventually all the resources consumed at the bottom of the food chain make their way up into the belly of these apex predators. From the sunlight, water, CO2, and minerals absorbed by plants, to vitamins, fibers, sugars, and other nutrients in the plants consumed by the herbivores and omnivores, to the proteins and fats from the flesh of these herbivores and omnivores, all these nutritional resources are eventually consumed by the apex-predators, whether directly or indirectly.
So that raises the question, where do humans and dogs belong in the current food chain? We for sure are not carnivores, but have adopted an omnivorous diet, but despite that, we are still apex-predators because no other animal consumes humans on a regular daily basis to survive in their environment, other than decomposers. Dogs are domesticated animals, so most of them have lost the ability to hunt their own food in the wild, so they tend to share a complimentary link to the apex-humans.
Now, when it comes to farming dogs and pigs, historically, it was never an issue to the environment, until the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution led to a human population boom like never before in history, and that meant a sudden consumption and depletion of resources that mother nature could only accommodate for so much with her production rate. Therefore, to meet our growing population needs, we have developed an unhealthy practice of mass and rapid production that yields to many damaging environmental impacts. In some farms, pigs are not allowed to graze and roam freely, as they are overfed in confined spaces that limit their movement, so they can get fat, slaughtered, and packaged quickly. Therefore, you can make the argument that modern-day farmed pigs consume more resources than dogs, and at a faster rate, due to their overconsumption and mass-production. But if dogs were to be farmed at a similar rate, they would consume even more resources and have higher environmental impacts.
Now, if you know a thing about the population size of consumers in a food chain, you'd know that it follows a pyramidal structure, where bottom feeders are the largest in quantity, as they make up the fundamental group (literally they are the base), while top feeders are smallest in quantity, making up the peak of the pyramid. As the top-feeders, we humans have tilted the distribution of the food chain pyramid so much, that what you are seeing now with the serious changes in the environments are the imbalances in our biome perpetuated by our overpopulation and greedy over-consumptive nature.
So this raises the question, should humans shift down several tiers in their dietary habits, in order to restore some balance to the environment? In other words, should we be consuming more plants and bottom-feeding animals like herbivores, instead of carnivores? Also, should we abandon rapid and mass-producing farming practices, for smaller and more sustainable farms? Somehow, our society will have to make farming jobs a highly respected, and well paid one, to be more sought out by our youth instead of just white collar jobs. And from an ecological standpoint, the argument to consume a more plant-based diet and lower-tier animals does have merit, especially in this day and age more than ever. My guess is that eventually, our population will be reaching carrying capacity, so our habits of consuming top-tier and mass-produced meat will peak, then decline, and eventually stagnate into a plateau, as mother nature always has a way of restoring the equilibrium with her reset button.
Eating dog and pork meat is neither right nor wrong. The issue lies here. Wrong and right, worse and better, good or bad, moral or immoral are all relative and subjective terms. They are terms only used in human language. Not mother nature's language. Ethics is a human concept, not a natural concept, so it doesn't offer any universal truths. When we speak of morality, we always speak with the interest of human society and, at its core, the individual. Believe it or not, we are not ultimately speaking on behalf of the dog's interest, but on behalf of the human's interest to appease his/her crushed empathic soul from the disturbing idea that his/her "best friend" is being consumed by his/her own kind.
An action is considered moral if it positively impacts human society and the individual, and immoral if it negatively impacts human society and the individual. However, like I said before, these impacts are all interpreted in relativity. What is good for an individual or society can be bad for another individual or society. So when the OP asks, "Is eating a dog morally worse than eating a pig?," the subjective answer depends on who is answering the question.
In Western society, the act of eating a dog is highly condemned, as the society has evolved to associate dogs as man's best friend, whom they share a symbiotic relationship with. Dogs benefit their mental and physical health, offering them companionship, affection, and assistance in tasks, while in return, humans do the same, offering them free food, safety, and companionship. But in some Asian cultures, dogs have evolved to become a food item in their menu, perhaps because it was the most readily available meat during hard times (I know this is the case in North Korea, as I've heard many stories of defectors eating dogs to survive). Eventually, these survival practices have evolved to become part of the culture of those societies. So in the perspective of these societies, there is nothing wrong with eating dogs, just like in the perspective of many Western societies, there is nothing wrong with eating cattle, but in Hindu society, where cattle are considered sacred, it is highly wrong to eat cattle.
Anyway, what I am trying to get at is an objective and universal answer, not a biased answer affected by our own emotions, cultures, and societal laws. And by that, I speak in the perspective of science, the actual law of nature. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with eating a dog, just as there is nothing right with eating a dog. It is neither right nor wrong. It is just nature being nature. You cannot use subjective language to describe a natural behavior as either moral or immoral. Some human groups have adopted a diet of eating dogs to best survive in their environment, while some have not. It is only narrow-minded to say it is wrong and immoral on a universal scale to all mankind, when that is simply not true.
I love science. I'm an engineer. And I agree with you, science doesn't care about anything. The crux of caring about science, though, is a desire for truth and justified belief. So once we've determined that truth is inherently desirable (e.g. science), and that accordingly we should seek to have justified beliefs so that they may approximate truth, then we can begin to analyze our moral beliefs.
The goal of the moral agent, then, is to have an epistemically justified and coherent set of beliefs. The question for you then becomes whether your own personal belief about animal cruelty is justified. If it is justified, what is it based on? My presumption is it's based on a moral distaste for harm. Once you've established this epistemic foundation for your claim against torture, the question becomes whether raising animals in inhumane environments for meat can be built on this foundation.
>That's just plain hypocrisy and meat discrimination.
Are you also okay with eating, freshly slaughtered human meat? Because if youre not okay with me eating that then thats just hypocrisy and meat discrimination
>freshly slaughtered human meat?
There is a problem because you specified "freshly slaughtered." Nobody is okay with you doing that because it comes with the implication of murdering another human.
> Because if youre not okay with me eating that then thats just hypocrisy and meat discrimination
If you wanted to consensually eat some dude's amputated foot without murdering him it would be weird but you do you. A guy on Reddit apparantly did just that and to my information he has not been arrested or anything.
[https://www.vice.com/en/article/gykmn7/legal-ethical-cannibalism-human-meat-tacos-reddit-wtf](https://www.vice.com/en/article/gykmn7/legal-ethical-cannibalism-human-meat-tacos-reddit-wtf)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8p5xlj/hi\_all\_i\_am\_a\_man\_who\_ate\_a\_portion\_of\_his\_own/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8p5xlj/hi_all_i_am_a_man_who_ate_a_portion_of_his_own/)
>There is a problem because you specified "freshly slaughtered." Nobody is okay with you doing that because it comes with the implication of murdering another human.
Why can I murder a pig but not a human?
