• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Eating a Dog

TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Secret Chief said:
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.
Click to expand...

So when you read the hypothetical in the OP, your mind didn't pretty much instantly go to the question "how did the neighbor react" or some variation thereof?

What I mean to say is, it seems to me that in general at least, human suffering has more weight in moral reasoning then non-human suffering.

This is why the hypothetical of killing someone's pet is morally worse then killing some wild animal instead.
 
KWED

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Koldo said:
It is the thing that makes me wonder why we aren't all vegetarians already.
Click to expand...
Erm, because meat is bloody lovely?
If god didn't want us to eat animals, he shouldn't have made them out of food.

The only thought that gives me pause is this: Is it better to be born just to be killed later on and eaten, or is it better not to live at all?
Click to expand...
"'Tis better to have loved and lost that to have never loved at all."
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Koldo said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean.
And human morality which concerns human behavior (as in the OP) relates to how it affects human well-being primarily (and well-being of other sentient beings secondary).

It concerns well-being in general.

If you say that morality ultimately doesn't pertain to well-being, then I honestly don't know what you mean when you say "morality".

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

Why?
 
Koldo

Koldo

Outstanding Member
KWED said:
Erm, because meat is bloody lovely?
If god didn't want us to eat animals, he shouldn't have made them out of food.

"'Tis better to have loved and lost that to have never loved at all."
Click to expand...

I don't think that being tasty is a good excuse to eat something or someone.
 
Bathos Logos

Bathos Logos

Active Member
metis said:
So, did I do wrong?
Click to expand...
Major moral considerations from relatively common human perspective, as I see them:
  • disregard for human emotional attachments/family
  • stealing (though this only because we humans believe that we can "own" other animals, which will be recognized by law most everywhere)

Moral considerations that are not as major (again, from human perspective), as I see them:
  • killing an animal without need as the impetus
  • offering to pay for something to fix a perceived problem (bribery/reparations) that you had forethought in creating yourself. As in - you knew it was going to be a problem, but you went through with it anyway, and later expect that money is going to fix everything - thereby assuming that you understand the value-implications of the situation. Corporations get called on this sort of thing all the time for things like waste dumping, and we understand it to be a moral consideration
 
KWED

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Rival said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I said, it depends on the animal in question. Unlawful killing of humans is murder.
 
Koldo

Koldo

Outstanding Member
TagliatelliMonster said:
That's what I mean.
And human morality which concerns human behavior (as in the OP) relates to how it affects human well-being primarily (and well-being of other sentient beings secondary).

It concerns well-being in general.

If you say that morality ultimately doesn't pertain to well-being, then I honestly don't know what you mean when you say "morality".
Click to expand...

It most certainly pertains to well-being. But not human well-being strictly.

Why?
Click to expand...

Animal rights. More and more people seem to care about animal well-being each passing day.
 
PoetPhilosopher

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
One issue in the hypothetical question in the OP is just how much dogs cost, and properly compensating the neighbor. Could run up to $1,000+.
 
Koldo

Koldo

Outstanding Member
KWED said:
But in most societies, people don't need an excuse to eat meat.
Click to expand...

I am talking about the morality of the act, not the legality. Here in Brazil it is not illegal to cheat your spouse, and it has negligible legal consequences. It is not regarded as moral though.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Aštra’el said:
That specific course of action might cost you your life, in many places. People often love their animals, like family… and love brings out the most powerful emotions. Were you “in the wrong” (hypothetically)? I would not phrase it that way… but were they to lash out at you, vengefully, and violently, I can not say I would feel any sympathy for you. I would feel more sympathy for the dog.

I am not an advocate of unlawful retribution, but there are instances where I can understand it.
Click to expand...
My OP was a "set up" as it didn't really happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top