They eat horses, don't they?
October 5, 2010 5:55 PM Subscribe
Is there something that makes eating a "pet" inherently unethical.
Recently protests have been organized in Toronto attempting to stop the sale of horse meat. One of the reasons given is that because these animals are mostly "pets" it is unethical to consume them. Can anyone explain, from an ethics standpoint, why this would be?
Recently protests have been organized in Toronto attempting to stop the sale of horse meat. One of the reasons given is that because these animals are mostly "pets" it is unethical to consume them. Can anyone explain, from an ethics standpoint, why this would be?
*In ancient Greece.
posted by InsanePenguin at 6:02 PM on October 5, 2010 [6 favorites]
posted by InsanePenguin at 6:02 PM on October 5, 2010 [6 favorites]
I would consider it unethical to slaughter and eat something that I had taught to love and trust me. But that's just me and my personal ethos.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 6:03 PM on October 5, 2010 [11 favorites]
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 6:03 PM on October 5, 2010 [11 favorites]
They aren't listing that reason because it's unethical, but because people will think about eating darling Miffy rabbit or Mittens the kitten back at home, and are generally repulsed because it's hard to kill and eat something you have a relationship with and/or love.
There's no logic to it, quite the opposite, it's based on emotion, and that's what the protesters are trying to engage with that specific point.
posted by smoke at 6:04 PM on October 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
There's no logic to it, quite the opposite, it's based on emotion, and that's what the protesters are trying to engage with that specific point.
posted by smoke at 6:04 PM on October 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
Ethics are not inherent to the Universe, they are just an individual's set of rules and feelings. Some ethics are more agreed upon than others, but there are no ethics that are intrinsic to the Universe and only a few that are intrinsic to humanity.
So use your own brain to make a decision on whether or not you want to eat a horse. I think the reason people protest this way is because they see horses as intelligent and friendly to humans, so eating one is like eating your best friend. You can't eat your best friend, because then you would have no best friend! But of course, eating your friend is different from eating an animal that's friendly; as a species, we are intrinsically interested in our own success -- we don't kill our babies or eat our friends, because there is strong evolutionary programming telling us not to. Horses, though, have no hard-wired value like that, they are just tools. When someone sees a horse and feels bad about eating it, the horse's friendliness is falsely triggering the circuitry in that person's brain that tells them to feel bad about eating another person. Humanity has no intrinsic need to protect horses, but they remind of us things that we do have an intrinsic need to protect.
Personally... I say that if you can make glue out of something, what's wrong with eating it?
posted by jrockway at 6:06 PM on October 5, 2010
So use your own brain to make a decision on whether or not you want to eat a horse. I think the reason people protest this way is because they see horses as intelligent and friendly to humans, so eating one is like eating your best friend. You can't eat your best friend, because then you would have no best friend! But of course, eating your friend is different from eating an animal that's friendly; as a species, we are intrinsically interested in our own success -- we don't kill our babies or eat our friends, because there is strong evolutionary programming telling us not to. Horses, though, have no hard-wired value like that, they are just tools. When someone sees a horse and feels bad about eating it, the horse's friendliness is falsely triggering the circuitry in that person's brain that tells them to feel bad about eating another person. Humanity has no intrinsic need to protect horses, but they remind of us things that we do have an intrinsic need to protect.
Personally... I say that if you can make glue out of something, what's wrong with eating it?
posted by jrockway at 6:06 PM on October 5, 2010
Are you asking if eating pets is unethical -- on any grounds? Or are you asking if eating pets is unethical because of their specific status as pets? Plenty of people would say "yes" to the first question but "no" to the second question because they think eating all animals (or a much broader group of animals than just "pets") is unethical. Do you mean to rule out that viewpoint?
InsanePenguin: I assume the OP is not using "unethical" in the narrow sense of "against society's rules." That is one meaning of "unethical," but not the only meaning.
posted by John Cohen at 6:08 PM on October 5, 2010
InsanePenguin: I assume the OP is not using "unethical" in the narrow sense of "against society's rules." That is one meaning of "unethical," but not the only meaning.
posted by John Cohen at 6:08 PM on October 5, 2010
This seems to be a issue determined mostly personal morals. If the horses are slaughtered past the point of usefulness or prime health, I see no problem with eating their meat – most of those horses are about to be euthanized anyway. On the other hand, if I understand their argument correctly, if we started raising horses primarily for meat, that'd be totally fine.