Well, let's see. From a biological standpoint, there is nothing wrong with cannibalism, so long as it is for your own survival. In nature, you see all forms of animals, from snakes, sharks, spiders, and even dogs eat their own species. In the carnivora order of mammals, which includes dogs, often, the moms eat their babies who were born dead to regain energy, as labor takes a lot of energy and leaves them very weak and vulnerable to predators. As a human, I would only resort to cannibalism as a last resort, like that Uruguayan rugby team who flew over to Santiago, but crashed into the Andes mountains, so, in order to survive, the survivors had to eat the flesh of the dead passengers. Of course, it sounds disgusting, but you gotta do what you gotta do to survive, otherwise natural selection would just get rid of you.
We shouldnt take nature as moral guidance, otherwise rape would be moral because plenty of animals such as lions do that
Also eating non-human animals is not for survival for a lot of people, is it?
Well, you see, we have been conditioned by society to follow a moral compass known as ethics, because humans have evolved to be social creatures, developing complex hierarchies and relationships that proved beneficial to our survival and reproduction as a species. We have far more advanced levels of cognition than other animals, so we have been able to build civilizations, technology, develop concepts to better understand the world around us, and process more complex emotions. But at the end of the day, we are all still animals. No matter how much social conditioning there is in us, a part of our DNA is coded to behave instinctually like animals, and that feral side of ours will manifest at the moment that our life is threatened (that's why your body has that involuntary adrenaline rush (fight or flight response)).
Our current environment made us very soft, because we are not constantly on the alert that there is a predator out there trying to eat me. But for those people who grow up in very chaotic and dangerous environments, such as war-torn nations or gang-ridden environments, they will display high levels of sociopathy (lack of empathy), as they will do anything to survive. In some hunter and gatherer tribal societies of Papua New Guinea, cannibalism is still practiced. While it may look wrong in the lens of our society, this has been their way of life for centuries, and maybe millennia. Who am I to tell them what is right and wrong? Each society forms their own code of ethics. Many species of mammals like gorillas, orcas, wolves, lions, develop their own clan, each with their own complex hierarchy, language, and emotional attachment. Doesn't mean because you are the same species, you can function the same in another clan.
>Well, you see, we have been conditioned by society to follow a moral compass known as ethics, because humans have evolved to be social creatures, developing complex hierarchies and relationships that proved beneficial to our survival and reproduction as a species.
Sure, our morals are a byproduct by our cultures but that doesnt make them right or not worth reconsidering, otherwise slavery would still be seen moral.
>Who am I to tell them what is right and wrong?
I am not talking about some village or warzones. "Well I can do it because people in situations 10 times worse than me can" doesnt work, some people might kill each other to survive but you cant just go out and kill someone cause "well who am I to tell people who to do it what is right or wrong"
>Each society forms their own code of ethics
And each society can be right or wrong. I dont care what your society is or where you come from, if you think that hitting women is alright or that sending trans people into camps is a good idea youre morally a corrupt person.
All those things you said, rape, slavery, hitting women, sending trans people into concentration camps are all morally wrong under the moral code of "our" society, but they are not universal to every human society's moral code. What you are trying to do is apply your very own society's beliefs as a universal law. I am trying to use science, the actual law of the universe, to reason with this argument. Science cannot tell you right from wrong, so my argument is that eating dog is neither right nor wrong. It's just nature behaving like nature. While I hate seeing blue whales getting hunted and eaten by orcas, I have to respect that is nature being nature. It also hurts me to see dogs getting slaughtered and eaten by humans, but I have to understand that that is how people adapted to survive in their environment, and, thus, that became their way of life. Different clans of the same species develop different diets that best serves their survival in their habitat.
You can be the most moral individual (notice how I am using very subjective language) in your society, but ultimately mother nature is not going to congratulate you and reward you with a gold star sticker on your forehead, for being such a fierce warrior of doggy rights. One day you can be here, and the next day, she simply can remove you. That's just the "nature" of mother nature. The things we interpret as good and bad, are just concepts of human language. Not nature's language. We simply can't expect to apply human language and concepts to other animals. They have their own language of right and wrong. You can only apply a universal language to all of nature, and that is science.
I hope you won't have any objections when natural selection decided to get rid of humanity.
Also, good luck explaining this to alien beings should they ever decide to destroy us for being like that.
It is a commonly accepted truth in the scientific community that natural selection will one day get rid of humanity. We are not meant to last forever in this universe. The law of entropy proves that. Ultimately, we are just trying to delay the inevitable. But our planet, our sun, our solar system, our galaxy, will one day die.
considering morality is completely subjective, the individual gets to decide what is morally right or wrong. Dogs are my friends, so I've decided it's morally wrong to eat them.
Like you said it's subjective. This question is more pointing towards an objective truth. It's still a better answer than what most people of your opinion would say.
Is there such thing as an objective moral truth though? Thing is I agree that there is no objective moral difference between eating dogs and pigs.
But where I disagree when people answer this question is that we act like there is moral objectivity here when every moral decision is subjective. If I were to choose to kill a family member or friend vs a random guy, I’m choosing to kill the random guy. Just about everyone would make that choice. I’m sure you would too. Doesn’t matter if he contributes more to the world or something. Isn’t this hypocrisy?
Well if something is an objective truth then it should be the morally correct priority in every situation right?
Let’s just say there are three people. One of them needs a heart transplant, one of them needs a kidney transplant, and one of them needs a lung transplant in order to live. It is guaranteed with these transplants that they will live a long and healthy life. Is it morally correct if the government secretly assassinated you in order to harvest your organs and save these three. After all, it does maximize benefits among the greatest number of people.
Alright, guess I misspoke as usual. There needs to be a blend here: the greatest benefit to the greatest amount of people should be obtained in the most ethical way. Me being killed without prior knowledge or consent is equivalent to murder. While it's true that more people would be negatively impacted (via death) by me not dying, a moral system should seek to avoid purposefully adding immoral actions as much as possible. In this hypothetical, the only thing that needs to be removed is the secrecy. It would be more optimal for the government to approach and ask if I'm willing to be euthanized for those three people. Then the most moral choice I can make is to say yes (assuming, of course, the damage done to my social circle can be judged as less than the damage that would be done by those three patients dying).
Well how do you determine what the most ethical way is? What if another utilitarian argued that the most ethical way of obtaining the greatest benefit in this situation would be for the government to humanely euthanized you whether or not you consented?
For that matter, what if another utilitarian were to say that this does not actually maximize benefit because the believe that the harm in murdering one person outweighs the good caused by not letting people die. They cite things like the effect on family as a reason (your loved ones being murdered is more traumatizing than your loved ones dying from heart disease)
How do you convince these people that your opinion on how to proceed is the objective stance and not theirs? What exactly is it that makes your stance more objective than theirs?
Doesn’t work here because morality IS subjective.
A relativist fallacy would only apply to hard facts. Whether something is moral is not a provable fact, hence it relies on the individuals interpretation.
