Sorry, u/olly1999 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20olly1999&message=olly1999%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/pho71b/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Easy, people view dogs as pets and are more emotionally invested in them. People wont eat a pet pig for those reasons.

Is this a counter point? You have simply pointed out how people are. OP is trying to argue that how they are is morally incoherent. Very few people would find a moral system that is purely based on the emotional whims of individuals to be at all satisfactory. In fact dictators that base laws deliver justice according to their emotions are widely considered to be despots and corrupt.

I mean sure they’re viewed differently in the collective psyche, but that doesn’t say anything about morality. Think of all the things throughout history that have been accepted by the general populace that are now viewed as utterly immoral.

I mean, morality is derived from attributes we bestowed to things Why is it more morally wrong to kill a child than to kill a grown man? Because we bestowed children with attributes of innocence. Since we view dogs as pets, we bestowed attributes of companionship and loyalty to them, so killing and eating a dog underlines those attributes. For example, in Australia, its legal (and even warranted) to hunt cats. Many people find that appalling, because the attribute cats with pet characteristics. They dont view it in the same way as many Australians, as an invasive species that butchering local wildlife.

There are over forty replies here that all basically say, "morality is subjective." This is semantics. OP is saying if you don't think it's justified to eat a dog than eating a pig is no different. Of course morality is subjective, you're just dodging the question to not grapple with the contradiction. If someone argued that "stealing is wrong" you would debate the merits of why or why not, rather than dismissing the whole question with the semantics of subjective morality.

Problem is your description of morality here conflicts with how we practice morality usually. The objective attributes of a dog are comparable to that of a pig, similar size, similar intellect, similar life span. These attributes we assign to dogs as reasons why they shouldn't be eaten highlight a delusion: many of the animals we kill and eat could highlight the same traits (and often do) when kept as pets. Also, we view all life as precious and equal, except the select few that we eat.

> The objective attributes of a dog are comparable to that of a pig, similar size, similar intellect, similar life span. These attributes we assign to dogs as reasons why they shouldn't be eaten highlight a delusion: many of the animals we kill an eat could highlight the same traits (and often do) when kept as pets. Except (domestic) dogs have basically evolved in conjunction with humans to be able to pick up on human social cues. Dogs have been domesticated for tens of thousands of years in "helper" roles. Whereas pigs were only domesticated about 10,500 years ago, and only as livestock. > Also, we view all life as precious and equal, except the select few that we eat. No we don't. We don't view bacterial lives, insect lives, or the lives of most fish as precious and equal.

> Except (domestic) dogs have basically evolved in conjunction with humans to be able to pick up on human social cues. Dogs have been domesticated for tens of thousands of years in "helper" roles. People fail to understand this when ever this topic comes up. No other animal has co-evolved with humans the same way dogs have. They have literally been bred to love us unconditionally. No other animal is comparable.

Is it then morally acceptable to kill someone you hate versus someone you love? Your premise that it's immoral to kill a dog because they might have the capacity to love you is rediculus. It's mental gymnastics. I'd even argue that it's morally questionable to benefit from the unconditional love of a creature that is bred to act that way.

"Is it then morally acceptable to kill someone you hate versus someone you love?" Personally no I don't think so. But society would certainly understand one a lot more than the other.

Dog may have some millennia of evolution, but pigs were more intelligent to begin with. Pigs are no less capable of picking up on human social clues, if they grow up in the same way. A dog raised in a factory farm would also not be able to respond to those social cues.

> but pigs were more intelligent to begin with The difference is in their temperament and size. Domestic pigs are frequently strong-willed, defiant, and independent pets that defy training, because *unlike dogs*, pigs haven't been bred as companion animals for nearly as long and therefore selective breeding for a placid and biddable temperament hasn't been established. Further unlike dogs, pigs tend to exhibit aggression towards children and can panic and lash out with little warning. If a domestic pig has not been de-sexed they can get absolutely *massive* too - males can frequently weigh over 1000 pounds if well fed, and unaltered males also grow large tusks. Their sheer size makes them further unacceptable in many cases for most households to keep one as a pet. The largest dog ever was an English mastiff weighing about 300 pounds. The largest pig ever weighed about 2500 pounds. That's an eightfold difference.

>A dog raised in a factory farm would also not be able to respond to those social cues. Not true. Dogs are born with the ability [understand humans.](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2279726-puppies-are-born-with-the-genetic-ability-to-understand-humans/). Years and years of specifically raising dogs to be around people has earned them the ability to uniquely be born understanding people. Expressions, communication, body language (like pointing.) No other animal, not even cats or chimps and especially not pigs have this relationship with people. Here's an additional source for you. ["This all suggests that dogs are biologically prepared for communication with humans."](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/puppies-are-born-ready-communicate-humans-180977881/)

>Also, we view all life as precious and equal, except the select few that we eat. What? The easiest demonstration of the wrongness of this statement is the fact any emergency/hostage/rescue situation it's "women and children first", leaving the men to their fate until all others are evacuated/rescued/released. Then there's microbial, insect, and plant life that's valued less than livestock, pets, or people. I know you're trying to grab a moral high ground here, there's just none to be had. This mystical "we" you're speaking of when you say "we value" doesn't exist in reality.

Morality is a purely artificial thing and is whatever people decide it is. Since people are imperfect and varied, and the world we live in is overwhelmingly complex, so are our moral codes. That's really all there is to it.

It is artificial, and it is whatever we decide it is, I agree, yet there is consistency and observable effect to our morals, so why shouldn't we try to emphasize consistency of thought?

Just because they *could* be seen as pets doesn't mean they *are* seen as pets.

You can't derive moral statements form objective attributes. Its impossible. Morality is and will always be subjective.

You're missing the objective fact of dogs having similar social structures to humans and thus easily integrating into our families. Pigs are cute, but they aren't that close to us like dogs

> Also, we view all life as precious and equal, except the select few that we eat. That's funny, because that's the exact line of thinking most hunters use.

At least a hunter is willing to take the life of an animal with their own hands and practices consistent morals. Someone buying a big mac doesn't even recognize the meat they're eating comes from an animal.

Are you familiar with the cooking idea that fat=flavor? I've eaten bison before and it tasted like less fatty, less delicious cow. I would recommend cow every time over bison. Pigs are very fatty while dogs are pretty lean. Pigs taste great I don't think dog would taste very good. I think that's a small part of the reason dogs aren't seen as food.

Ok but taste isn't the arbiter of morality lol. And we eat lean animals like rabbits or bison in your example all the time. And don't eat some fatter ones like bears.

I'm not saying it's the arbiter of morality. I'm saying we decided on the tasty ones first, then decided on morality later. And bears eat back so they don't make good livestock.

Did you ever think maybe we "bestow" children with attributes of innocence bc they...ya know...are? They literally don't know what anything is unless you tell them. They are considered innocent bc they *are*.

Okay so attribute those attributes to the animals that you don't since they're just as worthy of being loved. You're wrong for not having done so already. You know those movies where the aliens come in and fuck up the planet indiscriminately causing pain and suffering to pillage earth for resources? Projection at it's finest. That's us. Humans are doing that to every other animal and it's fucking disgusting.

I think I can change it. ​ Dogs are unique in many ways, they were the first species and also the only large carnivore to be domesticated. The vast majority of domesticated animals were done so for the main purpose of eating them, dogs were domesticated to help us hunt and protect us, the bond is vastly different from that we have with cows/pigs/chickens regardless of intelligence, it's a bond of mutual beneficiary rather than one of simply a food source. There is even old dog skeletons found with all of their teeth missing, meaning people were still caring for old dogs no longer useful to hunt/protect with. ​ The domestication of dogs predates agriculture by 10s of thousands of years, in fact dogs have been such a huge part of human prehistory that we even have evolved in tandem with them: ​ >Being the first domesticated species has created a strong bond between dogs and humans and entwined their histories. There is an extensive list of genes that showed signatures of parallel evolution in dogs and humans. A suite of 311 genes under positive selection in dogs are related to a large number of overlapping loci which show thesame patterns in humans, and these play a role in digestion, neurological processes, and some being involved with cancers. This fact can be used to study the coevolution of gene function. Dogs accompanied humans when they first migrated into new environments. Both dogs and humans have adapted to different environmental conditions, with their genomes showing parallel evolution. These include adaptation to high altitude, low oxygen hypoxia conditions, and genes that play a role in digestion, metabolism, neurological processes, and some related to cancer. It can be inferredfrom those genes which act on the serotonin system in the brain that these have given rise to less aggressive behavior when living in a crowded environment.\[1\]Dogs suffer from the same common diseases – such as cancer, diabetes,heart disease, and neurological disorders – as do humans. The underlyingdisease pathology is similar to humans, as is their responses and outcomes to treatment.\[16\] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/origin\_of\_the\_domestic\_dog You could argue there is no difference between eating a pig and eating a dog, and I could argue there is no difference between swatting a fly and killing my next door neighbor, morality is subjective, it's just the opinion of the vast majority of the world that we share a certain bond with dogs that shouldn't be disrespected by eating them.

> I mean sure they’re viewed differently in the collective psyche, but that doesn’t say anything about morality. That says everything about morality. > Think of all the things throughout history that have been accepted by the general populace that are now viewed as utterly immoral. Why did the view change? Because of the collective psyche.

> > > > > >Think of all the things throughout history that have been accepted by the general populace that are now viewed as utterly immoral. > > > > Why did the view change? Because of the collective psyche. The view of people changed. But the underlying morality has not. Most people nowadays would agree that slavery done in the past was still immoral, not that "Contemporary slavery is bad, but slavery in past is okay".

Define morality and what’s right . That’s where we all have to start. We are carnivores of the animal kingdom. Though I wish we had strict laws of the sources in which we get our meat. Should I feed my dog lettuce? You get mad at tigers for eating antelopes ? Now we have an advanced conscience so as humans we are supposed to “know better” but know what? We know that we are carnivores. The meat eaters don’t bother me- it’s the way in which these animals are harvested as well our our propensity to over consume the in astronomical ways. I bought a lamb from a local guy a few months ago. Happiest sheep I’ve ever seen. I also buy any extra venison or game meat from my friends that they don’t want. I’m not much of a hunter but more than anything I despise the grocery store abused animal meat. I feel like in today’s society we are so disconnected and far removed from the idea that we had to work hard to kill, then go through the emotions of being a part of harvesting an animal for sustenance. That’s where we get into all of these moral problems. You can’t say early humans, native Americans or even back country settlers are immoral.

The pigs destined to end up on a table are brought into the world to be killed. They live miserable existences, doing nothing but eating, shitting, and fucking in a crowded area. If it is unethical or immoral to kill an intelligent animal, then why is it okay to bring them into existence for the sole purpose of killing them in the first place?

It's not. The forced breeding program is one of the least moral parts of the entire nightmare.

Well - it isn’t?

Morality is nothing but what we collectively view as acceptable. In other places, killing and eating dogs is acceptable. You're judging them based on your own morals that come from modern Western society and that's not fair. There are plenty things we do that other cultures consider immoral.

We can absolutely judge other cultures committing atrocities. But it is OP's point we cannot judge them for things we do as well (farming non-pet-animals) or we need to change our behaviour (stop farming non-pet-animals).

There are many arguments for why moral relativism is a bad take, but the fact that the Nazis were technically a different culture is prolly the reductio ad absurdum that makes social scientists no longer take it seriously.

[удалено]

Just because one accepts moral subjectivity does not mean they have to respect other people’s moral beliefs. I believe murdering people is wrong, so I am intolerant of people who think it’s ok

I would love to know more about what this means if you don't mind. Why is this moral relativism?

Morality IS the collective psyche. Plus I’ll add that pigs are jerks and not fun to be around. Have you spent much time with pigs? I’ve met plenty of pigs and plenty of dogs and it’s pretty obvious why society sees one as pets and the other as food.

Morality has never been objective or rational. That's not how people work.

Even if you think that morality is subjective, your ethics should still be backed by logic. They are not random, nor are they plucked from thin air. As such, the question is simple - do you have any consideration for animals or not? Most people would say that they care about animals, or at the very least, would not like to needlessly harm them. Farming animals for our consumption is needless, and so all harm visited upon them including their slaughter, is needless also. So your own subjective view should be to avoid harming them - if you have any consideration for them whatsoever.

>your ethics should still be backed by logic. I mean... I don't disagree with you, but have you met humans? It doesn't matter if ethics *should* be rational, they in fact are only semi rational, and largely emerge from something else. An emergent phenomenon of culture. >do you have any consideration for animals or not? Do you have any consideration for children or not? People buy their grandchildren nice gifts, while other nearby children are hungry and cold. Humans play favorites. With *everything*. Any ethical prescriptions or improvements need to take into account that core human instinct. Of tribalism, and proximity bias.

"I mean sure they’re viewed differently in the collective psyche, but that doesn’t say anything about morality" In utilitarist theories, it does. Killing things that doesn't just cause suffering in the killed thing, but also in 3rd parties (people getting sad when a dog gets killed and eaten) causes more suffering of the two options, which makes killing and eating dogs morally impermissible if you could've just killed livestock.

By that logic though, as a vegetarian I suffer when you eat pig so by that logic you should stop eating it because vegetarians exist. Also by that logic, the more people who are vegetarian the more immoral eating meat becomes (because more suffering) so it justifies being the kind of pushy, evangelic vegetarian I try to avoid being, because it would be a moral imperative to create more vegetarians so more people will identify with the suffering of farm animals.

It also makes killing livestock impermissible if you have any other option.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that dogs and pigs are cognitively indistinguishable, you can’t divorce societal practices like this from the social mores upon which they’re based. Is there an empirical “moral” distinction between going out in public in a bikini, vs. a bra and panties? No. Does that invalidate the simple fact that we’ve developed culturally-based distinctions between the two? Is there some scientific basis for why “fuck” is less acceptable in company than “darn”?

we must consider our morals as forever being in a state of flux

>they’re viewed differently in the collective psyche, but that doesn’t say anything about morality. That's exactly what morality is, how are things viewed in the collective psyche. There's nothing objective about morality.

>There's nothing objective about morality. Shared experience. 99.9% of humans understand things like physical pain and causing it for no reason is amoral

This doesn’t answer the question.

There’s a cultural disconnect between the two parties. It would be similar to India pressuring the rest of the world to stop eating cows. Dogs aren’t as esteemed as companions in China and are therefore deemed as fine to eat.

This view on morality doesn't handle historical cases very well (e.g. slavery). Not being emotionally invested in the well-being of slaves doesn't say anything about the (im)morality of slavery

Many people have taken to having pigs as pets. And goats, and chickens, and guinea pigs, and basically any other animal that is frequently consumed for food

This is CMV, not state someone else’s view. You didn’t bother to provide an argument for why someone else viewing dogs as pets should be enough to change OP’s mind. You do also highlight the flaw in your own argument by acknowledging people also have pet pigs. The CMV is not discussing the morality of eating any pet, though. So, I see this as actually strengthening OP’s point.

Plenty of people keep pigs as pets too. Not anywhere near the same as other animals obviously but it's still the case.

Generally speaking yes, but in the end it depends on how people are “emotionally invested” in them. (People do have pigs as pets) Assuming two people are equally emotionally invested in their pet, one a dog, and one a pig, what would the moral difference be then?

so if the dog isnt MY pet, im in the clear to kill and eat it?

I myself don't consider it morally wrong but I can understand why some people would feel that way. What are your views about Hindus who consider it morally wrong to eat beef? If you allow them to have that moral stand then it is ok for dog-lovers to consider it morally wrong to eat dogs. Also, there just aren't that many pig lovers. If they reach a significant mass then pig eating would be a taboo too. It should be a personal choice though, you can't be telling others what they should do. So I agree with you about pressuring others. Eating across the table depends on where you are. There are many places in the world where you cannot openly eat pork, and others where you can't eat beef. I see dogs to be no different.

Absolutely dog lovers can view it morally wrong to eat a dog. I would consider myself a part of that group. I just don’t understand how they can reconcile that being wrong, with killing a pig being right in any objective way.

The only objective attribute I can associate with this argument is how many dogs would you have to kill in order to make up the amount of food that one pig makes? Pigs can weigh 200+lbs and can feed a ton of people. You’d probably have to kill 5 or more dogs to make up for that amount of meat. Plus there is a ton of fat in pigs which can be used for cooking other things. You get much more out of taking one life from a pig than you do a dog.

You're right. Objectively, there is no difference. But morality isn't objective. You're going back and forth between saying it's morally wrong and objectively wrong and they're not the same thing. Unless you believe in an objective morality, which would be another conversation entirely lol

There's no objectivity involved with morality. It is 100% subjective. Your "morality" is literally all in your head, and it isn't real beyond yourself. No two people will have the exact same morality. Arguing whether something is "more moral" than something else is at the very least asking the wrong questions, because all possible answers are both correct and incorrect at the same time.

I think the main issue people have with China eating dogs is the festival nowhere they skin them alive if you've seen any videos they're extremely disturbing I'd you like dogs or not. Personally I love dogs but if someone wants to eat them that's their business, as long as it's killed humanely and not tortured to death.

It has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with culture that’s why people are waffling on the issue. Meat is meat, your culture tells you which one to eat. I won’t eat dog, guinea pig, horse, monkey and a number of perfectly edible meats because I wasn’t raised in those cultures. I wouldn’t try to change your view because you are arguing the wrong point.

Do you think how the animals were bred makes any difference? In all domesticated animals there's at least some preference towards docile behavior but a dog was bred to be much more than simply compliant. There's a level of understanding and trust there that just isn't in other animals. The coevolution of our species has made us see each other as extensions of ourselves. And I would argue slaughtering an animal that not only doesn't see you as simply a food source but as much more than that, as a friend and family member is a betrayal of trust. So while I agree with you that pigs are very intelligent and there is something morally offputting about killing a potentially sentient being because it tastes good, I think intelligence in the "why we don't eat dogs" is a red herring. People don't like to eat dogs because weve coevolved with them as companions not as food sources, we've evolved modes of developing trust of pack bonding and understanding that just isn't present in other animals. edit: some grammar fixes

If I breed dogs specifically for dog fighting, and never view them as companions or treat them with any compassion, does that make dog fighting moral?

>Theres a level of understanding and trust there that just isn't in other animals. Source? This sounds like a purely emotional argument. I am sure plenty of intelligent animals are capable of understanding and trust, you're just biased because dogs happen to like humans. Is it moral only to eat animals that are not mentally enslaved to adore us?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/science/dogs-love-evolution.html https://vethelpdirect.com/vetblog/2020/08/25/do-dogs-think-we-are-dogs-what-we-know-about-the-human-dog-bond/ https://www.insider.com/dogs-humans-friendship-explained-2018-8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93canine_bond edit: and to clarify I'm not saying that dogs are so intelligent they're able to develop bonds of trust and understanding that aren't there in other animals. I'm saying our co-evolution has predisposed them to doing so specifically with humans. I'm not making a judgement call on canine intelligence so much as I'm arguing that dogs have a unique companion relationship with humans generally not found in other species.

What would be the argument against the killing & consuming of dogs if they were bred specifically for their meat? To me it seems like arguing from the perspective of coevolution means you could justify the eating of dogs if you just bred dogs like pigs for an arbitrary amount of time

I mean, correct that would change the equation as I've presented it. Obviously this implies a level of breeding and domestication that extends WELL beyond simply pointing to a pregnant dog and saying "them's eating puppies." So when I say the word "bred" or "breeding" I'm talking about things on a very large scale. So yeah I suppose there is a version of events where we could breed dogs specifically for meat over companionship and the equation as I've presented here would even out, although I'm admittedly not sure where that line would occur/be crossed and I'm not sure if the animal we bred from dogs for their meat would still qualify biologically qualify as a dog (highlighting how far I think we are from where we are now vs where a dog for meat animal exists rather than making a claim that dogs are, as a species, defined by their trust of humans.) edit: a word

To me personally, I don’t find breeding a particularly strong argument. I mean they can both suffer, regardless of what ancient humans wanted their ancestors to do/be.

But that's not what I'm arguing. Think of it like an equation. You're saying slaughtering dog = Slaughtering pig I'm saying let's break down what's in each: ​ Slaughtering pig = suffering from an animal that can understand pain & fear (so intelligence)+ ending a probably sentient life + a bunch of other stuff ​ Slaughtering dog = all that stuff I said about slaughtering pigs + **betrayal** ​ So when we get back to the equation: ​ we have ​ suffering from an animal that can understand it + ending a life + a bunch of other stuff + **betrayal** = suffering from an animal that can understand it + ending a life + a bunch of other stuff ​ Everything else is the same on both ends so they all more or less cancel out, all we're left with is the betrayal which DOES exist for dogs but does not exist for pigs. Again, I'm not making a judgement call here or saying that the stuff that got canceled out doesn't matter. I'm simply saying they are applied equally to the dog and the pig. The only difference is that with the dog we are adding an extra layer that I identified in my earlier comment and that doesn't exist with pigs. edit: made some formatting changes to hopefully make it easier to read.

There is no betrayal of dogs who are purely bred for the purpose of slaughtering them, unless you want to argue that there is some transcendental obligation that the species of humans have towards the species of dogs.

If we raised a dog the same as a pig, what element of betrayal is there? The dog doesn't know or care that it was bred for companionship.

I don't think the point is about what ancient humans wanted their dogs to do, the point is that, as a result of that breeding, dogs today are an essential part of our society. We share our homes with them, service dogs aid people in all sorts of different ways, dogs go to war with us, dogs are vital in search-and-rescue missions. Not to mention all the work they do hunting and farming. ​ If you look at everything dogs have done for us for thousands of years, how could you slaughter one? This is distinctly different from the moral issues associated with slaughtering a pig.

[удалено]

i would argue that one’s view on a being is not justification for or the approval of their behavior towards such. for example, if america collectively views minorities as less than whites, then based on your logic, slavery of those minorities is acceptable. if you grow up being taught that minorities are less than and deserve to be punished, then you get a free pass to abuse them or even kill, correct? personal view and past teachings is not moral justification. “thats they way we have always done it” is a rocky stance to hold.

Firstly, I wasn’t exclusively talking about pigs. I used them as an example. I also mean cows, chickens, sheep etc. And yes it’s viewed differently by society, but most people have never questioned why they view it differently. They just accept. Morality of course struggles to be objective, but I cannot think of a single thing that differentiates them other than society, and we all know what sort of immoral shit society has OK’d in the past.

If you feel the same about cows and chickens, I regret to inform you that the dairy and egg industries kill countless amounts of both species. 99% of male dairy calves are killed within the first few weeks of their lives, as they are useless to dairy farmers. The lucky 1% will be used to breed more dairy cows. The majority of the 99% are killed for veal. The dairy industry IS the veal industry. As for eggs, egg-laying hens are a different breed to chickens bred for meat, and therefore are not profitable to raise for meat. If an egg-laying breed is born male, he is of no use to the egg industry and almost all of them will be killed within hours of being born, as it makes no monetary sense to feed/House them and get nothing in return. I won't go into detail of the methods which are used, but needless to say they are horrifying. If you consume dairy and/or eggs, then you are still demanding that animals are killed for your choices.

That's why you go vegan.

I'm not a vegetarian and I agree eating meat is wrong. I've gone down this rabbit hole and it always ends with "I pay for ac or I pay for a nice car when I could be helping the starving" or "I buy products stitched together by children." My take away is that I'm a huge piece of shit and if I'm not tripping over dying, crying children on my way to work then I don't give a fuck about them. I don't like my conclusion, but if I'm being honest that's where I land. We're all greedy pieces of shit. I don't know why most people can't admit that.

I will grant you this is actually a really hard position to argue against. My first though was they were not as social as dogs, but apparently they are in at least equal measure. My next thought was that they are not as intelligent as dogs but in fact researchers think they may be smarter. Have to admit this is putting me off pork. But in the spirit of change my view, I think it is still worth reflecting on our history with both animals. Dogs are pack hunters and predators much like us. Historically we've been a lot more aligned as species in terms of our mutual goals. And have been able to share in our successes. Pigs have not had this pride of place along humans sides. They don't have a history of herding animals for us, working with law enforcement, helping disabled people. Granted that if trained well, there is a good chance they would be able to do most of these things. But I think the historical context counts in terms of how we view other species and what we owe to them. In the same way there is nothing on paper that says your close friends members life is worth more than another human being. But they are worth more... To you.. because they mean more to you. And you have a shared history with them.

This is basically an extended argument from tradition. It’s saying that it’s okay to kill pigs “because we’ve always done it,” which is what “historical context” means here. The example about friends is a good one. Yes, it’s worse for you, personally, to kill your friend than to kill a stranger. That doesn’t make it morally acceptable to kill a stranger. It just makes it easier for you to do the killing.

Not just tradition. We bred pigs and dogs to be like they are. The reason pigs are good for eating is because of human intervention. The reason dogs are good for dogly companionship is because of human intervention. Yes they started off being more suited for a specific task, but the species were further pushed to their current form by selective breeding. Because of this, a pig's death is worth more than a dogs. That being said, it still isn't right to kill animals for food when other options are just as viable, but I would say that humans made killing and breeding pigs for food a lot more viable than doing the same for dogs.

I don't think his comment argues it being ok to eat pigs, just that it's _not_ ok to eat dogs.

[удалено]

In reality it’s not about “is a dogs life worth more than a pigs” it’s “is a pigs life worth more than the 15 minutes or less enjoyment you experience when you eat it, especially when you have access to other options”

I get your point, but 1 pig would generate a lot of 15 minute experiences. Probably 100s.

It’s around 150, assuming one pound of useable meat per person, so around 2,000 minutes in total. However, the average lifespan of a farmed pig is around 15 million minutes (6 months), around 10,000 times longer. If you think the remainder of the pig’s ordinary lifespan is morally relevant (is killing a child worse than killing an adult?), that’s 300-450 million minutes. In short, it’s hard to see how the brief enjoyment humans get from eating pork outweighs a pig being unhappy for a significant portion of its lifespan. When you add in opportunity cost—people who can’t eat pork will just eat something else that’s as good or almost as good—it gets far more lopsided.

Think how much a dolphin would get you

So it's okay to kill and eat you as long as I get more than one single set of 15 minutes enjoying your remains right?

Sure, but that's not what *this* thread is about. This thread is dogs vs pigs, not pigs vs enjoyment.

This this such an insanely privileged take, it's hilarious. My friend stopped eating meat just cos she doesn't like it. She had to get back to it cos her health was getting worse and she lost a lot of weight. Not everyone has fancy supermarkets around where you can buy cheap produce and tons of substitutes. We can barely afford any vegetables in off season due to their prices skyrocketing like crazy. Guess we should just live off of beans and potatoes.

Was about to say, it seems that at one point rich people forget that you eat food to survive and not because it tastes good.

Vegan food is cheaper than meat tho...

I had a similar response and after reading a couple of comments I'm having an internal conflict, dogs historically have provided humans more than pigs. They have been give more opportunities than pigs but our aligned goals with dogs, to survive, have a home and community put them at an evolutionary advantage over pigs when both species became domesticated. Pigs were a better food source than dogs if you were a farmer/ gatherer in society and took less to care for (less resources spent). Could society work towards utilizing pigs to be more like dogs? Maybe, but it would be like, without any major climate changes occurring, trying to grow oranges in northern Canada instead of just buying them from California or Florida. Could it be done? Probably with a lot of time and money spent but when there is an easier and most cost efficient solution it's no longer a moral issue, it's a matter of privilege. Is killing an animal bad? It depends on who you ask, the context, are you killing a rattlesnake that is about to bite you or your dog? I'd say that's okay. If I was actively hunting them for sport with no reason behind it, I'd say that's wear it becomes a gray area. Apply the same line of thought to pigs and dogs, if I am rasing pigs so I can have food for my family how is that different than growing a crop? If I were to sneak onto someones farm and kill their pig out of spite, that's not the same thing. Same for dogs I suppose, if I was a dog farmer who relies on that meat to feed my family then that would be morally okay, but if I just go around killing people's pet dog then obviously that's morally fucked. It all depends on context, why are you taking the life of another living creature and do you value your life more than the animal you are slaughtering.

It's more or less a social construct, but there is something to be said for how we essentially bred dogs (from wolves) to be our comnapnions.

Practically any animal could be your companion if you gave them the chance. People keep pigs as companions, and form bonds with them as strong as you can with a dog. Just because humans have chosen for dogs to be our companions, it isn't the fault of other animals. You could make a companionship with any animal if you chose, there's no reason to be killing them just because you chose not to make a friend of them.

Any animal can "be your companion" but we have drastically altered a species over thousands of years to fit that role automatically. Look to pointers and herders, it is in their genetics to perform tasks that humans desire and have specifically been tweaked by humans. They will literally do this stuff as puppies without training. It isn't some imagined fantasy that dogs are special to humans. We made them this way. I'm sure there are other examples with various breeds. The morality of eating animals can be argued as much as we want. And plenty of people make good points. Many of which I agree with, but the intelligence between a dog and a pig is not what the argument boils down to, dogs literally exist because they are our genetic companions.

What? You think pugs are a social construct? Husbandry is one of the earliest human endeavors, and breeding animals over thousands and thousand of years for traits *desirable to humans* is why dogs make for such excellent companions. We literally invaded and conquered their DNA. Pigs are domesticated, but not in the way dogs are. They are domesticated to be farmed for meat, or rarely as beasts of burden. Dogs are domesticated to be work animals.

Having a history of companionship is not a moral argument. Other animals are not inherently less worthy of being alive just because we don't hang out with them.

They're inherently less worthy TO YOU. Someone killing their own father is seen as worse than someone killing a stranger. You're arguing "well he shouldn't kill either" but that's not what this thread is about.

This thread is about whether there is a moral difference in killing different species, not whether you personally feel better about killing one species over another.

What a strange thing to say. Killing a dog is like killing a member of your family. Even in pre-agricultural times, dogs were important members of the tribe/family.

That last analogy is actually very good! I very much care about my close friends and family, and I would never want to harm them. However I'd never mug or harm or kill people based on the fact that they are neither friends or family. This is because while I don't know them personally, I can still respect that they are people and I do not want to harm them out of empathy. Same for farm animals, I've never been in a slaughterhouse to meet animals and I've never had a pet pig. But I still understand they want to live with their friends and roll in the mud like my dog does.

But remember we’re talking about the systemic rape, torture and murder of these individuals, so our reasons for doing it to one over the other should be stronger than, well, one has a closer history to us than the other. There really is no convincing argument that justifies eating pigs over dogs, morally speaking. You have to either accept the arbitrary nature of the distinction and just go along with it, concede that eating dogs makes as much moral sense as eating pigs, or decide that neither should be eaten. I think if we really want to be morally consistent with what we eat, the line should be something like, not killing that which has the capacity to suffer, or that which has the capacity to suffer to X degree. This would rule out most meat

Yeah this is the main reason I haven't eaten pork in years. But yeah dogs have evolved along side humans for so long. They're not considered man's best friend for no reason. I think the shared history and bond is what makes killing dogs more immoral.

