A hypothetical.
Posted on: August 22, 2009 - 4:07pm
Offline
A hypothetical.
Say a family has a dog, and the dog dies. Instead of burying it, they prepare it properly and eat it.
Would you be morally opposed to this? If so, why?
I'm comparing and contrasting your answers with another forum, by the way. Kind of a study of how atheists perceive morality vs the general public.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
- Login to post comments
I would not be morally opposed to it.
It depends on the dog.
Seriously, what's the moral difference between eating a dead chicken a dead cow or a dead dog? Beyond the obvious ick factor of dog meat, I guess it's a question of familiarity. Does being familiar with an animal (does this sound like beastiality?) morally obligate you to treat it's body with respect? What does that even mean? Maybe Fido would want to be eaten as a thank you for the countlesss hours of leg humping.
http://csmith1974.wordpress.com/
It triggers my moral disgust instincts, but rationally, I would only be morally opposed to it for health reasons. A sick dog may have parasites, and eating it may cause health problems in the humans. That's my first objection. Also, in Canada, where we have gov't supported health care, I would be opposed to such an unnecessary health risk the same way I'm opposed to smoking and the use of dirty needles in drug use. Essentially, it costs the tax-payers money if someone gets sick.
However, if they prepared the dog in such a way that they minimized potential health risks, I don't think I would have any rational moral objections. Still, I would not partake of the meat myself, based on my emotional moral reaction to eating pets.
Edit: An interesting extension of this question is the case of cannibalism. I suppose there are more reasons to object to cannibalism, but it's not immediately obvious as to why there should be. After all, a dead human is just flesh. However, cannibalism has a higher health risk, since human-to-human parasite infection is much more likely than dog-to-human. Also, I think there are additional objections, such as the potential for abuse (e.g. unnecessarily motivating potential murders for food), interfering with family's rights to dispose of the bodies of their loved ones as they see fit, interfering with potential crime investigations (eating the evidence of suspected murder, for example), etc.
But technically, if you can burn your grandma to ashes, why can't you roast her over the barbecue?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Well, the first thought that comes to my mind is exactly why they want to eat Rover. However, while I can think of plenty of reasons that I can answer yes to, the possible questions that come out no for me are just not there.
They come from a place where eating dog is culturally acceptable? Yes.
They are in the middle of a famine and rover let's them stretch the supplies a few days longer? Yes.
They are a member of some new religion who consider this to be a form of communion? Yes.
Rover has some transmissible condition? Well, if it can be cooked out of the meat, I don't see a problem here.
The only serious objection that comes to mind actually relates to cannibalism. Specifically prion caused diseases. Normally, these are only a problem in the case of cannibalism. Ie. Mad cow disease has been traced to feeding the unsaleable bits of cattle to other cattle or human laughing sickness only seems to happen to people who eat human brains.
Now, I would really hope that there is neither human meat nor dog meat in commercial dog food. However, dogs do have a track record of eating whatever they can get into their mouth. That and people do let their dogs roam unsupervised. So realistically, there is a non-zero possibility of dogs carrying prions that can sicken humans. And prions cannot be cooked out of food short of incinerating it.
Apparently, even the gamma flux from cobalt 60 can't destroy prions. For reference, cobalt 60 radiation is the magic behind parmalat milk that can be kept at room temperature for years and only put in the fridge overnight before opening it. Once parmalat has been opened, it is subject to the same degradation as any other milk but a little bit slower because it has to get the bacteria from the air that it comes into contact with.
=
Just to clarify, I'm not at all interested as to weather you're medically opposed to this.
No.
Yeah, the possibility of disease doesn't make it an immoral act. Or, maybe that's debatable. I guess we should just answer your question with the assumption that nobody is going to get sick.
Having said that, I do 'feel' morally opposed to cannibalism, but I can't think of any rational justification for it. Undoubtedly, it's in our instincts to not eat our own species. So, I suppose if you ever want to eat your grandma, I won't like it, but I don't think I'd try to stop you either. Just don't ask me to have some grandma steak too.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
It can go either way totally depends on there reasons for eating it. I wouldn't do it, If anyone i knew did i would be discusted. I think its disrespectful to the pet, so im going to say it is morally wrong unless there is reason to eat it.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- morally opposed to eating him/her. I would be beyond morally opposed to eating the family pet. My main problem is the word pet which means companionship,enjoyment etc.. a pet is not livestock or a laboratory animal,it's part of the family.But if I grew up in a society were food is scarce and people don't have feelings towards a dog (N.Korea) or a cat (parts of China) as part of the family,I would not hesitate to put some life saving nutrients in my stomach.I hope that answers your hypothetical question.
Signature ? How ?
I am sure I have heard of farming families apparently treat a young calf as a pet. then when it reaches an appropriate age, have it slaughtered and then eat it...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I have no problem with it.
The concept of morality needs to be dumped in favor of social contracts.