posted by halogen at 6:10 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by halogen at 6:10 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Personally, I draw the ethical line at eating (or otherwise slaughtering for parts) animals that were deliberately bred to be loving/faithful companions to humans. Even if you personally didn't teach that particular animal to be your friend, your ancestors bred its ancestors to make it love you. So I see killing and eating it as an inter-species betrayal.
posted by Jacqueline at 6:11 PM on October 5, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 6:11 PM on October 5, 2010 [4 favorites]
Disclaimer: I've eaten dog meat and I think these sorts of protests are at bottom ignorant, ethnocentric, and prejudiced. I also think it's a bit ridiculous to say that horses are pets whereas cows or rabbits or pigs are not.
However, trying to answer your question, there are lots of ways you might justify the differential treatment for pets and other animals. Here's one: human beings have a special relationship with pets. Because of this, we feel it's wrong to slaughter our pets for food. Slaughtering any particular horse--pet or not--desensitizes us to slaughtering horses in general. So, it encourages bad behaviour, and because of that, it's wrong. This is akin to an argument against capital punishment: it's wrong because of what it does to the executioners, not to the criminals themselves.
posted by smorange at 6:12 PM on October 5, 2010
However, trying to answer your question, there are lots of ways you might justify the differential treatment for pets and other animals. Here's one: human beings have a special relationship with pets. Because of this, we feel it's wrong to slaughter our pets for food. Slaughtering any particular horse--pet or not--desensitizes us to slaughtering horses in general. So, it encourages bad behaviour, and because of that, it's wrong. This is akin to an argument against capital punishment: it's wrong because of what it does to the executioners, not to the criminals themselves.
posted by smorange at 6:12 PM on October 5, 2010
I recently heard about a new book which discusses just this question: Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals
posted by JohnMarston at 6:17 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by JohnMarston at 6:17 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: halogen: I think the argument is couched in "we shouldn't eat them because they weren't raised for meat" but I am assuming that 99% of the protesters wouldn't be happy with any consumption of horse meat, or any meat at all really.
What I am hearing, from people like Fruit above, is that it's not okay to kill and eat an animal when you have a relationship with the animal that involves love and trust. If so then at what point would it become "wrong"? Maybe L' Estrange Fruit can answer that, and also if it is wrong to eat an animal that someone ELSE trained and loved? I grew up on a ranch and we named the calves and piglets and played with them, is it then unethical for anyone at all to consume them.
I am actually fairly open minded on this but am having trouble understanding the argument.
posted by Cosine at 6:19 PM on October 5, 2010
What I am hearing, from people like Fruit above, is that it's not okay to kill and eat an animal when you have a relationship with the animal that involves love and trust. If so then at what point would it become "wrong"? Maybe L' Estrange Fruit can answer that, and also if it is wrong to eat an animal that someone ELSE trained and loved? I grew up on a ranch and we named the calves and piglets and played with them, is it then unethical for anyone at all to consume them.
I am actually fairly open minded on this but am having trouble understanding the argument.
posted by Cosine at 6:19 PM on October 5, 2010
I keep chickens in my backyard as egg-producing pets. They are friendly and used to human contact, and I eat chicken all the time (hell, I'll eat a chicken wing right in front of them if they act up). We know a couple who keep a pig as a pet, and I'm reasonably sure they enjoy a good Christmas ham. I don't see why horses would be different, besides that they may just not taste good (I kind of imagine them to be too lean and gristly), but aren't they often slaughtered for non-human consumption anyway?
If I had the balls, I'd keep chickens for slaughter that grew up in my yard, but I don't possess the courage to kill an animal myself nor would I want to be responsible for the plucking and other gross things when I can buy split breasts for $.99/lb on sale. If someone else asked me to raise them, did the dirty work, and delivered me back a raw chicken? You'd bet I'd eat it.
posted by kpht at 6:21 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
If I had the balls, I'd keep chickens for slaughter that grew up in my yard, but I don't possess the courage to kill an animal myself nor would I want to be responsible for the plucking and other gross things when I can buy split breasts for $.99/lb on sale. If someone else asked me to raise them, did the dirty work, and delivered me back a raw chicken? You'd bet I'd eat it.
posted by kpht at 6:21 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't think it is ethical to eat any animals, but that said, I can see a couple of arguments why eating pets might be less ethically acceptable than non-pets.
First is the suffering caused to the animal. Bentham (founder of Utilitarianism) said:
"The question is not, can they reason? nor, can they talk? but, can they suffer?"
when talking about what to take into account for ethical considerations. It is conceivable "pet" animals like horses cats and dogs have a higher capacity for suffering than other animals such as sheep or cows, due to breeding for sociability and increased intelligence etc. In addition depending on your view of animal cognition you could argue that there is an added betrayal of trust in there.
Secondly is the suffering caused to other humans. Some people really like their pets or animals and the thought that they or their species mates could be turned into food is greatly upsetting to them. Possibly this view is mistaken (it is unlikely that someones personal horse would be eaten if they did not agree to it), but this suffering may outweigh the benefit to others eating horse rather than a "more acceptable" animal.
I don't think either of these arguments is particularly strong - there isn't much evidence that horses are especially smart, or that people really care about the relative suffering of different species of animals. The argument from human suffering relies on misinformed people, or playing to cultural preconceptions about what is and is not food. I think a lot of this kind of argument is based on emotional responses, or from animal rights people trying to gain what they can by any means necessary.
posted by scodger at 6:26 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
First is the suffering caused to the animal. Bentham (founder of Utilitarianism) said:
"The question is not, can they reason? nor, can they talk? but, can they suffer?"
when talking about what to take into account for ethical considerations. It is conceivable "pet" animals like horses cats and dogs have a higher capacity for suffering than other animals such as sheep or cows, due to breeding for sociability and increased intelligence etc. In addition depending on your view of animal cognition you could argue that there is an added betrayal of trust in there.
Secondly is the suffering caused to other humans. Some people really like their pets or animals and the thought that they or their species mates could be turned into food is greatly upsetting to them. Possibly this view is mistaken (it is unlikely that someones personal horse would be eaten if they did not agree to it), but this suffering may outweigh the benefit to others eating horse rather than a "more acceptable" animal.
I don't think either of these arguments is particularly strong - there isn't much evidence that horses are especially smart, or that people really care about the relative suffering of different species of animals. The argument from human suffering relies on misinformed people, or playing to cultural preconceptions about what is and is not food. I think a lot of this kind of argument is based on emotional responses, or from animal rights people trying to gain what they can by any means necessary.
posted by scodger at 6:26 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
To the extent that any two entities come to understand and collaborate with one another, a constructive social contract emerges between them. One element of any social contract is the implicit agreement to try to avoid actions that the other party or parties would prefer you avoided. To the best of our ability to understand their preferences, most sentient beings probably prefer not to be eaten.
None of which means it is necessarily unethical to eat horsemeat.
posted by foursentences at 6:28 PM on October 5, 2010
None of which means it is necessarily unethical to eat horsemeat.
posted by foursentences at 6:28 PM on October 5, 2010
I've never understood the ethos behind this reasoning either. In my mind, meat is meat, and it really doesn't matter how it was "raised". Once the animal is dead, it's not going to care if it ends up on a plate or in a satin lined casket. I personally have never had horse meat, but I've had rabbit meat and I like it.
posted by patheral at 6:29 PM on October 5, 2010
posted by patheral at 6:29 PM on October 5, 2010
I think you want to be looking for at taboos than ethics to understand this. Generally, humans with the means put animals in the friend category or the food category. Sometimes, animals make a switch (e.g. whales and dolphins), but rarely is any one kind of animal in both categories.
A lot of our eating is taboo-guided. I don't think anyone would argue that it is both ethical to eat a turkey, pig, cow, or chicken, but unethical to eat a donkey, mule, goat, or pigeon. But in America, for instance, most people think eating things off the latter list is pretty gross (not everyone. goat's got its fans. Fancy people eat 'squab').
What these people are protesting is the violation of a taboo, rather than a violation of ethics.
Specific taboos will rarely make sense if you aren't raised with that taboo. Why do so many Arabs think showing someone your shoes or petting a dog is gross? Why do Americans and Europeans happily wear their filthy shoes inside their homes? Asians and Westerners regard each others' attitudes towards toilet paper mutually disgusting. Eating a horse is taboo in Canada, not in France. There may be an underlying explanation for the development of the taboo, but probably not a strong ethical argument why even-toed ungulates are ok to eat while odd-toed ungulates are haram.
The concept of taboos in general though makes a lot of sense when you think about omnivorous civilizations who have to decide what is ok to eat. Its a high-stakes question. Some of Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" is about this. (Like, other omnivorous animals take different approaches. For example, rats will take a small bite of a novel food and wait a while. If it doesn't make them feel sick, they'll eat a little more. Also, any given rat population will prefer food its been exposed to and safely eaten before to new food. This is why different poisoned rat baits work better in different places).
posted by jeb at 6:36 PM on October 5, 2010 [6 favorites]
A lot of our eating is taboo-guided. I don't think anyone would argue that it is both ethical to eat a turkey, pig, cow, or chicken, but unethical to eat a donkey, mule, goat, or pigeon. But in America, for instance, most people think eating things off the latter list is pretty gross (not everyone. goat's got its fans. Fancy people eat 'squab').
What these people are protesting is the violation of a taboo, rather than a violation of ethics.
Specific taboos will rarely make sense if you aren't raised with that taboo. Why do so many Arabs think showing someone your shoes or petting a dog is gross? Why do Americans and Europeans happily wear their filthy shoes inside their homes? Asians and Westerners regard each others' attitudes towards toilet paper mutually disgusting. Eating a horse is taboo in Canada, not in France. There may be an underlying explanation for the development of the taboo, but probably not a strong ethical argument why even-toed ungulates are ok to eat while odd-toed ungulates are haram.
The concept of taboos in general though makes a lot of sense when you think about omnivorous civilizations who have to decide what is ok to eat. Its a high-stakes question. Some of Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" is about this. (Like, other omnivorous animals take different approaches. For example, rats will take a small bite of a novel food and wait a while. If it doesn't make them feel sick, they'll eat a little more. Also, any given rat population will prefer food its been exposed to and safely eaten before to new food. This is why different poisoned rat baits work better in different places).
posted by jeb at 6:36 PM on October 5, 2010 [6 favorites]
Not only do I love and trust my dogs, I feel we have an agreement. They depend on me for food, shelter, love and care. They, in return, protect our family and never leave our side and are there for us no matter what.
Eating them was never part of our agreement and I would never do it.
posted by 6:1 at 6:43 PM on October 5, 2010
Eating them was never part of our agreement and I would never do it.
posted by 6:1 at 6:43 PM on October 5, 2010
Tiny anecdote... My great grandfather had 11 children, and in the middle of the Great Depression they ate the family dog. He claimed it as his singular regret in life, and at 95 said it still haunted him.
posted by Nickel Pickle at 6:45 PM on October 5, 2010 [7 favorites]
posted by Nickel Pickle at 6:45 PM on October 5, 2010 [7 favorites]
The prohibition on eating horse meat has an interesting history. In pre-Christian Germanic religion, practiced in parts of northern Europe including England, horses were sacrificed on religious holidays and stewed as main dish for the celebratory banquet, and Christians have a prohibition against eating food sacrificed to idols. A Gothic saint was supposedly executed for making a stink about refusing to participate in the sacrificial banquet, and Iceland has a record of banning consumption of horse meat when the island voted to official adopt Christianity.
I assume the explanation 'we don't eat them because they're pets' was made up long after the original reason was forgotten. We eat other domestic animals like cows and chickens, right?
The squabble about it in Toronto is presumably a French-English cultural conflict. (French people eat horse meat. Ooh, disgusting! We don't eat that!)
posted by nangar at 6:50 PM on October 5, 2010 [3 favorites]
I assume the explanation 'we don't eat them because they're pets' was made up long after the original reason was forgotten. We eat other domestic animals like cows and chickens, right?
The squabble about it in Toronto is presumably a French-English cultural conflict. (French people eat horse meat. Ooh, disgusting! We don't eat that!)
posted by nangar at 6:50 PM on October 5, 2010 [3 favorites]
What I am hearing, from people like Fruit above, is that it's not okay to kill and eat an animal when you have a relationship with the animal that involves love and trust. If so then at what point would it become "wrong"? Maybe L' Estrange Fruit can answer that, and also if it is wrong to eat an animal that someone ELSE trained and loved? I grew up on a ranch and we named the calves and piglets and played with them, is it then unethical for anyone at all to consume them.
Cosine, that line of reasoning is why I was a vegetarian for fifteen years, on purely ethical grounds. When my body started showing signs of needing meat in my diet, I did the trick that human beings are so good at and found a way to rationalize eating meat again despite my intrinsic belief that breeding animals for slaughter is wrong. I'm not proud of it, but I'm a selfish old bat and I've come to terms with that particular hypocrisy in myself.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 7:03 PM on October 5, 2010
Cosine, that line of reasoning is why I was a vegetarian for fifteen years, on purely ethical grounds. When my body started showing signs of needing meat in my diet, I did the trick that human beings are so good at and found a way to rationalize eating meat again despite my intrinsic belief that breeding animals for slaughter is wrong. I'm not proud of it, but I'm a selfish old bat and I've come to terms with that particular hypocrisy in myself.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 7:03 PM on October 5, 2010
Actually, in the US, generally horses don't have the same legal protections that traditional pets do. Horses are classified as livestock in the US (in most states, maybe all) and it was just 3 years ago that the slaughter of horses for human consumption was outlawed here. All that slaughtered horse meat was destined for Europe though, because we don't eat horse in the US. Now, the horses are shipped over the border to Mexico for slaughter. Cue the law of good intentions...
posted by COD at 7:24 PM on October 5, 2010
posted by COD at 7:24 PM on October 5, 2010
If I had to raise and slaughter my own meat, I would never eat meat again. Given that I live in a western society, I can keep the hypocritical (for me, anyway) distance between my hamburger and the cow that provided it. I agree with Jacqueline, I personally do not approve of the slaughter and/or consumption of animals that have been domesticated as companion animals.
posted by crankylex at 7:26 PM on October 5, 2010
posted by crankylex at 7:26 PM on October 5, 2010
Response by poster: Jaqueline/crankylex: Are you therefore not bothered by cultures who did not breed dogs or other animal as pets eating them? By your logic I would assume that is alright with you, is that consistent?
I don't think horses were as "companion animals", I would say they were bred to serve man, in any way they could, why would this not include serving as sustenance once the useful life of the animal has past?
Baby seals are not bred for companionship, would you then be fine with eating them? (preempt: a bash to the brain is actually a pretty humane death, all things considered)
I am getting some answers here, which is great, but the logic still seems a bit confusing or arbitrary. I feel like Data.
posted by Cosine at 7:44 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't think horses were as "companion animals", I would say they were bred to serve man, in any way they could, why would this not include serving as sustenance once the useful life of the animal has past?
Baby seals are not bred for companionship, would you then be fine with eating them? (preempt: a bash to the brain is actually a pretty humane death, all things considered)
I am getting some answers here, which is great, but the logic still seems a bit confusing or arbitrary. I feel like Data.
posted by Cosine at 7:44 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Logic isn't necessarily at play here. One, we're dealing with ethics, which are personal and vary from person to person. Two, we're dealing with the notions of pets and meat-eating, which is emotional.
Funnily enough, I was just watching a video of Stephen Fry doing an evening in Australia, in which he talks about a paper he wrote about star trek embodying the endless search for the balance of emotion and logic which defines us as human. Seems rather apropos just now.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 7:58 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Funnily enough, I was just watching a video of Stephen Fry doing an evening in Australia, in which he talks about a paper he wrote about star trek embodying the endless search for the balance of emotion and logic which defines us as human. Seems rather apropos just now.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 7:58 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
but the logic still seems a bit confusing or arbitrary
For me, at least, this is ruled by emotion, not logic. This may be why your internal logic sensor are saying DOES NOT COMPUTE.
In broad strokes, I think mankind has domesticated dogs, and therefore dogs are not okay to eat under any circumstances. Obviously, there are millions of people who disagree with me, and it is their right to do so, just as it is my right to be repulsed at the very idea of it.
I would say they were bred to serve man, in any way they could, why would this not include serving as sustenance once the useful life of the animal has past?
For me, again, this is emotional. I don't view animals in terms of useful life as I do not I live in any kind of farm/ranch environment. My gut reaction to your statement was a kind of horror at the idea; it would feel extremely disrespectful to me to consume an animal who has helped me for all those years.
posted by crankylex at 8:05 PM on October 5, 2010
For me, at least, this is ruled by emotion, not logic. This may be why your internal logic sensor are saying DOES NOT COMPUTE.
In broad strokes, I think mankind has domesticated dogs, and therefore dogs are not okay to eat under any circumstances. Obviously, there are millions of people who disagree with me, and it is their right to do so, just as it is my right to be repulsed at the very idea of it.
I would say they were bred to serve man, in any way they could, why would this not include serving as sustenance once the useful life of the animal has past?