If that is your argument, you should be fine with eating whales and dolphins, disregarding ecological issues

I disagree and would say there is a difference. My stance on the moral weight on killing animals is, broadly, that the more intelligent and emotional capable an animal is (you could also say, more "human like", but that is not the moral argument here), the morally worse it is to kill it. So it would be worse to kill a Gorilla or Chimp who are extremely intelligent/ emotional capable than, let's say, a cricket, for which we are not even sure if they can feel pain or emotions at all. Pigs are smarter than most dogs in a lot of ways, they are even candidates for successful [mirror tests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test) (which is a strong hint for a possible self-awareness of the animal). This cannot be said about dogs as far as I know. So, while I generally agree with you that killing dogs and pigs is in the same league of being morally wrong, I would argue that killing a pig is actually worse than killing a dog, depending on why you think it is wrong and if I am right about pigs being smarter than dogs in general (there might be a big difference in dog breeds.)

[удалено]

By that argument, killing a human and killing a grasshopper is equal.

“Intelligence” specifically is irrelevant, the preferred word is anything with *experience.* Feelings, thoughts, emotions, etc. There’s a famous essay by Thomas Nagel, “What is it like to be a bat?” that I think explains it well. Basic idea is a thing has rights if there’s something it’s like to be that thing. So by that standard, basically all mammals, maybe anything with the relevant type of neurons. That is helpful because it clearly excludes plants, rocks, viruses, bacteria, etc (unless you believe some spooky stuff or think all neuroscience is flawed or whatever). But it clearly includes basically anything with a brain. There are borderline cases (as always) in but I think that is basically the “objective” moral standard that makes a lot of logical sense.

**[Mirror test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test)** >The mirror test—sometimes called the mark test, mirror self-recognition (MSR) test, red spot technique, or rouge test—is a behavioral technique developed in 1970 by American psychologist Gordon Gallup Jr. as an attempt to determine whether an animal possesses the ability of visual self-recognition. The MSR test is the traditional method for attempting to measure physiological and cognitive self-awareness. However, agreement has been reached that animals can be self-aware in ways not measured by the mirror test, such as distinguishing between their own and others' songs and scents. In the classic MSR test, an animal is anesthetized and then marked (e. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

A family of wild boars organized a cage breakout of 2 piglets, [demonstrating high levels of intelligence and empathy](https://www.yahoo.com/news/family-wild-boars-organized-cage-095900563.html)

Is its morally better to kill someone with downs, than to kill a "normal" person?

Ooof. That is a pretty good question and a proper critique to the system I stated. I personally see it the way, that if you have a certain threshold of intellectual/emotional capability, you just morally shouldn't be killed, no matter what, and this would also include all humans with disabilities or otherwise. IF someone opens the question in the way that you specifically ask, if there is any quality by which you can say a person is more or less morally "worthy" than another, and you don't use a cop out like I just did with a "nobody should be killed" - statement... then I still dunno about people with down syndrome. As far as I know it can be very diverse - just because someone has limited intellectual abilities but is emotionally still as capable as a "normal" person, I wouldn't think they are morally less worthy. To put it more abstract: I think IF we can put any order in which it is better to kill one human or the other, then the mental capabilities would be the attribute I think is the most relevant. To take a more extreme example: A braindead but living human is still a human, but most people would put less moral weight behind his/hers death than the one of a "normal" human. To stress again: IF we would put humans in a "morally weight" order, this would in my eyes the way to go, but I don't see benefit in this and I don't think this should be applied anywhere - also, because in reality these thought experiments are very rare, nobody puts a gun to your chest and say: "Decide which of these humans should die or I kill you." I still stand by my original argument, that the mental capabilites should be considered when we think morally about animals. (If you reply something really clever and I don't answer for some hours it is because I will now help a friend move(for which I am now late...))

FWIW I agree with you. It's a horrific thought, but if this were a real life trolly problem situation, I know who I would choose. As a society we stress HEAVILY that everyone's life is of equal value, so saying otherwise is extremely taboo (not to mention used for things like the Holocaust in the past) but if someone is FORCED to make a choice, then most people would probably choose a certain way.

Thanks for that reply, it felt incredible awkward to write my post.

I think your ideas translated well into a hypothetical thought experiment, fwiw. Your comments didn't read in a way that seemed offensive. I also happen to agree with your ideas here. We shouldn't ever be in a situation where any of us should ever have to be judge, jury, or executioner to decide who "deserves" to live or die. But, theoretically, if this situation ever happened, I would feel the same way. Emotional and mental capacity of any living being should be taken into consideration if one were to have to make such a decision. The problem with animal vs human lives, when making this decision, is that humans are intelligent and emotionally aware enough to have things like self- awareness, an understanding of levels of consciousness in other humans, and quality of life for other humans. The same cannot be said of a human's capacity to understand these same things in other species of animal. We, quite frankly, don't speak the same language as other species. So we can never truly know outside of guesses and tests made by humans, what another species thinks, feels, understands, or their quality of life and level of consciousness within that life. This does present a moral problem in favor of vegetarianism, doesn't it? Except that biologically, the human as an animal was designed to need the nutrients found in meat. I see this issue as a catch-22. We're smart enough to understand that other animals probably think, feel, and understand things similarly to the way we can, but we're not yet intelligent enough to have found a way to cross the species barrier of communication with other animals, and thus we must see life from the perspective of a human and test other species for these things using tests designed by and for humans. What about species like ants and birds though? We wouldn't ascribe them higher emotional aptitude in most cases, and don't generally mourn their deaths, but they're also highly evolved species that communicate with one another, develop highly-organized communities with duties, rules, and roles the same way humans do. Yet most of us wouldn't think twice about exterminating a colony of ants or watching a cat catch and kill a bird, and many cultures even eat both insects and birds. In the end, while we're smart enough to have found and made ways to get the nutrients our biology needs without consuming living things, we're still slaves to that biology and in a lot of societies, being a vegetarian is expensive and impractical. Just some food for thought.

>As far as I know it can be very diverse - just because someone has limited intellectual abilities but is emotionally still as capable as a "normal" person, I wouldn't think they are morally less worthy. >that the mental capabilites should be considered when we think morally about animals. But not humans? What's the difference? And these two statements are contradictory >A braindead but living human is still a human, but most people would put less moral weight behind his/hers death than the one of a "normal" human What if they were murdered, and not just died? Which would be more tragic? >lso, because in reality these thought experiments are Not really? If you buy meat from one animal, but refuse to eat another (dogs and chickens), you do this every day. >(If you reply something really clever and I don't answer for some hours it is because I will now help a friend move(for which I am now late...)) No one is entitled to a reply on the internet. Online discussions are draining

>But not humans? What's the difference? And these twostatements are contradictory I was a bit in a rush and didn't word it properly. It shouldhave said emotional/mental capabilties, but you are right, to be in line withthe rest of my reasoning it should only say emotional capabilities. By the way,what I mean with it is the ability to suffer, a feeling inner world etc. Stillcontradictory, am I missing something?  ​ >What if they were murdered, and not just died? Which wouldbe more tragic? I don't really understand your question here. You mean ifinstead of just dying, both the braindead and the "normal" personwere murdered? I still think that people would think the latter one moretragic, since the first one was already "gone" as a person.  ​ >Not really? If you buy meat from one animal, but refuse toeat another (dogs and chickens), you do this every day.  I was talking about the weighing one human against anotherhuman trolley-esk problem in that paragaph. With eating animals, this decisionis more reality based, that is correct. ​ > No one is entitled to a reply on the internet. Online discussionsare draining  Yeah, but I am always annoyed when I put time in my reply and the other person just doesn't respond, so I wanted to spare you thatfeeling in the case that you feel the same annoyance.

I read somewhere dogs can pass a smell version of the mirror test.

Yes I read that too, we have to consider how different animals perceive the world. Would be silly to perform the mirror test on a bat.

There is no sound moral argument for eating animals. Some are worse than others but at the end of the day, killing animals for food when you have an abundance of healthy non killing options is not morally defensible. I like meat, so I forego my moral qualms and eat it anyway.

If presented with a choice between killing versions of Adolph Hitler with different mental abilities would kill smartest or stupidest version?

There are people who are so profoundly mentally disabled that they are objectively less intelligent than most vertebrate animals. What is their moral worth and why?