A better question might be is it wrong for people of Asian decent to kill and eat health dogs. The answer depends on whether the society has a social contract with the dogs. In different cultures, humans have different relationships with dogs.
In many parts Latin America, stray dogs are allowed to exist that are belong to no one, they just eat garbage and handouts. The contract humans have with these dogs is you don't harm us we don't harm you. In the USA, we don't much tolerate stray dogs, dogs must be in a owner-pet relationship. Then in some Asian countries it's OK to eat dogs but they generally don't keep them as pets.
So, I think it the answer depends on if the relationship can be made mutually beneficial to both species.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
To clarify the situation: The family is white and middle-class. They are not eating the dog because of tradition or culture or poverty. They are not eating it to honor its "soul." They are just eating it. The dog had no transmittable diseases and no one involved will get sick. They treated the dog well when it was alive, and did not abuse it our kill it.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
Unrealistic scenario. Science tells us that all animals(including humans) only perform actions based on an expectation of reward or avoidance of punishment. What is their motivation to do such an action? How do they derive pleasure from this activity?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Then what is the problem?
=
Yeah, I've heard of cases like that too. In particular, I remember my stepdad told me that his brother got really attached to a pig that was on the farm and cried when they going to slaughter it.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
That's what I wanna know.
Just an FYI: this is going completely differently on the other forum.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
After you're satisfied with our responses, can we get a link to the thread in the other forum? I want to see it.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
The family will be tortured for all of eternity by BeelzePug:
Its disrespectfull to the pet. Put it this way what is wrong with having sex with a dead person? No one is hurt by it. it is just disrespectful to that persons memory. It is the same with eating a pet, there isn't something I can point to and say there thats what makes it immoral but eating a companion just seems immoral to me.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I don't quite see the moral dilemma with that either, sorry .
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
What if the dead person had giving you permission?
I know dogs can't give permission to be eaten, but they rarely give permission for their castration either.
apologies for insensitivness or whatever of this post
Ok so you have no moral problem with someone digging up your mother (once she is dead if she isn't already) and has his way with her? If not then wow. How about after the person who digs her up and had his way with her is finished you eat her. After all ther is no moral dilema dead is dead, there is no harm. Hey lets stuff her and mount her as a trophy on someones wall (like hunting trophies), no moral dilema she is dead after all! Oooooo lets dance in her blood and smear it all over our selves like war paint and crap in her grave! No harm dead is dead, no harm can be done.
Ok now that all that is out of the way I can go back to normal.
Yes its true no harm can be done after all dead really means dead. So where is the moral dilemma?
As I have said there isn't something I can just point to and say thats what makes it immoral but il give it my best shot.
It is degrading of the persons memory, it is the same with the pet although to a lesser extent than the examples given here. As long as there is someone who cares or did care for whatever has died it is morally wrong to taint that memory for them. Now im sure you can appreciate that it is atleast wrong to do these examples I gave with the mother, It could cause suffering in others (I know it would if it were my mother) to see there mothers dead body being put through that. To cause suffering is morally wrong.
Now since we have established that doing stuff to the dead can be morally wrong lets move onto eating a dead pet.
So if you eating the dead pet causes anyone suffering it is morally wrong. It is not hard to see this being the case.
now if there is no one who suffers because of it. Well then i need to think more. But something smells off about it. So im going to follow my gut on this one. Morally wrong.
I love my pets and I know i would be super pissed if someone ate my dog even if it was dead and it was my family that did the eating.
Your hypothetical leaves out alot of details but so far this is what iv got. It is not the act that is immoral but what the act causes. It is also not because it is a dog, it is the same if it is a cow or a goat. I just think you owe it to the memory of whatever has died to treat its body well if you had some relasionship with it.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
But Zymotic is asking why that's the case. Why do you owe it to the memory of this pet to treat its body well?
It's not "do you find this repugnant?" it's "WHY do you find this repugnant?"
I don't think we're going to find an answer that's satisfactory to everyone, but it does reveal a little something about our values.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I did my best above that to explain it, we don't do it for whatever died but for others that cared about it that are still alive. Its to not degrade the memory of whatever died for whoever is still alive. This is what i mean by we owe it to its memory, not that we owe it to whatever died.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I don't know what that means....
I don't know what that means either...
It's the same with me. Maybe I should have said that I do think it's immoral? Again, my conscience tells me that it's wrong, but I can think of no logical justification behind it. So, in the case of eating the pet, I kind of want to say that it's not immoral. But, with cannibalism, my instincts scream so loud, that I want to say it is immoral.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
All this certainly shows how much what we think of as 'moral' stems from such instinctive reactions. I doubt that any 'moral' judgement could be based purely on rational thought processes - to justify the tag, the consequences or implications of an act, hypothetical or real, would have to trigger at least some instinctive or intuitional feelings, IMHO.
Many such instincts may have evolved from the needs of a social species, or more primitive associations with death and disease.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology