In his latest blog, EMT asked: Why is it that, once we consider an animal a pet (a creature whose sole purpose is enslavement by our species for, primarily, our own amusement), that we become uneasy at the thought of using that animal as a source of food?
Amusement? Maybe a fish or a pet rock is for your amusement(or lack thereof), but not mammals such as cats and dogs. It has been shown that people with pet's have less heart problems. Pets can lower your blood pressure, your cholesterol, your triglyceride levels along with other health benefits. Dogs also help children with autism spectrum disorders.
I suppose training your dog to do tricks is for your amusement, but that's not the reason why most pet owners have them. They also provide unconditional love, they don't care if you are weird, if you say the wrong thing, or you didn't pay the cable bill. Pets make you feel less lonely and that social support is one of the reasons that they reduce stress.
So with all of these things that animals do for us why would we eat them? If you eat a steak you are using that cow for food. If you have a pet you are using it, but in a different way. We use pets as comfort, friends, and as Bretticus mentioned, family. Why would you want to eat your friend or family member?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This relationship between people and their pets makes me think also about relationships between people and house plants. Many people also develop deep relationships with house plants, which also significantly reduce stress and help mental health, but in a different way; maybe the main difference is that this relationship is no a social one. One piece of evidence for the difference between these two types of relationships is that most people (especially those not dying of starvation) do not feel bad about eating plants, even when they keep them in their houses. In fact, it can even strenghthen one's relationship with a plant to eat what it produces. Is the capability for sociality, which could be much broader than the capability for self consciousness, a major factor in the moral decision of whether or not something should be eaten? I should point out here that the capacity for sociality is widely considered a precondition for self consciousness. Can an animal even be social if it does not possess some form of self consciousness? Also, what is the kind of relationship that we have with plants?
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should have specified what I meant by "amusement." I would suggest that the companionship provided by a mammal such as a cat or a dog could be simply a form of entertainment, itself. It is stress-relieving, sure, but so, too, can be watching television, reading a book, or interacting with other humans. In this sense, the cat or dog is merely acting as a substitute for social interaction with other humans, but because we do not share a language, and can thus only interact on the most primitive levels (unless I've been missing out on some deep philosophical conversations with my house cats back home), it amounts to little more than using the animal to provide us entertainment. Beneficial to our health and well-being it may be, but in my view, it boils down to entertainment.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, while I certainly cannot deny the fact that some people do consider their pets family members, I have serious doubts about whether such a view is appropriate or healthy. I may take this up in a future blog post.
In responce to Nick: Well, I wouldn't say that their ability to socialize determines whether they are morally right to eat. All animals have a great ability to socialize. But, how they interact with us, to humans does determine wheather it is morally right to eat them.
ReplyDeleteAs for self-consiousness effecting the way we socialize -- I think that it definitly has a factor, but having self awarness doesn't necessairly determine your level of social ability.
There is a big differnce between having your own pet and going to a zoo or aquarium. The animals at those facilities are for entertainment, taken out of the wild for us to stare at and watch do tricks.
ReplyDeleteAn animal back home is a friend and yes, maybe even a family member. I don't see how it's unhealthy to love your dog and consider it a part of your family. Have you ever owned a dog? It's like having a baby in the house. You have to clean up its shit (before trained), feed it, bathe it, and give it attention. I don't know about you, but I think that someone/something that lives in your house and take care of in a parental way is a family member. That is why it is theraputic, people like to feel needed in life and even if that need is from a creature on a "primative" level it still satisfies that urge. The same goes for plants, you need to feed it and make sure it has the correct amount of light -- it needs you. Why does someone have to be of the same species to be considered family member?