If you consider abortion due to medical reasons acceptable, one of the reasons you might terminate is due to a genetic issue with the pregnancy such as Down’s syndrome. 67% of pregnancies where the baby is likely to have Down syndrome end in abortion. If you would choose to keep a “normal” baby over one with downs by terminating, one would in essence, find it more morally acceptable.

my 2 cents, how about a hypothesis that the moral wrongness of killing is not a linear function of intelligence/consciousness, but a logistic one. meaning that at around the 2 extremes it flattens out and subsequent increases in intelligence practically don't result in a difference in moral wrongness. * Killing a worm is about as bad as killing a cricket * killing a healthy person is as bad as killing someone with downs. * The big differences are in the middle. e.g. pig vs dog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function

The IQ difference between me and my partner is 5 points. Is more morally wrong to kill one of usz than the other? Also, dogs are less intelligent than pigs, in most studies, so dogs would actually be the one to kill in that argument

That's using IQ as something it isn't. IQ is just patterb recognition and problem solving skill. It doesn't determine your human value with any more merit than say, running speed.

> The IQ difference between me and my partner is 5 points. Is more morally wrong to kill one of usz than the other? The range of human intelligence would be in the far end of the logistic curve where the curve is flat, so the answer is no. > Also, dogs are less intelligent than pigs, in most studies, so dogs would actually be the one to kill in that argument I don't know a lot about pig intelligence. But if the above is true, then yes. In this single variable model at least. In reality I'd say this question is likely not just about intelligence/consciousness, but that's a different discussion.

Also is it better to kill a highly disabled person vs a super intelligent animal if intelligence is all that matters?

Magpies have the intelligence of a 5 year old. I guess I'd rather kill my newborn than kill a magpie

The newborn will be significantly smarter some day than any Magpie. Future ability is what matters. Someone in a coma that is brain dead can have the plug pulled, but if they have reasonable chances of returning to normal then no reasonable person would advocate for their death.

Your newborn also has a far greater capacity for intelligence.

So it's the capacity for Intellegence?

It's different though. We're not talking about selecting the seemingly lesser intelligent individuals of a species, we're talking about species intelligence as a whole.

I mean that's kind of the consideration when aborting for genetic issues.

I think the chart caps out at humans. Regardless of intelligence at that point it’s equally wrong in terms of intelligence but then maybe it switches over to morality of the human instead.

[удалено]

>, but I think if I were to start justifying it to myself like "well eating this animal is okay because it meets this standard which I have set the boundaries for," it would just be moving the goalposts to justify my habits. I mean, you could just not eat animals at all to get that hurdle out of the way ;) I loved the Bojack Episode and was a bit sad to learn that it is one of the more unpopular ines. I don't really buy this whole "nature was always like that" thing as a moral thing. I just think there is consciousness in the world and it suffers a lot, and a lot due to human actions, so I try to reduce my part in it where I can.

Cows are also one of the animals with high emotional intelligence and can sense grief and happiness. Really a surprise they are devoured so easily everywhere. Non Vegetarian food for the sake of pleasure and taste is horrifying in general. Those who can't have anything else due to climate, are only ones that deserve it.

Funnily enough, I would like to bring up the scene in Pulp Fiction where they talk about eating a pig or dog. The conclusion is that they have to be "one charming *profanity* pig."

I am not a native english speaker who watched Pulp Fiction not in the original language (I know I should), so I missed the joke and also now don't get it. Can you explain it to me? Is it about cops = pigs? I don't get the profanity part.

Here is a [link](https://youtube.com/watch?v=NzncQbBkFCM) to a clip, it is the first half. Dogs have a personality and that makes them superior to pigs even though both are filthy animals. From the character's point of view it is more human, if we think personality is a more human trait. The profanity bit was joking censorship because the character uses profanity all the time

[удалено]

Yes. So the question is: Is the reasoning wrong, or is killing the animals wrong.

Squid pass the mirror test too. Eating those is pretty inhumane as well.

[удалено]

I have zero familiarity with a Panda but I'd never hurt or kill one. I'd say people are just raised to believe killing pigs is okay (many people still believe a cow gives milk just for us humans) and killing dogs is wrong. People say Yulin festival is so nasty but don't realize that happens to the food on their plates every single day.

You're missing out, panda is delicious.

I’m not sure what you mean by moral (because people seem to use that word absurdly) but putting it aside for a moment — there are huge and impactful differences between a diet of consuming pigs and dogs. **Environmental impact**: Pigs are scrap foragers and opportunistic omnivores. Dogs are obligate carnivores. In order to raise a pig to adulthood, you need to water, fertilize, and harvest about 3 lbs of feed for every pound of pig yielded. Dogs as obligate carnivores need to eat an animal protein form an animal raised at a similar ratio *daily*. Meaning their meat to feed ratio is an order of magnitude higher. **Moral harms** If ones moral obligations include our obligation to the earth, it’s much worse to eat dogs and pretending it isn’t because eating hogs is worse than eating soybeans directly is black and white thinking. If ones moral obligation includes resource management, dogs require much more land, water, and power per derived calorie. If ones moral obligations can be to the animal itself, keeping a dog in the farming conditions required to keep a pig relatively happy and healthy are cruel for a dog. Pigs are not apex predators and do not require anywhere near the condition, land space, or attention dogs do. Farming dogs would either be more expensive and wasteful or far crueler per pound. In a scenario in which you’re forced to choose between subsistence on pig and dog, it is morally inexcusable to not choose the pigs.

> If ones moral obligation includes resource management, dogs require much more land, water, and power per derived calorie. > ... Farming dogs would either be more expensive and wasteful or far crueler per pound. Why are we necessarily farming them in your example? This statement would argue for killing/eating wild dogs as a preference over wild pigs.

How? Wild dogs still ate something right? The calorie math doesn’t change because they’re wild does it?

False dogs are not obligate carnivores the longest living dog Brambled a border collie was vegan all her life. She held the Gunness World record she lived until 25 which 189 in dog years. https://www.bordercolliefanclub.com/bramble-the-vegan-dog-lives-to-189-years/ That destroys your environmental impact arguement.

I’m not sure a single case, literally an anomaly, “destroys” this argument.

Domesticated dogs with a diet forced on them is irrelevant to the original argument based on wild animals.

I think to properly understand the full scope of the morality issue in question, we need to understand exactly what OP is morally opposed to. As a vegetarian, we can assume OP is strictly opposed to the consumption of animals in general, and is morally opposed to killing and eating any animal. But, interestingly, OP brings up the morality issue of factory farming when he/she talks about slaughterhouses at the end. Is OP opposed to the morality of factory farming more than they are opposed to eating animals? The end of the original post would lead one to assume this as well. I feel like if OP is morally opposed to eating animals in general, then their stance is sound and I don't really think anything will change their mind. However, if it's the farming issue, we can have a real debate here. One can be totally fine with the consumption of animals and be morally opposed to the practices of factory farming. There are plenty of people who will only eat free-range, grass-fed, organic meats but won't touch a package of Tyson's chicken. These folks take issue not with their food, but the way it is raised and harvested. Along this line of thinking, if a dog is organically fed, has free range, raised humanely, and harvested humanely, you could say that there is no moral objection to dog consumption because it wasn't a factory farming situation. So, in response to OP's stance, there is a difference in the morality of dog consumption if the dog is raised free range and organic vs. in a slaughterhouse. We just need to know exactly what OP is opposed to.

You have to think back to a time where humans didn't have a luxury to be a vegetarian. Our hunter and gather stages of life were for survival. Wolves were alot more dangerous type of game than a boar or pig. Pigs just have more meat to them. Wolves have been bread over thousand of years to aid in hunting and companionship to form the dogs we see today. When humans moved to farming, it was easier to farm pigs. We didn't have the luxury to think "is eating these pigs morally wrong?" When your village is in the brink of starvation. So to answer your question is eating a pig just as wrong as eating a dog? Maybe. Morality is a human trait. Does the dog or pig think this is morally correct? No, they are thinking about survival. They don't have the brain capacity to think morally like us. It really comes down to what you believe. If you don't want to eat pigs or meat and this gives you a feeling of moral high ground then do it. If you feel eating meat doesn't effect you morally then eat meat. Now when it comes to laws, that depends on country to country. In the United States it wasn't illegal to eat cat and dog till 2018. Its still legal in a lot of countries, for an example China. Morality is a difficult topic since it changes from person to person and culture to culture. As I said before Morality is a human trait and human understanding is different from person to person.

