Friday, August 28, 2009

On the Ethics of Eating Your Cat: Part I


Brought up as a traditional Omnivorous American, I was taught that the 6 basic food groups were of course; Beef, Pork, Poultry, Cheese, Rice and Potatoes. I never could have fathomed that one day I'd crave raw fish on a regular basis and that sucking the gelatinous eyeball out of a roasted duck's cloven skull would only be a minor issue. In the hip, modern scene of 2009, its cool to be adventurous, its fashionable to toss aside the culinary taboos of our European ancestors (who according to family tradition must have eaten nothing but gruel, crusty bread, pot roast, and boiled potatoes,day in and day out). Never before has the public in general been so accepting of the various dining traditions of the planet

Despite Western societies' recent general willingness to embrace the so called "bizarre foods" of the world over, one item on the menu still seems to disgust our cultural sensibilities with such regularity that I would dare call it the most inflammatory food item since American politicians started thinking about tea bags. I am, as you may well have guessed from the title, talking about the relatively common practice of eating the family pet.

Recently, people in New Zealand were outraged when a man, recently immigrated from Tonga,
Killed and ate his dog. Reactions to this story ranged from one man who fairly pointed out,

"There is little difference between most animals. If you are willing to eat a Cow or Pig, you should have no issue with eating Panda, they are animals. Only one looks cute. Again, a common fish and a whale, one is majestic, the other is common and uninteresting. A family dog is simply an inexpensive, alternative dinner. Why do meat eaters find this offensive? As a vegetarian I find it confusing. It’s all the same, meat!"


to another that pointed out,
"We do make the distinction between pets and livestock… when you raise an animal for its meat and what it can produce for you, it’s different to what a pet is. The difference is in the emotional bond that you create with an animal… sure, a cow or horse can be eaten, but if you’re able to connect with it emotionally, it would become a pet.

If as humans we are able to bond successfully with other species, domesticate them, bring them into our worlds, and – more often than not – embrace them like our own family, they become our ‘own’, then they deserve to be treated as our ‘own’.

If an animal can be a fire safety officer, a police officer, a guide for the visually-impaired, a bomb-sniffer, and – most importantly – a better friend than many humans can be, the least the law can do is to afford it the same dignity as humans – the right not to be eaten."

Where do we draw the line though? Is it in fact respect for an animal's dignity that prevents us as westerners from eating the pooch? Why then, do we have no qualms over eating a beef steak? To nearly 1/6th of the worlds population (I may be exaggerating this slightly) a cow is a sacred animal. A friend of the field and the human race. Hindus do actually avoid eating beef out of respect for the animal. And yet though hordes of Europeans and Americans will flock to venues in South Korea to protest the traditional (though disappearing) eating of Gaegogi, I have yet to encounter a Hindu picket line surrounding my local barbecue joint. This suggests to me that if respect plays any part, it is not respect for dogs that prohibits us from eating Rover, but pride in ourselves in thinking that we would never stoop that low.

Perhaps the most telling answer was one of the least eloquent though. Miss Elaine Confait says
I think it is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen, my pet cat is like my child – would he do the same????? he should be prosecuted & hung – or killed & cooked !!!!!!!
At this point, the dog is given the same importance and moral status of a child, and then she goes on to equate the man with the very same dog!

It seems that much of the feeling of todays public can be attributed to a notion of "animals are people too". We have become so complacent with the human condition that it often no longer occurs to us that the welfare of the human being, when pushed far enough will almost always be put before the welfare of the animal kingdom.



2 comments:

  1. "We do make the distinction between pets and livestock… when you raise an animal for its meat and what it can produce for you, it’s different to what a pet is. The difference is in the emotional bond that you create with an animal… sure, a cow or horse can be eaten, but if you’re able to connect with it emotionally, it would become a pet.
    If as humans we are able to bond successfully with other species, domesticate them, bring them into our worlds, and – more often than not – embrace them like our own family, they become our ‘own’, then they deserve to be treated as our ‘own’.

    If an animal can be a fire safety officer, a police officer, a guide for the visually-impaired, a bomb-sniffer, and – most importantly – a better friend than many humans can be, the least the law can do is to afford it the same dignity as humans – the right not to be eaten."

    If you purchase or breed a domestic animal as food and not as a pet, the emotional attachment cited is nonexistent. This comment implies that the man ate his dog just for the hell of it, which is probably not the case.

    Furthermore, a trained pig, an animal already resigned to the dinner table can preform most, if not all, the tasks listed in said comment and is probably better suited to pet status than the aforementioned dog, being less excitable and more sanitary and with the added benefit of its truffle sensing abilities which could delay the need for the owner to kill and eat it. But I digress.

    Excellent article, I look forward to seeing what you have to say in part two.

    ReplyDelete