But it's not wrong to eat your dog...it's just culturally not appropriate. There is a difference. So that argument sucks because there are places where eating dog is just fine...there is no stigma attached.
You're only partly right. It's true that in some parts of the world, eating dogs is more acceptable than in other parts of the world. So descriptively
speaking, that is true. However, normatively
speaking, arguments can be made that regardless of what culture one is from, in most cases eating dogs is not ethically permissible.
I've included a video below that I thought describes the dog eating situation in China quite well. As you can see, there is a growing group of non-conformists who think eating dogs should be halted or at least regulated, and many people in China actually don't eat dogs at all. Only a small portion do. Either way, there is an ethical debate going on even within these cultures.
Please watch this video. I think the treatment of these animals (shown within the video) is illustrative of why I take the position I do. The well being of animals is morally important.
The argument is about morality...I know you admitted earlier to having a leather belt or some other thing so now you're saying it can't be a part of the discussion at all is rather nonsensical.The argument is not mischaracterized because...and you should read this slower this time...I was asking a question based on the argument. The question was quite simple...where does the line get drawn. If you wouldn't eat your dog then you shouldn't eat your dog but you're fine having animal byproducts are you still ok? I'd say one would be a hypocrite.
OK moving on.
First, I'm not absolutely against eating animals i.e in northern climes where eating animals is necessary for survival. However, even in these contexts, I think individuals still have a moral responsibility to give the animals as quick and painless death as possible.
Second, animal by products is also more complex issue than it seems because difficult ethical issues can be involved e.g. animal experimentation is a difficult issue whereas some cases are less troublesome, ethically speaking e.g. sheering sheep wool (assuming no cruelty is involved).
Given those considerations, I can't give you an absolute line. That is partly because I am a consequentialist
in terms of ethical theory-all ethical judgements depend on the outcomes. So I don't believe in absolutes anyways. The easy answer is to say that it is generally better if products aren't derived from animals at all, but I'm not saying that is necessarily morally obligatory
(so no moral absolute). Yes, I am a competitive boxer so I have a few things that are made of leather, and even though I wish I could get products that didn't have leather, those products are usually very cheap and poorly made. You do what you can, and I certainly don't expect anyone to be perfect.
No the argument is flawed logic. I asked the question...if I eat my dog then is it ok for me to eat meat? Simple question that is directly related to the argument. Just because it shows how ridiculously stupid the argument is doesn't make it any less valid no matter how much you want it to be. The topic is morality of eating non human animals....well I'm sorry but part of that topic (the morality part) goes outside of the narrow scope of just consumption of flesh. I know this byproduct discussion is what killed your last thread which is why you're trying to argue that it's not valid rather than actually have the discussion.
This is getting silly. The point I was trying to make was that the ad wasn't directed towards animal by-products. It specifically said "you wouldn't eat your dog". You can make as much as a huff as you want, but there is a logical difference in scope as far as what the ad was trying to say and what this thread is interested in. I'm fine with talking about animal by-products. If you want to talk about that (and I think we are), that's fine. But even you should be able to recognize that by products widens the scope of the issue more so than what the ad is directed towards (eating).
You have to be charitable to the arguments presented. Given that, I fully agree with you that talking about animal by-products is ethically relevant to the issue of whether we should be eating animals.
Yes it is absolutely just as bad when we are discussin morality. In the high and mighty world of talking about morality you are either moral or immoral. Simply saying "hey guys I'm not perfect but you guys stop what you're doing" is hypocritical and disingenuous. If you are going to say that it is immoral to cause animals agony and then go on to dismiss animal byproducts by saying "I'm not perfect" you've blown your entire argument out of the water.
For starters, this is an ad hominen argument.
- Person A makes claim X.
- Person B makes an attack on person A.
- Therefore A's claim is false.
Your first sentence constitutes the ad hominen. All the stuff about hypocrisy is fine, but that doesn't weaken the validity, nor the soundness of the arguments-they are independent conditions.
Even so, I never said anyone has to be perfect. I rationally accept that it is wrong to cause animals to suffer, and by all means I avoid that as much as possible. My boxing products aren't great, ethically speaking. I accept that my actions are wrong in some sense. But given all my other actions (not eating animal products-at least that I am aware of), staying away from animal by products in general are good actions. I've said a number of times on this thread that even if people lessened their meat consumption and bought it from places that presumably treat their animals well, I think that would be better than doing nothing at all. Ideally, if people changed their diets to vegetarian or even vegan that would be best. You do what you can. That's what I've been saying all along.
However, I think the moral obligation to not eat meat from factory farms e.g. cheap meat is quite strong just as the moral obligation to not rape or cause battery or assault to someone is quite strong.
Hence the question...where is the line?
I think what I've posted might answer some questions, whereas others I might need more specific information from you. Given that this is an online forum, I'm not going to write a treatise on here. If some specific issue interests you, by all means mention it.
That's unfortunate...I hate being right sometimes. I'm sorry but all you've shown here is hypocrisy and either a refusal or inability to answer very simple questions.
I haven't shown that I am a hypocrite. I've been quite consistent all along. Your eagerness to attack and desire to be right is clouding your logical judgement. As far as questions go, I haven't dodged anything. All I'm asking for is clarification and letting you know some of my presumptions about ethical theorizing.
Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 15 November 2012 - 12:55 PM.