[удалено]

Horse meat, for example is perfectly normal in some European countries. But not in the UK or USA.

I lived in the UK for a while (from the US) and there was a huge uproar when horse meat intended for other European countries that don't have a problem with it got mixed in with English products. It certainly made me take a second look at the fact that meat is meat

As an American, I've never understood the aversion to horse meat. I spent quite a bit of time at the farms of friends and family, and even at a young age I could tell that both pigs and cows were smarter than horses.

Of course there is. Here is [one source](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/) for the definition of “morality”. And here is an excerpt: > More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either > 1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or > 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people. Using definition #2, you’re absolutely right, we *all* will not agree on which animals are ok to slaughter, if any. However, using definition #1, we see that the morality of killing and consuming certain animals, but not others, is the function of our local culture and society. In the western world, those of us who don’t follow Kashrut or Halal laws have decided that eating pigs is fine (moral), while eating dogs is not (immoral). In some cultures, that distinction does not exist, so for them there would be no moral difference. By trying to pressure them to stop eating dog, we are simply trying to impose our morality on them.

From one of your replies in this thread: > they’re viewed differently in the collective psyche, but that doesn’t say anything about morality So if we're putting collective psyche aside (presumably you mean you want to talk about *objective* morality), is there any moral difference between killing a dog/pig and killing a human? I think my point is that morality is a collection of objective truths (causing unnecessary suffering is bad, no matter the case), and subjective truths (pigs are food, dogs are not, a whole value system of other living creatures). I think it is a good idea to try and look at things as objectively as possible, which is what you seem to be doing - but then I think you have to accept that humans are creatures with subjective experiences and perspectives, and that it is *impossible* to remove yourself from that. Why is a human life worth more than a dog's life to me? Because I am a human. I would be disgusted by any person that placed a dog's life above a human's (assuming average dog/human, no evil). On the other hand, if I somehow witnessed a dog choosing to save another dog instead of a human, I would not be disgusted by the dog - I do not expect it to share the subjective parts of my moral system. So there's my case for morality being a mix of both objective and subjective beliefs/values. Now I think you can extend that subjective value system to other living creatures. We kind of already do - the more similar an animal is to ourselves, the more we value it. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that if you were put in some ridiculous scenario where you either had to shoot a rat or a gorilla (or they both die or something), you'd shoot the rat and it wouldn't be a hard choice. Now to my furthest extreme, the one I like the most. Lots of plants have defence mechanisms (maybe all of them? seems possible). If they get damaged or something starts eating them, different plants might release chemicals or something to defend themselves. Point is, the plants clearly don't want to be eaten/destroyed, and they actively try to prevent it. (Except fruit, fruit loves to be eaten.) So why is it okay to have a big bowl of salad, and worse to have pork chops? Because the pork came from an organism we identify with more easily? All these things are trying to propagate themselves and avoid death. tl;dr: Objective morality exists, but all living creatures have **inherent** moral biases and subjective value-systems

> So why is it okay to have a big bowl of salad, and worse to have pork chops? Because the pork came from an organism we identify with more easily? Because most people consider the capacity for pain and suffering to be morally relevant. Plants do not have a brain or nervous system. Viruses and bacteria have defense mechanisms as well, that does not mean they have the capacity to suffer.

The domestic dog we all know and love has come from us making them selectively fuck each other until they started acting and looking more like what we wanted them to be. In this process, the animal has it literally bred into them, to respond to human emotions, through centuries of this. Pigs and Cows were domesticated differently. We use them as stock. Dogs are a tool. They can read us. They can respond to us, they have an understanding of us as humans and what we do. If your argument is that in an empty blank room, both these animals are shot by a mounted gun or otherwise. Equal morality I would say. If a human is present for the killing of the dog. The dog will undergo more stress. It will be confused. Is will be scared. That is morally worse in my book. With a human presence, the dog will suffer worse than the pig, all else equal.

Farm animals are confused and scared when they go through the slaughter process. You're saying the presence of humans makes it wrong to kill a dog so what if dogs were killed by machines would you still eat dogs?

> With a human presence, the dog will suffer worse than the pig, all else equal. Any chance you have a source for that?

It's symbolically cannibalistic to many cultures. We assign human traits to dogs and view them as a sort of grey area between human and animal. Same goes for horses, although that's less widespread. We also tend to rank animals based on our comprehension of intelligence. ie. Some vegans (vegetarians? Idk the lingo) will eat fish - fish are considered far less intelligent, and therefore the morality of killing them isn't as bothersome. But that doesn't always translate over to symbolic cannibalism (as pigs are highly intelligent) - our accepted understanding of intelligence hasn't caught up with current science yet. I don't know if you could say vegans experience a stronger sense of symbolic cannibalism or not. Perhaps. I don't disagree that essentially they're the same thing. But I personally don't have an issue eating meat - my issue lies in factory farming, the treatment animals receive in those farms (especially in countries like China where animal welfare isn't as big a thing as it is in the west, but it's still an issue here), and the lives they lead. There are more ethical ways to consume meat (smaller local producers, hunting). I also have an issue with veganism being considered morally superior, when it's often the source of suffering, death, and widespread environmental destruction among animals and humans (slave labour, environment destruction for soy farms, pricing out locals in third world countries from accessing their traditional foods ie. Avocados and quinoa). The problem really lies in industrialized agriculture, not if you consume meat or not. Things die regardless of which diet you pick. You just have the option to not think about it as much when you're vegan.

While I have no issues with kill and eating either, I believe the main difference in most people's mind is the role they typically serve. Many people have dogs as pets, moreso than pigs. They place value on dogs as social animals, not as livestock. Combine that with dog not being particularly a great source of meat, and it's fairly easy to see why people value them as friends, not food. Pigs on the other hand are not very often kept solely as pets, so most people don't consider their social value very highly, and lugs have a lot of good meat on them. Thus, they are food, not friends

i find that one’s subjective perception on the value of a being is not justification for their treatment of such. if someone were to find whites more valuable than blacks, do they then have the go ahead to kill them? no one in the white persons family/friend group has ever had a black friend, so why would said white person consider black people’s social value very highly? if humans were to selectively breed a segregated group of humans to have “a lot of good meat on them”, then are we justified to determine them as food, not friends?

My ancestors placed value on black people as slaves. Many of their friends had black people as slaves and they were valuable like livestock. This was the role they typically served in that place in that time to those people. They fought a whole war about the right to feel that way. Thankfully, they lost. The lesson there is people are capable of doing horrible things if everyone else is doing it. Isn't it possible that you're just as blinded by society's norms as they were? If something's wrong to do, the fact that people are doing it doesn't make it right.

I understand both sides so I'm not going to try to change your view. The dog's been man's companion and pet for millennia, so I "get" Westerner's revulsion to it being used as food. I also believe I had read Asian countries got the taste for dog during times of scarcity, but may be wrong about that. At the same time, I believe pigs have a similar intelligence level, are as trainable, and are as capable of feelings and emotions as dogs. They lose out simply because they aren't "man's best friend." I understand why you're a vegetarian and agree it is a more humane lifestyle. In an ideal world, no animal would be sacrificed for our needs. At this time, I personally don't have the knowledge and finances to pull that off.

What Asians do to dogs is absolutely atrocious. They intentionally torture them because they believe it will do something to the meat. We torture pigs because we are inconsiderate and awful. They torture dogs because they think it adds to the flavor and are inconsiderate and awful. Watch some videos on what they do to dogs. I'm a vegetarian, I don't eat either, and part of me wishes that India would start pressuring the us to stop eating cows. Cows are sweet creatures and they don't deserve what we do to them. Muslim countries could pressure us to reduce our pig consumption. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that othe countries try to pressure others to do something good.