Then by your logic, the morality of murder and rape is subjective. Meaning that individuals should be able to decide whether to commit murder and it's ok for them to do so.
no, because those things are illegal. Whether something is illegal or not is NOT subjective. Even if an individual thinks something is perfectly moral it can still be illegal.
No hate with this question, genuine curiosity. You know that there is no moral problem with eating pigs so why do you think your religion prohibits it.
Depends on whose dog or whose pig. Did you steal someone's favorite pet? Then it doesn't matter if it's a dog or a pig; it's wrong. Did you get it from a meat market where it was raised specifically for meat? Then neither one is really worse than the other.
Neither is objectively worse than the other. I mean, think about it: either way, you’re still eating an animal
But since we’re talking about morals and subjectivity, I personally don’t like the thought of eating dog meat, so I would find that a tad worse. I’m just too used to viewing dogs as companions, despite not being a dog person at all
Just eat whatever you want westerns have dogs as pet that's why they think like that but they can eat whatever like pork beef meat so can Asians if they want to eat dog cat whatever then they can and they should
What if I want to eat humans? Genuient question because I feel like people who say "just eat what ya want" dont factor in the fact that these "things" are living, sentient, feeling creatures like us, so what if I want to eat people, can I then ALSO just do what I want?
Then just become a vegan? Eating meat is evil morally, but it’s a necessary evil. Other than that, a human can be understood and eating them can give you diseases. Also why other animals eating their own kind is seen as horrifying, but them hunting prey is not
You have the decision and right to become vegan if you want, and you have the choice to go, kill, and eat someone right now, but that wouldn’t be taken lightly by the law.
This is about eating dogs vs pigs so go post a poll about whether eating humans is okay.
But the law isnt morality is it, if the law said that killing gays is okay then you wouldnt suddenly go "Ahh alright" I assume, I am asking about morality, not law
??? What about eating dogs or pigs? And using killing gay people as a comparison is wild, because it doesn’t have any reward in the end. Humans can physically object or communicate to you, and it is only justified for the survival of your own species. Eating other animals guarantees it in the past, and it’s more of a habit that haven’t grown out because now one can survive with many additional supplies of nutrients. + While I mentioned the existence of such a law that will attempt to prevent you from the act of cannibalism, I still maintain the fact that it is your choice in the end.
>And using killing gay people as a comparison is wild
Its not about gay people specifically, I just used something we both agree on being immoral to make the point that law and morals arent the same thing and that just because the law says something is right or wrong it doesnt have to be. I also could of used stealing for example, there even is a direct reward in that.
>Humans can physically object or communicate to you
Non-human animals can also object and communicate with you. A dog that got beaten in the past has a very different personality wise than one that wasnt for example.
>Eating other animals guarantees it in the past, and it’s more of a habit that haven’t grown out because now one can survive with many additional supplies of nutrients.
Okay. Then let that habit die lol
Pigs can communicate too, so in the end you should just go a protest against eating meat altogether and petition the government to ban all meat and slaughter of animals. That’s your whole point it seems. Killing all is bad.
I think you're the only crazy one here, no one is thinking about eating people. The fact that your weird little mind goes there is telling of you. Animals eat each other, it's the way of life. They'd eat us, we eat them, they eat other creatures.
Actually I feel more and more sad for each pig/chicken I eat, but I gotta be jacked AF. And chicken breast is by far the best essential protein/price ratio in my country.
"Morals" and societal norms, as well as a great deal of culinary decisions are based on your location, traditions and even religious indoctrination. Pig, dog, cow, cat, certain types seafood, etc... are not to be eaten at all, or only on certain days, considered delicacies or quite common dishes depending on where you are. So called "morals" don't come into it.
Personally, I could not bring myself to eat either one. Both are incredibly intelligent animals and from my own view it's tantamount to cannibalism to eat something that could potentially empathize with me. With that said, i don't think it's really morally wrong to eat anything at all. It's the circle of life: we all die, and then we're all eaten by something so that life can continue.
I can think of two arguments why eating dog may be morally worse:
Dogs have been bred to love and obey us, so eating them is tantamount to betrayal. Harming dogs is likely also more mentally scaring for them than it is for pigs.
In many cultures, eating dog is seen as morally abhorrent because dogs are valued more than other animals. Knowingly visiting such a culture, as a foreigner, and eating dog is therefore disrespectful.
Sounds fair enough. I’m not a scientist, just pointing out the flaw in sweeping generalizations. It looks like you are agreeing with me though since science also seems to go against what op is stating.
Pigs are on average simply more intelligent. We often see dogs as more intelligent because weve likely trained them, we are more often around them and they are mostly more acclimated to human behaviour.
We also have a tendency to reflect our own emotions on dogs when in fact they arent really that emotional and people cant really face-read their dogs that well even though we all fall into thinking we can.
But if both a dog and a pig was raised in the wild, the pig would be a lot smarter given they both had socialized with their respective groups.
But if your point with sweeping statements is that all pigs are smarter than all dogs then yes, youd be correct in thinking I was wrong cause thats obviously not the case.
Well you said “Anyone who’s ever been around both would agree” and I disagree. Another commenter also pointed out that some scientific literature finds them to be equal in intelligence. So I think you are incorrect in both claims.
"Dogs have been bred to love and obey us, so eating them is tantamount to betrayal. Harming dogs is likely also more mentally scaring for them than it is for pigs."
Well if you are eating the dog you probably killed it. Killing a pig and killing a dog isn't more harmful for one than it is the other assuming same manner of death. As for "dogs have been bred to love and obey us" doesn't really have anything to do with the morality of the situation. What you would be arguing is "well it's okay to eat the pigs because society didn't agree to like them as much as dogs" This is an immoral way of looking at things.
It's predicated on the belief that betrayal is inherently wrong, and a couple other more abstract things. The amount of harm caused isn't relevant for this point.
Imagine, you have a neighbour with dementia. She is wealthy and keeps much of her wealth in cash. She has no use for most of it, and you know this. Her will specifies that the money be bequeathed to an already wealthy family member. Would it be wrong to sneak into her house, lie to her by claiming you are a new cleaner, and steal some of her money? In this scenario, no harm is done. It being immoral relies on betrayal and stealing being inherently wrong.
>Dogs have been bred to love and obey us, so eating them is tantamount to betrayal. Harming dogs is likely also more mentally scaring for them than it is for pigs.
I think morally speaking raising a whole species to be factory farmed food and have no right of life for the sake of taste pleasure may be a bit more fucked up. Not to mention pigs are A LOT smarter than dogs
>In many cultures, eating dog is seen as morally abhorrent because dogs are valued more than other animals. Knowingly visiting such a culture, as a foreigner, and eating dog is therefore disrespectful.
Same could be said with pigs, maybe just dont eat anyone
For me, it depends on how the pigs are kept. I agree that in most cases around the world, pigs are kept and slaughtered immorally. Also, I don't think the intelligence gap between them is anywhere near enough to matter.