For me, again, this is emotional. I don't view animals in terms of useful life as I do not I live in any kind of farm/ranch environment. My gut reaction to your statement was a kind of horror at the idea; it would feel extremely disrespectful to me to consume an animal who has helped me for all those years.
posted by crankylex at 8:05 PM on October 5, 2010
Just today I hand-processed (from slaughter to marinating) one of my turkeys and ate her for dinner. Could this animal have been considered a pet? Sure, they had names and were hand raised by me from their day 2 onwards. Were they a pet? No, of course not, the animal's purpose was to be eaten or to provide babies which would be eaten. As a meat eater I feel much more of a connection to what I eat now that I've slaughtered animals I've raised myself. I can also better understand how one culture's prized non-eating animal can be another's prime eating animal. As for the example you list, there is no logic in it, they are making an emotional appeal based on preconceived notions of what a "pet" is and is not. As a farmer, I now laugh at such shallow transparent appeals - I'm sure those folks would try to stop me eating my sheep just cause they're cute and could be a pet to someone somewhere.
posted by Meagan at 8:13 PM on October 5, 2010
posted by Meagan at 8:13 PM on October 5, 2010
When I teach pronouns to my ESL students, they always ask about animals, specifically pets. The rule of thumb I give them is that until you know its name, it's best to use 'it.' Usually, when you know its name, or you give it a name, you know the sex, and then can use he or she.
I think the cultural prohibitions on which animals get eaten kind of extends to that. We gave Ginger a name, the dog is now a she, not an it, and as such, we've assigned human-like/family member qualities to her, so we can't/won't eat her. For me, growing up, a family friend had a horse farm, and every horse had a name. My sister loved them utterly. I quite liked them myself. However, after several years of living in a very different culture, and being forced (I was a guest, it would have been rude) to try raw horse, I have a very different take.
Horse is delicious. My sister is still angry at me about it.
posted by Ghidorah at 8:21 PM on October 5, 2010
I think the cultural prohibitions on which animals get eaten kind of extends to that. We gave Ginger a name, the dog is now a she, not an it, and as such, we've assigned human-like/family member qualities to her, so we can't/won't eat her. For me, growing up, a family friend had a horse farm, and every horse had a name. My sister loved them utterly. I quite liked them myself. However, after several years of living in a very different culture, and being forced (I was a guest, it would have been rude) to try raw horse, I have a very different take.
Horse is delicious. My sister is still angry at me about it.
posted by Ghidorah at 8:21 PM on October 5, 2010
I think it is a combination of those who have strong emotional reactions to eating horse meat and those who are against eating any meat (for whatever reasons, including ethical ones).
All that slaughtered horse meat was destined for Europe though, because we don't eat horse in the US. Now, the horses are shipped over the border to Mexico for slaughter.
Actually, many horses are shipped to Canada too. Most of the meat is packed for export, though it is also fairly widely available in Quebec.
posted by ssg at 8:34 PM on October 5, 2010
All that slaughtered horse meat was destined for Europe though, because we don't eat horse in the US. Now, the horses are shipped over the border to Mexico for slaughter.
Actually, many horses are shipped to Canada too. Most of the meat is packed for export, though it is also fairly widely available in Quebec.
posted by ssg at 8:34 PM on October 5, 2010
I am getting some answers here, which is great, but the logic still seems a bit confusing or arbitrary. I feel like Data.
Ah, that's not because you're confused or "like Data" -- it's that other people's logic is confused and arbitrary. If it doesn't make sense to you, that suggests that you're thinking clearly! A lot of people are blatantly inconsistent in how they think we should treat different animals.
posted by John Cohen at 8:40 PM on October 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
Ah, that's not because you're confused or "like Data" -- it's that other people's logic is confused and arbitrary. If it doesn't make sense to you, that suggests that you're thinking clearly! A lot of people are blatantly inconsistent in how they think we should treat different animals.
posted by John Cohen at 8:40 PM on October 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
People tried that here, they even reasoned on the ballot initiative that horsemeat should be banned because the horse is, and I quote, "a pleasure animal." however, it turns out that the motivation behind the movement is xenophobia and taboo avoidance, just as it has always been.
posted by rhizome at 8:43 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 8:43 PM on October 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
There are two ethical questions here: 1. is it immoral to eat a pet? and 2. what would be the moral effect on society if we relaxed the taboo on eating pets? If you accept that it is morally acceptable to eat any non-human animals, then it's easy to argue that eating an animal of a pet species that is no specific person's pet must be OK too. But the broad taboo on eating animals that humans find adorable is motivated by the same instincts that lead us to rule out eating other humans, and those rules are so important that as a matter of practical ethics it is worth indulging those instincts where they extend to pets.
posted by nicwolff at 9:21 PM on October 5, 2010
posted by nicwolff at 9:21 PM on October 5, 2010
I don't think there is anything that is inherently unethical (a question for another time perhaps) so I'm just going to use plain old unethical.
