Eating a Dog

[Polymath257]

Intriguing. Have you ever owned a dog or a cat?

I own both right now.

And am emotionally attached to both.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Pfft. My sushi is none of your business.

Well, it could be in some cases. Ask if you can't figure it out.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Well, it could be in some cases. Ask if you can't figure it out.

Doggone.

 

[stvdv]

Well, humans are animals - primates.
- Hominidae - Wikipedia

Many humans have animalistic tendencyies, that's good to be aware of

Animals are mainly acting according to their instincts, whereas humans can rise above that

Unlike animals, humans can aim much higher, as to overcome these animal tendencies, and thereby realize their true potential

Hence I rather focus on
"who am I ?"
And put not extra focus on
"I am an animal"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Many humans have animalistic tendencyies, that's good to be aware of

Animals are mainly acting according to their instincts, whereas humans can rise above that

Unlike animals, humans can aim much higher, as to overcome these animal tendencies, and thereby realize their true potential

Hence I rather focus on
"who am I ?"
And put not extra focus on
"I am an animal"

All of that opinion? Even the true part?

 

[Aupmanyav]

OP: It was your neighbors dog, obnoxious or whatever. You did not ask him. You were wrong.
Be careful. Eat what is regular. Otherwise, we risk Ebola, Covid or Monkeypox.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have seen this answer multiple time but it never ceases to intrigue me because it is an anthropocentric answer.

Off course it is.
Morality is anthropocentric (in the sense that it concerns human behavior in relation to human suffering and well-being primarily).

Everybody's focus here will immediately be on your human neighbor as being the relevant victim.
Some will feel bad for the dog also, but not all. I think most won't or just barely.

But the primary focus will be on the neighbor.


Imagine a farm that breeds cows for the purpose of eventual slaughter for the meat.
The farmer's kid daughter somehow develops a special bond with a new born.
The cow means the world to her.

Objectively, it's just one cow of many destined to end up on a plate with a side of french (*cought* belgian) fries.
But now, because of the daughter's bond with the cow, sending that cow to the slaughter house has become ethically controversial.
Not because of the cow. Because of the daughter.

Human morality concerns itself with the effects of behavior on human well-being primarily.

 

[stvdv]

All of that opinion? Even the true part?

Dualism is all about + vs -. True opinions are still opinions, as are false opinions.

Especially when I view them from my Advaita POV, non Dualism

 

[Secret Chief]

Many humans have animalistic tendencyies, that's good to be aware of

Of course, given that primates, such as humans, are animals.

Animals are mainly acting according to their instincts

That is so generalised as to be meaningless. A flea, yes; an octopus? Probably as instinctual as humans.

 

[stvdv]

OP: It was your neighbors dog, obnoxious or whatever. You did not ask him. You were wrong.
Be careful. Eat what is regular. Otherwise, we risk Ebola, Covid or Monkeypox.

Yes, that's wise advice

Maybe the neighbor is Clairvoyant and knew you were going to steal and eat his dog, and infected it with monkey pox to teach you a big lesson "Thou shall not steal" (he knew his dog was about to die very soon anyway)

 

[Secret Chief]

Everybody's focus here will immediately be on your human neighbor as being the relevant victim.
Some will feel bad for the dog also, but not all. I think most won't or just barely.

I wish you hadn't said "everybody." It seems to me, that the primary victim is the dog, given it has been killed. I suspect I won't be in a minority of one here.

 

[KWED]

OK, about a decade ago, I was going to barbeque some meat that my wife was supposed to thaw out for me but forgot, thus I had my grill out but nothing to put on it. However, my neighbor's obnoxious dog was outside, so I went over to their house, took their dog, skinned it, cut it up, and then put it on the grill.

When the neighbor came home and found out what I'd done, I offered him money for the dog, but he still was angry. So, I asked him if he ever ate meat, and he said yes, so I then asked him what the problem was as I was more than willing to pay him for the dog. After all, if he eats meat, isn't that eating another animal as I did?

So, did I do wrong?

Several issues.
The dog was your neighbours property, so it was theft.
There are animal cruelty laws that may have been breached.
There was emotional attachment, so just as offering a random orphan to replace a child you killed, it doesn't work like that.

Your analogy fails because you similarly can't demolish your neighbour's house just because he works in the demolition industry.

However, the basic act of eating a dog is no different to eating a lamb or horse, if they are reared and killed according to livestock animal laws.

 

[KWED]

OK, the above actually didn't happen, but my question for you is "What's the difference?" other than it's "not my dog".

I'll be back tomorrow.

The issue is contextual. In a society where dogs are seen as companions and not food, eating them can be considered abhorrent.
In societies where eating dog is commonplace, there is no such moral outrage.

 

[stvdv]

That is so generalised as to be meaningless.

When taken out of context, indeed it seems quite meaningless

 

[KWED]

So why waste money locking murderers up for years when they could just pay a fine and be done with it.

This can happen in societies that practice the principle of "blood money".

But to answer your question - to prevent repeat offending, for one.

 

[KWED]

Killing an animal isn't murder as legally defined.

I think that depends on the animal in question.

 

[Secret Chief]

The issue is contextual. In a society where dogs are seen as companions and not food, eating them can be considered abhorrent.
In societies where eating dog is commonplace, there is no such moral outrage.

In some cultures it is considered acceptable to eat kale. Revolting huh.

 

[Bathos Logos]

I usually refrain from too many quotes but this thread calls for it. Dogs have a special role in creation.

Do you know much of the history of what we now call "dogs"? For instance, the fact that "canine" as a species is what has been used to breed what is modernly referred to as "dogs"? Wild animals like coyotes and wolves. Where things like "Saint Bernard" or "Doberman Pincer" or "Dalmatian" of even "mutt" didn't even exist "in the beginning". So, to state that "dogs" have any sort of intrinsic or natural role in "creation" (as a reference to "when things were created") doesn't make much sense. Humans crafted them. Humans created them. Therefore, if they have any sort of "role" as pertains to humans it is because we bred them for it. The act of creation was most certainly ours, if we're looking to attribute it to anyone/anything.

 

[Rival]

I think that depends on the animal in question.

It's not classed as murder though. Fox hunting is illegal in the UK not as it's murder but as it's considered animal cruelty.

 

[Koldo]

Off course it is.
Morality is anthropocentric (in the sense that it concerns human behavior in relation to human suffering and well-being primarily).

I am going to disagree with you right from the start. Morality is not strictly about human suffering and well-being. I don't know why you think this way.

It is not even correct to say it is strictly concerned with human behaviour. Consider how we generally have no problem saying that God would be immoral for X and Y reasons if he were to exist. It is about behavior of moral agents.

Everybody's focus here will immediately be on your human neighbor as being the relevant victim.
Some will feel bad for the dog also, but not all. I think most won't or just barely.

I would expect that to be the case decades ago but not nowadays. I am truly surprised... In a negative manner.