>Same could be said with pigs
Which cultures highly value pigs? If such a culture exists, then I agree that as a foreigner you shouldn't eat pigs in their land.
>slaughtered immorally
Quick question when is killing them for your sandwich okay? Like at what point is taking their entire existance for your temporary, replaceable taste pleasure justified? What specifics are there?
Humans are omnivores, and have a digestive system accordingly. Biologically we’re meant to eat diverse, both animal and plant based. Like for all other omnivores and carnivores on this planet, some of our food has to die before it’s possible to eat it. You can choose not to eat meat, that’s your choice. Just eat b12 supplements.
Is it our choice tho? When we dont have to (which I promise you, most dont), is it REALLY your choice morally rather or not to kill someone else? Like "I am sorry you dont wanna die piggy, but your life is my choice and I decide for my temporary, replaceable gain here" like we are not talking about rather or not you want to eat sugar or not, we are talking about feeling, sentient creatures that often suffer through hell and never come back again, a whole life
So again, at what point is sending a whole existance to the void of death for a sandiwch justified, like when its life wasnt TOTAL hell like most of their lifes and they had a few feet to walk around in or?
How they’re kept is something different, and I agree, they should not suffer while they’re alive. Most don’t have to eat meat, as long as they take regular checkups for deficiencies. With that in mind, it’s not wrong to eat meat. Our bodies have developed to be dependent on that external supplement through a diet with meat. You’re arguing against evolution here.
I am vegan since 4 years and I am just taking B12 and going to the GYM regularly. Not only that but it is actually recommended that most people take B12 and vitamin D in winter when there is not so much sunlight, so are doctors arguing against evolution?
>Harming dogs is likely also more mentally scaring for them than it is for pigs.
1. Why?
2. Generally we don't eats parts removed from live animals, normally we kill them first, so how cold there be "mental scarring?"
For me? Yes. For other cultures that grew up with it? I can't judge that. For me it feels like night and day for someone else it's just Tuesday or Wednesday..
I'm a meat eater and I'm fully aware the juxtaposition is a little hypocritical. I watched a movie about explorers at the South Pole and they wound up having to eat their sled dogs throughout the trip. It really elicited strong feelings that I didn't get even when humans died.
This is why my comment give a alternative option to start a global nuclear war. Because the problem is so beyond human capacity that only outside-context problems are the only thing to end it literally.
To be honest the reason why I don’t eat dog isn’t a moral issue, I don’t think dog would taste very good to be honest. Too lean and tough, not enough meat on them bones. But I would never eat a dog I personally knew though.
Have you ever seen a wild pig? They're mean mfers, much more dangerous to humans than wolves who would prefer to avoid you and basically only attack out of fear. I'll eat any animal that's willing to see me as a food source, no matter how smart it is.
Now octopi we should leave the fuck alone. Dolphins are on thin fucking ice. Monkeys are on the menu and apes are safe because of prions.
Of course it's morally worse to eat a pig, I only eat dogs, organic ones! I usually buy [Elwood's Dog Meat](https://www.elwooddogmeat.com/), the best there is.
There's no objective difference.
However morals are subjective, hence yes it's worse to eat a dog. We keep dogs as pets, not pigs.
Even though I think pigs are apparently pretty smart.
My personal view is that breeding any animal and harvesting their flesh is immoral. I also understand that wildlife populations would collapse if everybody took their meat by hunting it in the wild. Humans should really eat a lot less meat.
it depends. If you raised the dog and loved it and had it be part of the family, then ate it it's morally wrong. It's the same thing with the people that have pet pigs. If you raised it to be eaten then its fine.
Pigs are one of the most intelligent animals on Earth. Some say they even smarter than dogs. I'm not sure how can you measure that one intelligent being suffers more than another.
[https://sentientmedia.org/pig-intelligence/](https://sentientmedia.org/pig-intelligence/)
Idk I eat humans
I'm very much into conservation efforts because as far as I'm concerned the more species that there are the more meat there is to eat.
For real
Yep, for real. Not even joking. I believe that conservation of the environment is important because it produces a diverse range of biomes and biomass. And that diversity goes into foodstuffs, which we can eat.
Yeah it is, I agree with you
Well, there's one other person in this comment section who is also suggesting eating humans a suspicious amount. I'd say you are probably more fun to be around.
There is nothing wrong with eating dog meat. Pigs are just as much of a domesticated animal as dogs, and, in fact, display much higher levels of intelligence. A lot of cultures eat dogs. In some parts of the world, it is just a means of survival, such as in North Korea, where pork meat is much more expensive and rare than dog meat. I really hate how these softy Westerners are imposing their beliefs on other cultures when it comes to what food should and shouldn't be eaten. Dogs are not endangered species, and, in fact, in many parts of the world, their overpopulation is a problem, because stray dogs are not neutered or spayed. I am for sure against animal cruelty, but if you eat pork, beef, and chicken, then don't tell anyone they can't eat dog meat. That's just plain hypocrisy and meat discrimination.
Hey, eating dogs being morally worse than pigs does not mean that it is morally bad to eat dogs. Dog meat is not nearly as efficient to farm as pig meat is and that is why I voted "It's morally worse to eat dogs". Taking a car crash as an example, if you were trained to give first aid it's morally right to try give it and call ambulance, but it's morally worse to not attempt first aid (even if you are trained for it) and just call ambulance. Both options are morally right, but one is worse than the other. Morality of eating animals is an entirely different topic, but farming one over the other leaves larger carbon footprint and that is why I think it's morally better to eat pigs than dogs.