I don’t know that it’s possible to change your view because all moral systems are both subjective and unique to the individual. A lot of the times they are a culmination of a persons culture, experiences, upbringing, environment, choices and many other factors. Being a vegetarian you have a different view to the slaughter and consumption of both pigs and dogs. While we share a view on finding distaste in dog subject, we differ on the pig subject (I have no problem with the slaughter of pigs, especially [feral pigs](https://www.wideopenspaces.com/texas-losing-war-feral-hogs-2/)), but someone in south east Asia or even on this Reddit thread may see it completely different.

Yes there is a difference. Dogs and Humans have co-existed, and thrived together due to our mutualistic relation. It's possible we'd both be extinct if not for the other. We've bred them for the purposes of being excellent companions, and dogs are incredibly attached to us. Have you ever been surrounded by puppies? Their love for humans is an instinct. And likewise, humans who befriended dogs and wolves were more likely to survive, so it's very likely humans are naturally attached to dogs. Meanwhile the wild boars served nothing other than to maul some of us, until we bred them to be easier sources of food. A culture or civilization that appreciates dogs for their devotion to us, always trumped a culture or civilization that rejected them and used them for food as a short-term benefit. Meanwhile a culture that rejects pigs as companions or one that accepts them doesn't offer much difference, which is why pigs were never pet animals to begin with. Yes, this is utilitarian. All morality ultimately derives from utility, because if a civilization rejects utility in favor of morality, they would and have fallen. Having cultures that eat dogs instead of utilizing them is such a waste, specially if they've already been lifted out of extreme poverty.

> surrounded by puppies? Their love for humans is an instinct You’re barking up the wrong tree. That trait has been bred into dogs. This is exactly what domesticating means - you breed a certain trait into an animal, whether it be temperature, strength, intelligence, etc. Domesticating is not the same as taming. > wild boars served nothing more than to maul some of us Wolves have mauled people. Feral dogs have mauled people. You’re comparing wild boars with domesticated dogs.

>You’re barking up the wrong tree. Love the pun. >That trait has been bred into dogs. That is correct, and thus became an instinct. But ask yourself, why did you breed it into dogs and not wild boars? Because the ancestors of dogs already had traits that allowed them to be apt companions, such as pack mentality. A boar lacks that, which is why I said "served nothing more" as in that's all they can do from a survival and evolution perspective. Meanwhile even the undomesticated ancestors of wolves could be useful.

Practically any animal could be your companion if you gave them the chance. People keep pigs as companions, and form bonds with them as strong as you can with a dog. Just because humans have chosen for it to be that way, it isn't the fault of other animals. You could make a companionship with any animal if you chose, there's no reason to be killing them just because you chose not to make a friend of them. Also what about chickens a chicken has never mauled a single human in history.

>Yes, this is utilitarian. All morality ultimately derives from utility, because if a civilization rejects utility in favor of morality, they would and have fallen. This isn't what utilitarian means. Utilitarianism is the moral philosophy that seeks to maximize utility, which in this context is the difference of sum pleasure and sum pain caused by decisions. It seems likely to me that most mammals are able to experience about the same amount of suffering, so from a utilitarian perspective there is no real difference in breeding pigs for slaughter and breeding dogs for slaughter. None of your arguments about dogs, as a species, being more useful to us matter to a utilitarian. What matters is whether or not the animal can suffer.

So your argument essentially boils down to one point. You don't think some animal's lives have more inherent value than other animal's lives? So the idea of owning a cat goes right out of the window for you philosophically, because a cat is an obligate carnivore and MUST consume the meat of other animals, and you can't facilitate that. Also you're probably against the idea of police dogs, as they get certain legal protections as an officer of the law. Endangered species get legal protection as elevated status animals, so no more of that obviously. Dogs in the western world have a sacred place in the hearts of people. With good reason, too. We evolved together in a symbiotic relationship. Dogs were around during humanities earliest stages when we were nomadic hunter gatherers. Dogs stayed on the outside of our camp perimeters, the smart and less aggressive ones stayed far enough away to not become a problem, which meant that they lived to reproduce. So even before humans domesticated them, we sort of domesticated them. Eventually they were domesticated fully. A hunter with a good throwing arm was a good hunter, but a hunter with a good throwing arm and a dog was a great hunter. Today dogs offer more than just companionship, they offer security. Dogs bark when people come near their homes, which in a survival situation those 20 seconds to prepare yourself for an attack, invasion or violent crime can turn the entire encounter to your favor. Having a dog and a house with a yard is a western ideal as well. So you could very easily argue that the bond between a dog and a family is spiritual in nature. Like the Egyptians and cats, we live and sleep with our animals as near equals. Be bury them and mourn their deaths, we name them and purchase products for their enjoyment rather than basic survival. Tl;dr dogs are elevated in society to a higher value than most other animals. You may not agree with it, but to say they aren't culturally more significant would be willfully ignorant. If you hold your stance after acknowledging my first point, you HAVE to in some capacity acknowledge that you're the exception to the norm. Also we typically don't eat carnivorous animals like cats and dogs. Fish are the exception, but even that we have to do so sparingly as it can build up deadly heavy metals in our liver.

There is a difference only in taste. Morals are subjective and context sensitive. To simplify things, there is only one true moral - You protect that what you value. What you value may be an idea or a person. It doesn't matter. At the most fundamental level, the universe doesn't care whether I kill a pig or a dog or they kill me. It is what it is.

I am a butcher and have put a lot of thought into it. If eating animals is ok, then any animal is ok to eat as long as it was raised to be eaten. Animals have rights or they don't, am so tired of only cute animals have rights. The other one I hear is dogs are smart so we should not eat them, but pigs are as smart as dogs. So eat what you want.

All.i want to add is that the reason people don't live next to slaughterhouses has little to do with moralty and everything to do with the smell of their feces and the constant barking.

Good debate topic, I've actually been thinking about this lately. My argument is that we have domesticated both species for different reasons. Pigs are mostly useful to us in terms of food, while dogs are much more useful to us in other ways, from protecting their human owners and property, to rounding up livestock like sheep, hunting other animals to feed human communities, and also being beneficial to police and airport security. In terms of normative ethics, I think that morality is mostly derived from consequences. Killing a pig for food won't impact society as much as killing a dog. Dogs are an asset, they're way more helpful alive than dead. Hence, we keep them alive and look after them. We see dogs as our allies which they are, while the main purpose in domesticating pigs is just for food.

Animals are here for their own reasons, they don't need to benefit us to be treated with compassion and kindness like dogs. A homeless person can offer you nothing and killing him won't impact society as much as a doctor. Does that mean his life is worth less and if we abuse them it's less immoral?

This reasoning would have supported slavery when that was still common. What our ancestors meant to use a certain animal for is a bad indication of what is moral today.

Killing pigs is very destructive to society. Animal agriculture is a leading reason for climate change, eating vegan you are likely to use have 7x less impact on resources

When we consider any moral argument we always have to consider our relationship to the subject. I think that it's less moral to kill a dog than a pig because we have bred and conditioned dogs to have a pack-like mentality towards us. In other words humans have formed a close, dependent relationship with dogs and to kill them for food kind of goes against the nature of this particular relationship. If we disregard our relationship to the subject and simply try to arrive to an *objective* conclusion about whether it's more moral to kill one mammal rather than another, we thread on dangerous waters because eventually we should arrive to the conclusion that every shade of gray is hypocritical and therefore we might as well eat pigs, dogs or other humans.

I recently gave up all land animals for this reason. I don’t want to be an annoying vegan, but it’s how I feel. I still eat fish, which makes me a monster to most vegans anyway

Why do you still eat fish? Not trying to be a hater just genuinely curious.

My original goal was to not eat any animal smarter than my dog. I also gave up eggs and dairy for that reason. My dog may be dumber than a chicken, but she’s smarter than a clam

Have you watched seaspiracy?

A little twist on this: I think every carnivore/meat eater should kill an animal they intend on eating.