Moral question.

[tyder001]

First let me say that I love dogs. I have had cats and can vouch that for some folks they are excellent pets. I would never harm a dog or cat or kill an animal for the sake of cruelty or just to hurt something. Also, as some here know I do have certain beliefs about ultimate truth and meaning in the universe. Still, as I read this article as silly as it may sound it got me to thinking. How do you justify one creature as more worthy of care and compassion than another? If I remove my worldview, which I really can't do all the way. Then, I have to ask myself some questions about how I form boundries and morals. Anyway, just wondered how some on the forum would answer this. Here's the link:

Eating Puppy Meat Is the Same as Eating Pork, British TV Chef Says

 

[pixelsmith]

In the context that he stated in the link, i would eat a puppy.

Fearnley-Whittingstall, the star of Channel 4's "River Cottage," was asked by British magazine Radio Times whether he would try loin of Labrador or cat liver.
"Not unless I was on the point of starvation," he replied. "In principle, but not in practice, I have no objection to a high-welfare organic puppy farm."
He added, "You can't object, unless you also object to the farming of pigs. It's an artificial construct of our society, a cultural decision, to make pets out of dogs and meat out of pigs. Both animals could be used the other way round, although pigs probably do make better meat than dogs and dogs better pets than pigs, but it's not a foregone conclusion."

 

[Randall]

Here's the moral issue for me. Right now there are millions of starving people, but pet people would sooner feed their animals. There are thousands of poor kids with horrible diseases like leprosy. They could be cured for less than the cost of keeping most pets, but instead pet people would let these poor people starve and die horrible deaths just so they can be entertained by their pets. If you were as hungry as these starving people are, you'd eat your own pet to stay alive. These starving people would think dog chow was manna from heaven. I love animals and I don't keep any for exactly that reason. And before I'd get one I'd put up the money to cure some poor kid and get him or her some food and water and a little education. That's the real moral question. It has nothing to do with the value of pets. I grew up with a dog and when he died I cried. But would I get another one knowing that I'm making the choice to maintain the life of an animal over the life of a human child? Certainly not.

[video=youtube_share;rqPnb_LgAdA]http://youtu.be/rqPnb_LgAdA[/video]

Here is one success story​

 

[pixelsmith]

Here's the moral issue for me. Right now there are millions of starving people, but pet people would sooner feed their animals. There are thousands of poor kids with horrible diseases like leprosy. They could be cured for less than the cost of keeping most pets, but instead pet people would let these poor people starve and die horrible deaths just so they can be entertained by their pets. If you were as hungry as these starving people are, you'd eat your own pet to stay alive. These starving people would think dog chow was manna from heaven. I love animals and I don't keep any for exactly that reason. And before I'd get one I'd put up the money to cure some poor kid and get him or her some food and water and a little education. That's the real moral question. It has nothing to do with the value of pets. I grew up with a dog and when he died I cried. But would I get another one knowing that I'm making the choice to maintain the life of an animal over the life of a human child? Certainly not.

[video=youtube_share;rqPnb_LgAdA]http://youtu.be/rqPnb_LgAdA[/video]

Here is one success story​

sniff sniff... touching post... i personally love helping "maintain the life" of my "blind from birth" cat. without me she would probably die.

btw- if i was as hungry as some starving people i would eat people.

 

[Golemfrost]

As someone who doesn´t care much about cats or dogs, i´ll say yeah, i wouldn´t have any moral problems eating one of them.

 

[tyder001]

sniff sniff... touching post... i personally love helping "maintain the life" of my "blind from birth" cat. without me she would probably die.

btw- if i was as hungry as some starving people i would eat people.

Pixel, You are a baaaadddddd man.

 

[Xylo]

Folks this has been done before in a slightly different way...

A Modest Proposal


Not to make light of the subject, however, as it is a serious subject. I'm not opposed to others eating dogs but personally I find the idea and practices of it quite objectionable. Wholesale slaughter of any animal is a bad thing, but until the process of synthetic meat is refined, animals will continue to be slaughtered and fed to more animals (humans.)

 

[pixelsmith]

the one very basic law for life on earth is: eat or be eaten.

 

[Hotkafka]

the one very basic law for life on earth is: eat or be eaten.

Not exactly. This issue has become a moral conundrum for humanity, and hence the unique condition of humankind: i.e. having a choice as to what is perceived as a viable food source. As for as the greater chain of life is concerned, yes, agreed, this can't be argued. Everything is food. Quite the situation.

The whole puppy/pig scenario brings up a wonderful old chestnut which boils down to how food choice is ultimately a reflection of culture. Pigs here, puppies in Korea. Rats in Thailand. Horses in Europe. Not being a fan of the industrialization of animal farming, I'd prefer to eat things that don't scream when I bite them. Farming puppy meat, however, doesn't appear to be in our foreseeable future, thankfully.

Feeding animals over sick people and especially children, however is an excellent point to consider.

 

[aaaa123]

your article help me a lot.Hope we can be friend and play together.