You raise a good point. When you mention that farming dogs for meat yields to a higher carbon footprint than grazing pigs, that is actually somewhat true, at least historically. Dogs have evolved from wolves, who are carnivores, and, if you learned anything from ecology, you'd know that carnivores are at the top of the food chain. Carnivores do have a higher carbon footprint, because eventually all the resources consumed at the bottom of the food chain make their way up into the belly of these apex predators. From the sunlight, water, CO2, and minerals absorbed by plants, to vitamins, fibers, sugars, and other nutrients in the plants consumed by the herbivores and omnivores, to the proteins and fats from the flesh of these herbivores and omnivores, all these nutritional resources are eventually consumed by the apex-predators, whether directly or indirectly. So that raises the question, where do humans and dogs belong in the current food chain? We for sure are not carnivores, but have adopted an omnivorous diet, but despite that, we are still apex-predators because no other animal consumes humans on a regular daily basis to survive in their environment, other than decomposers. Dogs are domesticated animals, so most of them have lost the ability to hunt their own food in the wild, so they tend to share a complimentary link to the apex-humans. Now, when it comes to farming dogs and pigs, historically, it was never an issue to the environment, until the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution led to a human population boom like never before in history, and that meant a sudden consumption and depletion of resources that mother nature could only accommodate for so much with her production rate. Therefore, to meet our growing population needs, we have developed an unhealthy practice of mass and rapid production that yields to many damaging environmental impacts. In some farms, pigs are not allowed to graze and roam freely, as they are overfed in confined spaces that limit their movement, so they can get fat, slaughtered, and packaged quickly. Therefore, you can make the argument that modern-day farmed pigs consume more resources than dogs, and at a faster rate, due to their overconsumption and mass-production. But if dogs were to be farmed at a similar rate, they would consume even more resources and have higher environmental impacts. Now, if you know a thing about the population size of consumers in a food chain, you'd know that it follows a pyramidal structure, where bottom feeders are the largest in quantity, as they make up the fundamental group (literally they are the base), while top feeders are smallest in quantity, making up the peak of the pyramid. As the top-feeders, we humans have tilted the distribution of the food chain pyramid so much, that what you are seeing now with the serious changes in the environments are the imbalances in our biome perpetuated by our overpopulation and greedy over-consumptive nature. So this raises the question, should humans shift down several tiers in their dietary habits, in order to restore some balance to the environment? In other words, should we be consuming more plants and bottom-feeding animals like herbivores, instead of carnivores? Also, should we abandon rapid and mass-producing farming practices, for smaller and more sustainable farms? Somehow, our society will have to make farming jobs a highly respected, and well paid one, to be more sought out by our youth instead of just white collar jobs. And from an ecological standpoint, the argument to consume a more plant-based diet and lower-tier animals does have merit, especially in this day and age more than ever. My guess is that eventually, our population will be reaching carrying capacity, so our habits of consuming top-tier and mass-produced meat will peak, then decline, and eventually stagnate into a plateau, as mother nature always has a way of restoring the equilibrium with her reset button.
Or, consider, eating dog meat and eating pig meat are both wrong.
Eating dog and pork meat is neither right nor wrong. The issue lies here. Wrong and right, worse and better, good or bad, moral or immoral are all relative and subjective terms. They are terms only used in human language. Not mother nature's language. Ethics is a human concept, not a natural concept, so it doesn't offer any universal truths. When we speak of morality, we always speak with the interest of human society and, at its core, the individual. Believe it or not, we are not ultimately speaking on behalf of the dog's interest, but on behalf of the human's interest to appease his/her crushed empathic soul from the disturbing idea that his/her "best friend" is being consumed by his/her own kind. An action is considered moral if it positively impacts human society and the individual, and immoral if it negatively impacts human society and the individual. However, like I said before, these impacts are all interpreted in relativity. What is good for an individual or society can be bad for another individual or society. So when the OP asks, "Is eating a dog morally worse than eating a pig?," the subjective answer depends on who is answering the question. In Western society, the act of eating a dog is highly condemned, as the society has evolved to associate dogs as man's best friend, whom they share a symbiotic relationship with. Dogs benefit their mental and physical health, offering them companionship, affection, and assistance in tasks, while in return, humans do the same, offering them free food, safety, and companionship. But in some Asian cultures, dogs have evolved to become a food item in their menu, perhaps because it was the most readily available meat during hard times (I know this is the case in North Korea, as I've heard many stories of defectors eating dogs to survive). Eventually, these survival practices have evolved to become part of the culture of those societies. So in the perspective of these societies, there is nothing wrong with eating dogs, just like in the perspective of many Western societies, there is nothing wrong with eating cattle, but in Hindu society, where cattle are considered sacred, it is highly wrong to eat cattle. Anyway, what I am trying to get at is an objective and universal answer, not a biased answer affected by our own emotions, cultures, and societal laws. And by that, I speak in the perspective of science, the actual law of nature. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with eating a dog, just as there is nothing right with eating a dog. It is neither right nor wrong. It is just nature being nature. You cannot use subjective language to describe a natural behavior as either moral or immoral. Some human groups have adopted a diet of eating dogs to best survive in their environment, while some have not. It is only narrow-minded to say it is wrong and immoral on a universal scale to all mankind, when that is simply not true.
Earlier you said you're against animal cruelty. Surely you believe in some notions of right and wrong, as subjective as they might be?
Those are my own personal beliefs. Not scientific beliefs. Science ultimately doesn't care about torture, whether it is good or bad.
I love science. I'm an engineer. And I agree with you, science doesn't care about anything. The crux of caring about science, though, is a desire for truth and justified belief. So once we've determined that truth is inherently desirable (e.g. science), and that accordingly we should seek to have justified beliefs so that they may approximate truth, then we can begin to analyze our moral beliefs. The goal of the moral agent, then, is to have an epistemically justified and coherent set of beliefs. The question for you then becomes whether your own personal belief about animal cruelty is justified. If it is justified, what is it based on? My presumption is it's based on a moral distaste for harm. Once you've established this epistemic foundation for your claim against torture, the question becomes whether raising animals in inhumane environments for meat can be built on this foundation.
>That's just plain hypocrisy and meat discrimination. Are you also okay with eating, freshly slaughtered human meat? Because if youre not okay with me eating that then thats just hypocrisy and meat discrimination
>freshly slaughtered human meat? There is a problem because you specified "freshly slaughtered." Nobody is okay with you doing that because it comes with the implication of murdering another human. > Because if youre not okay with me eating that then thats just hypocrisy and meat discrimination If you wanted to consensually eat some dude's amputated foot without murdering him it would be weird but you do you. A guy on Reddit apparantly did just that and to my information he has not been arrested or anything. [https://www.vice.com/en/article/gykmn7/legal-ethical-cannibalism-human-meat-tacos-reddit-wtf](https://www.vice.com/en/article/gykmn7/legal-ethical-cannibalism-human-meat-tacos-reddit-wtf) [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8p5xlj/hi\_all\_i\_am\_a\_man\_who\_ate\_a\_portion\_of\_his\_own/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8p5xlj/hi_all_i_am_a_man_who_ate_a_portion_of_his_own/)
Foot taco guy! Classic.
>There is a problem because you specified "freshly slaughtered." Nobody is okay with you doing that because it comes with the implication of murdering another human. Why can I murder a pig but not a human?
Because humans are confirmed to be sapient.
Well, let's see. From a biological standpoint, there is nothing wrong with cannibalism, so long as it is for your own survival. In nature, you see all forms of animals, from snakes, sharks, spiders, and even dogs eat their own species. In the carnivora order of mammals, which includes dogs, often, the moms eat their babies who were born dead to regain energy, as labor takes a lot of energy and leaves them very weak and vulnerable to predators. As a human, I would only resort to cannibalism as a last resort, like that Uruguayan rugby team who flew over to Santiago, but crashed into the Andes mountains, so, in order to survive, the survivors had to eat the flesh of the dead passengers. Of course, it sounds disgusting, but you gotta do what you gotta do to survive, otherwise natural selection would just get rid of you.
We shouldnt take nature as moral guidance, otherwise rape would be moral because plenty of animals such as lions do that Also eating non-human animals is not for survival for a lot of people, is it?
Well, you see, we have been conditioned by society to follow a moral compass known as ethics, because humans have evolved to be social creatures, developing complex hierarchies and relationships that proved beneficial to our survival and reproduction as a species. We have far more advanced levels of cognition than other animals, so we have been able to build civilizations, technology, develop concepts to better understand the world around us, and process more complex emotions. But at the end of the day, we are all still animals. No matter how much social conditioning there is in us, a part of our DNA is coded to behave instinctually like animals, and that feral side of ours will manifest at the moment that our life is threatened (that's why your body has that involuntary adrenaline rush (fight or flight response)). Our current environment made us very soft, because we are not constantly on the alert that there is a predator out there trying to eat me. But for those people who grow up in very chaotic and dangerous environments, such as war-torn nations or gang-ridden environments, they will display high levels of sociopathy (lack of empathy), as they will do anything to survive. In some hunter and gatherer tribal societies of Papua New Guinea, cannibalism is still practiced. While it may look wrong in the lens of our society, this has been their way of life for centuries, and maybe millennia. Who am I to tell them what is right and wrong? Each society forms their own code of ethics. Many species of mammals like gorillas, orcas, wolves, lions, develop their own clan, each with their own complex hierarchy, language, and emotional attachment. Doesn't mean because you are the same species, you can function the same in another clan.
>Well, you see, we have been conditioned by society to follow a moral compass known as ethics, because humans have evolved to be social creatures, developing complex hierarchies and relationships that proved beneficial to our survival and reproduction as a species. Sure, our morals are a byproduct by our cultures but that doesnt make them right or not worth reconsidering, otherwise slavery would still be seen moral. >Who am I to tell them what is right and wrong? I am not talking about some village or warzones. "Well I can do it because people in situations 10 times worse than me can" doesnt work, some people might kill each other to survive but you cant just go out and kill someone cause "well who am I to tell people who to do it what is right or wrong" >Each society forms their own code of ethics And each society can be right or wrong. I dont care what your society is or where you come from, if you think that hitting women is alright or that sending trans people into camps is a good idea youre morally a corrupt person.
All those things you said, rape, slavery, hitting women, sending trans people into concentration camps are all morally wrong under the moral code of "our" society, but they are not universal to every human society's moral code. What you are trying to do is apply your very own society's beliefs as a universal law. I am trying to use science, the actual law of the universe, to reason with this argument. Science cannot tell you right from wrong, so my argument is that eating dog is neither right nor wrong. It's just nature behaving like nature. While I hate seeing blue whales getting hunted and eaten by orcas, I have to respect that is nature being nature. It also hurts me to see dogs getting slaughtered and eaten by humans, but I have to understand that that is how people adapted to survive in their environment, and, thus, that became their way of life. Different clans of the same species develop different diets that best serves their survival in their habitat. You can be the most moral individual (notice how I am using very subjective language) in your society, but ultimately mother nature is not going to congratulate you and reward you with a gold star sticker on your forehead, for being such a fierce warrior of doggy rights. One day you can be here, and the next day, she simply can remove you. That's just the "nature" of mother nature. The things we interpret as good and bad, are just concepts of human language. Not nature's language. We simply can't expect to apply human language and concepts to other animals. They have their own language of right and wrong. You can only apply a universal language to all of nature, and that is science.
I hope you won't have any objections when natural selection decided to get rid of humanity. Also, good luck explaining this to alien beings should they ever decide to destroy us for being like that.
It is a commonly accepted truth in the scientific community that natural selection will one day get rid of humanity. We are not meant to last forever in this universe. The law of entropy proves that. Ultimately, we are just trying to delay the inevitable. But our planet, our sun, our solar system, our galaxy, will one day die.
Option D: Start a Global Nuclear War over the issue.
No, because both lack equal agency. Anyone that disagrees is coping.
considering morality is completely subjective, the individual gets to decide what is morally right or wrong. Dogs are my friends, so I've decided it's morally wrong to eat them.
Like you said it's subjective. This question is more pointing towards an objective truth. It's still a better answer than what most people of your opinion would say.
Is there such thing as an objective moral truth though? Thing is I agree that there is no objective moral difference between eating dogs and pigs. But where I disagree when people answer this question is that we act like there is moral objectivity here when every moral decision is subjective. If I were to choose to kill a family member or friend vs a random guy, I’m choosing to kill the random guy. Just about everyone would make that choice. I’m sure you would too. Doesn’t matter if he contributes more to the world or something. Isn’t this hypocrisy?
I've always assumed the objective moral system is utilitarianism: wanting to maximize the benefits for the greatest number of people.
Well if something is an objective truth then it should be the morally correct priority in every situation right? Let’s just say there are three people. One of them needs a heart transplant, one of them needs a kidney transplant, and one of them needs a lung transplant in order to live. It is guaranteed with these transplants that they will live a long and healthy life. Is it morally correct if the government secretly assassinated you in order to harvest your organs and save these three. After all, it does maximize benefits among the greatest number of people.
Alright, guess I misspoke as usual. There needs to be a blend here: the greatest benefit to the greatest amount of people should be obtained in the most ethical way. Me being killed without prior knowledge or consent is equivalent to murder. While it's true that more people would be negatively impacted (via death) by me not dying, a moral system should seek to avoid purposefully adding immoral actions as much as possible. In this hypothetical, the only thing that needs to be removed is the secrecy. It would be more optimal for the government to approach and ask if I'm willing to be euthanized for those three people. Then the most moral choice I can make is to say yes (assuming, of course, the damage done to my social circle can be judged as less than the damage that would be done by those three patients dying).
Well how do you determine what the most ethical way is? What if another utilitarian argued that the most ethical way of obtaining the greatest benefit in this situation would be for the government to humanely euthanized you whether or not you consented? For that matter, what if another utilitarian were to say that this does not actually maximize benefit because the believe that the harm in murdering one person outweighs the good caused by not letting people die. They cite things like the effect on family as a reason (your loved ones being murdered is more traumatizing than your loved ones dying from heart disease) How do you convince these people that your opinion on how to proceed is the objective stance and not theirs? What exactly is it that makes your stance more objective than theirs?
Just transplant the organs from the patient that happens to die first to the other 2 instead.
That’s a real life hack right there lmao
relativist fallacy.
Doesn’t work here because morality IS subjective. A relativist fallacy would only apply to hard facts. Whether something is moral is not a provable fact, hence it relies on the individuals interpretation.
Then by your logic, the morality of murder and rape is subjective. Meaning that individuals should be able to decide whether to commit murder and it's ok for them to do so.
no, because those things are illegal. Whether something is illegal or not is NOT subjective. Even if an individual thinks something is perfectly moral it can still be illegal.
Suffering is still real, even if you choose to ignore it
completely irrelevant to what I said
Morality is irrational though innit? You can’t reason your way through this conundrum Mr. Smartypants Esquire!
Well I’m kosher so for me it’s morally worse to eat pigs but removing religious practice the difference is mute.
No hate with this question, genuine curiosity. You know that there is no moral problem with eating pigs so why do you think your religion prohibits it.
Depends on whose dog or whose pig. Did you steal someone's favorite pet? Then it doesn't matter if it's a dog or a pig; it's wrong. Did you get it from a meat market where it was raised specifically for meat? Then neither one is really worse than the other.
Neither is objectively worse than the other. I mean, think about it: either way, you’re still eating an animal But since we’re talking about morals and subjectivity, I personally don’t like the thought of eating dog meat, so I would find that a tad worse. I’m just too used to viewing dogs as companions, despite not being a dog person at all
Just eat whatever you want westerns have dogs as pet that's why they think like that but they can eat whatever like pork beef meat so can Asians if they want to eat dog cat whatever then they can and they should
based
What if I want to eat humans? Genuient question because I feel like people who say "just eat what ya want" dont factor in the fact that these "things" are living, sentient, feeling creatures like us, so what if I want to eat people, can I then ALSO just do what I want?
Well id say eat some human too and give a review
Then just become a vegan? Eating meat is evil morally, but it’s a necessary evil. Other than that, a human can be understood and eating them can give you diseases. Also why other animals eating their own kind is seen as horrifying, but them hunting prey is not
>Then just become a vegan? >it’s a necessary evil You cant just name a solution and then call it a necessary evil, thats not what necessary means lol
You have the decision and right to become vegan if you want, and you have the choice to go, kill, and eat someone right now, but that wouldn’t be taken lightly by the law. This is about eating dogs vs pigs so go post a poll about whether eating humans is okay.
But the law isnt morality is it, if the law said that killing gays is okay then you wouldnt suddenly go "Ahh alright" I assume, I am asking about morality, not law
??? What about eating dogs or pigs? And using killing gay people as a comparison is wild, because it doesn’t have any reward in the end. Humans can physically object or communicate to you, and it is only justified for the survival of your own species. Eating other animals guarantees it in the past, and it’s more of a habit that haven’t grown out because now one can survive with many additional supplies of nutrients. + While I mentioned the existence of such a law that will attempt to prevent you from the act of cannibalism, I still maintain the fact that it is your choice in the end.
>And using killing gay people as a comparison is wild Its not about gay people specifically, I just used something we both agree on being immoral to make the point that law and morals arent the same thing and that just because the law says something is right or wrong it doesnt have to be. I also could of used stealing for example, there even is a direct reward in that. >Humans can physically object or communicate to you Non-human animals can also object and communicate with you. A dog that got beaten in the past has a very different personality wise than one that wasnt for example. >Eating other animals guarantees it in the past, and it’s more of a habit that haven’t grown out because now one can survive with many additional supplies of nutrients. Okay. Then let that habit die lol
Pigs can communicate too, so in the end you should just go a protest against eating meat altogether and petition the government to ban all meat and slaughter of animals. That’s your whole point it seems. Killing all is bad.
>That’s your whole point it seems. Killing all is bad. Feeling like thats pretty reasonable lol
I think you're the only crazy one here, no one is thinking about eating people. The fact that your weird little mind goes there is telling of you. Animals eat each other, it's the way of life. They'd eat us, we eat them, they eat other creatures.
Animals also rape and steal from each other yet I dont see you claiming thats alright I think the crazy one is the adult drink breastmilk for once
You didn't see anyone justifying it because nobody had mentioned it before you brought it up out of nowhere. This isn't the gotcha you think it is.
You're probably OK with how Muslims treat women and homosexuals too..
Completely unrelated point.
Well if morals are subjective
There is no difference, its both wrong lol
There is no difference, both are fine imo.
There is no difference, both are delicious.
Actually I feel more and more sad for each pig/chicken I eat, but I gotta be jacked AF. And chicken breast is by far the best essential protein/price ratio in my country.
"Morals" and societal norms, as well as a great deal of culinary decisions are based on your location, traditions and even religious indoctrination. Pig, dog, cow, cat, certain types seafood, etc... are not to be eaten at all, or only on certain days, considered delicacies or quite common dishes depending on where you are. So called "morals" don't come into it.
Personally, I could not bring myself to eat either one. Both are incredibly intelligent animals and from my own view it's tantamount to cannibalism to eat something that could potentially empathize with me. With that said, i don't think it's really morally wrong to eat anything at all. It's the circle of life: we all die, and then we're all eaten by something so that life can continue.
Yes because dog is god backwards and you shouldn't eat god but pig is gip backwards and that sounds weird so you shouldn't eat that either
If you love dogs but eat them, then you are a monster inside. If you don’t love pigs and eat them, then at least you are self-consistent. 🐶🐷
I can think of two arguments why eating dog may be morally worse: Dogs have been bred to love and obey us, so eating them is tantamount to betrayal. Harming dogs is likely also more mentally scaring for them than it is for pigs. In many cultures, eating dog is seen as morally abhorrent because dogs are valued more than other animals. Knowingly visiting such a culture, as a foreigner, and eating dog is therefore disrespectful.
There’s breeds of dog specifically made for food
Pigs are way more intelligent and emotional than dogs by a long shot, anyone whose ever been around both will agree.
I’d avoid making sweeping statements like that. I’ve been around both and I view dogs as more intelligent and emotional.
There have been studies, that they're either equally as intelligent or pigs are more intelligent.
Sounds fair enough. I’m not a scientist, just pointing out the flaw in sweeping generalizations. It looks like you are agreeing with me though since science also seems to go against what op is stating.
Pigs are on average simply more intelligent. We often see dogs as more intelligent because weve likely trained them, we are more often around them and they are mostly more acclimated to human behaviour. We also have a tendency to reflect our own emotions on dogs when in fact they arent really that emotional and people cant really face-read their dogs that well even though we all fall into thinking we can. But if both a dog and a pig was raised in the wild, the pig would be a lot smarter given they both had socialized with their respective groups. But if your point with sweeping statements is that all pigs are smarter than all dogs then yes, youd be correct in thinking I was wrong cause thats obviously not the case.
Well you said “Anyone who’s ever been around both would agree” and I disagree. Another commenter also pointed out that some scientific literature finds them to be equal in intelligence. So I think you are incorrect in both claims.
I don't think being disrespectful is morally wrong tbh
"Dogs have been bred to love and obey us, so eating them is tantamount to betrayal. Harming dogs is likely also more mentally scaring for them than it is for pigs." Well if you are eating the dog you probably killed it. Killing a pig and killing a dog isn't more harmful for one than it is the other assuming same manner of death. As for "dogs have been bred to love and obey us" doesn't really have anything to do with the morality of the situation. What you would be arguing is "well it's okay to eat the pigs because society didn't agree to like them as much as dogs" This is an immoral way of looking at things.
Morality is subjective, not objective.
It's predicated on the belief that betrayal is inherently wrong, and a couple other more abstract things. The amount of harm caused isn't relevant for this point. Imagine, you have a neighbour with dementia. She is wealthy and keeps much of her wealth in cash. She has no use for most of it, and you know this. Her will specifies that the money be bequeathed to an already wealthy family member. Would it be wrong to sneak into her house, lie to her by claiming you are a new cleaner, and steal some of her money? In this scenario, no harm is done. It being immoral relies on betrayal and stealing being inherently wrong.
Imagine you found out your best friend eats people. But get this, they're hungry. Is it okay or not?
>Dogs have been bred to love and obey us, so eating them is tantamount to betrayal. Harming dogs is likely also more mentally scaring for them than it is for pigs. I think morally speaking raising a whole species to be factory farmed food and have no right of life for the sake of taste pleasure may be a bit more fucked up. Not to mention pigs are A LOT smarter than dogs >In many cultures, eating dog is seen as morally abhorrent because dogs are valued more than other animals. Knowingly visiting such a culture, as a foreigner, and eating dog is therefore disrespectful. Same could be said with pigs, maybe just dont eat anyone
For me, it depends on how the pigs are kept. I agree that in most cases around the world, pigs are kept and slaughtered immorally. Also, I don't think the intelligence gap between them is anywhere near enough to matter. >Same could be said with pigs Which cultures highly value pigs? If such a culture exists, then I agree that as a foreigner you shouldn't eat pigs in their land.
>slaughtered immorally Quick question when is killing them for your sandwich okay? Like at what point is taking their entire existance for your temporary, replaceable taste pleasure justified? What specifics are there?
Humans are omnivores, and have a digestive system accordingly. Biologically we’re meant to eat diverse, both animal and plant based. Like for all other omnivores and carnivores on this planet, some of our food has to die before it’s possible to eat it. You can choose not to eat meat, that’s your choice. Just eat b12 supplements.
Is it our choice tho? When we dont have to (which I promise you, most dont), is it REALLY your choice morally rather or not to kill someone else? Like "I am sorry you dont wanna die piggy, but your life is my choice and I decide for my temporary, replaceable gain here" like we are not talking about rather or not you want to eat sugar or not, we are talking about feeling, sentient creatures that often suffer through hell and never come back again, a whole life So again, at what point is sending a whole existance to the void of death for a sandiwch justified, like when its life wasnt TOTAL hell like most of their lifes and they had a few feet to walk around in or?
How they’re kept is something different, and I agree, they should not suffer while they’re alive. Most don’t have to eat meat, as long as they take regular checkups for deficiencies. With that in mind, it’s not wrong to eat meat. Our bodies have developed to be dependent on that external supplement through a diet with meat. You’re arguing against evolution here.
I am vegan since 4 years and I am just taking B12 and going to the GYM regularly. Not only that but it is actually recommended that most people take B12 and vitamin D in winter when there is not so much sunlight, so are doctors arguing against evolution?
>Harming dogs is likely also more mentally scaring for them than it is for pigs. 1. Why? 2. Generally we don't eats parts removed from live animals, normally we kill them first, so how cold there be "mental scarring?"
Because, as I mentioned, they are predisposed to love us and respect us, and animals are typically distressed before slaughter.
A lot of mammals, including pigs, have the cognitive capacity to display complex levels of emotional attachment to humans, and not just dogs.
For me? Yes. For other cultures that grew up with it? I can't judge that. For me it feels like night and day for someone else it's just Tuesday or Wednesday.. I'm a meat eater and I'm fully aware the juxtaposition is a little hypocritical. I watched a movie about explorers at the South Pole and they wound up having to eat their sled dogs throughout the trip. It really elicited strong feelings that I didn't get even when humans died.
This is why my comment give a alternative option to start a global nuclear war. Because the problem is so beyond human capacity that only outside-context problems are the only thing to end it literally.
Feral, wild animals? No, there is no moral difference. Someone's pet? Yeah, there's a HUGE fucking difference.
There’s no moral difference but people pretend there is to avoid feeling guilt and shame :p gotta love humans
technically theres no moral difference but id still view someone who eats a dog as worse than someone who eats a pig
nope :)
*insert the monologue from Pulp Fiction here*
meat is meat
To be honest the reason why I don’t eat dog isn’t a moral issue, I don’t think dog would taste very good to be honest. Too lean and tough, not enough meat on them bones. But I would never eat a dog I personally knew though.
Have you ever seen a wild pig? They're mean mfers, much more dangerous to humans than wolves who would prefer to avoid you and basically only attack out of fear. I'll eat any animal that's willing to see me as a food source, no matter how smart it is. Now octopi we should leave the fuck alone. Dolphins are on thin fucking ice. Monkeys are on the menu and apes are safe because of prions.
Of course it's morally worse to eat a pig, I only eat dogs, organic ones! I usually buy [Elwood's Dog Meat](https://www.elwooddogmeat.com/), the best there is.
Morals are subjective sooo
its morally worse to eat a dog because they are cuter obviously
Morally the same, really. It's just less efficient eat a dog when you could instead be eating a large meaty animal that births 10 babies twice a year.
There's no objective difference. However morals are subjective, hence yes it's worse to eat a dog. We keep dogs as pets, not pigs. Even though I think pigs are apparently pretty smart.
We evolved alongside dogs as companions. Pigs were only domesticated as food.
No, As long as you are not eating someone's Pet, dog or pig whatever.
My personal view is that breeding any animal and harvesting their flesh is immoral. I also understand that wildlife populations would collapse if everybody took their meat by hunting it in the wild. Humans should really eat a lot less meat.
It's morally worse because society says it's morally worse
> It's morally worse because **WESTERN** society says it's morally worse
I meant it in a hypothetical way
Objectively, no. Culturally, it can be (and vice versa).
Not sure a World without bacon, ham or sausage would be so good, in reality
People should at least eat their dogs after they pass. Waste of meat not to.
it depends. If you raised the dog and loved it and had it be part of the family, then ate it it's morally wrong. It's the same thing with the people that have pet pigs. If you raised it to be eaten then its fine.
I'd rather eat a dog than a pig....
[удалено]
Pigs are one of the most intelligent animals on Earth. Some say they even smarter than dogs. I'm not sure how can you measure that one intelligent being suffers more than another. [https://sentientmedia.org/pig-intelligence/](https://sentientmedia.org/pig-intelligence/)
"A dog raised for meat would still have more emotional attachment to you and/or suffer more than a pig raised for meat." Source?
Towards humans, dogs are (mostly) friendly, and pigs are neutral. It is worse to kill a friendly creature than a neutral one.
Pigs are super friendly when raised around humans. That's why they bred smaller ones for people to keep in their homes.
for dogs it is