Now consider the following statements:
Is there something that makes eating a blood-relative unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a human being unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a chimpanzee unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a dolphin unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a "pet" unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a "working animal" unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a "livestock animal" unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a wild mammal unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a reptile unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a fish unethical?
Is there something that makes eating an insect unethical?
Is there something that makes eating the products of any of the above unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a plant unethical?
There are lots of things that could make all of the above unethical, but we have to eat something, so really it's an exercise in line drawing. Where do we draw the line on what is ethical to eat and why? Ultimately, all these questions about our ethics can do is tell us about our ethics, but examining our ethics is probably a good thing to do every once in a while.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 9:34 PM on October 5, 2010
Now consider the following statements:
Is there something that makes eating a blood-relative unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a human being unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a chimpanzee unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a dolphin unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a "pet" unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a "working animal" unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a "livestock animal" unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a wild mammal unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a reptile unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a fish unethical?
Is there something that makes eating an insect unethical?
Is there something that makes eating the products of any of the above unethical?
Is there something that makes eating a plant unethical?
There are lots of things that could make all of the above unethical, but we have to eat something, so really it's an exercise in line drawing. Where do we draw the line on what is ethical to eat and why? Ultimately, all these questions about our ethics can do is tell us about our ethics, but examining our ethics is probably a good thing to do every once in a while.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 9:34 PM on October 5, 2010
And for the record, horse meat isn't bad. If I was eating meat I'd have zero reservations about eating it. Or french fries fried in horse fat.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 9:36 PM on October 5, 2010
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 9:36 PM on October 5, 2010
jeb has it right: it's about taboos, not ethics. At some points it's hard to see the difference. (Has anyone looked at how one affects the other?)
patheral: In my mind, meat is meat, and it really doesn't matter how it was "raised". Once the animal is dead, it's not going to care if it ends up on a plate or in a satin lined casket.
That's a weird jump. How an animal was ' "raised" ' is one thing; what we do with its carcass is another. (There's also the crucial killing-the-animal step but I include that with ' "raised".')
I'm also puzzled by the scare quotes.
posted by dogrose at 10:02 PM on October 5, 2010
patheral: In my mind, meat is meat, and it really doesn't matter how it was "raised". Once the animal is dead, it's not going to care if it ends up on a plate or in a satin lined casket.
That's a weird jump. How an animal was ' "raised" ' is one thing; what we do with its carcass is another. (There's also the crucial killing-the-animal step but I include that with ' "raised".')
I'm also puzzled by the scare quotes.
posted by dogrose at 10:02 PM on October 5, 2010
An philosophical aside.
Q. Why do we always hurt the ones we love?
A. Because we eat them?
posted by Mike Mongo at 10:08 PM on October 5, 2010
Q. Why do we always hurt the ones we love?
A. Because we eat them?
posted by Mike Mongo at 10:08 PM on October 5, 2010
Not eating horse meat is illogical, but then so is objecting to cannibalism. That doesn't stop it. (See: A Modest Proposal.) Basically, the anti-horsemeat brigade is trying to say horses are companion animals like dogs or cats rather than livestock like cows or pigs and that therefore it is morally repugnant to eat them. It's not a logical thing.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:29 AM on October 6, 2010
posted by DarlingBri at 2:29 AM on October 6, 2010
Not eating horse meat is illogical, but then so is objecting to cannibalism.
At the risk of derailing, this is not strictly true. Logic only deals with the sequence of arguments, not with the original premise from which they are derived. You cannot declare something to be illogical outside of a specific context.
Objecting to cannibalism is perfectly logical if we are aiming for a particular kind of stable society: it frees up the resources I would need to stop my neighbors from eating me to be used in other, more productive tasks. However, it IS illogical if we are stranded on a desert island with no food and our aim is to maximize the number of people surviving to be rescued.
I'm guessing what you are trying to point out is that the decision to eat horse meat or not must ultimately be based on some unexplainable, axiomatic principle ( for example "not making people sad is more important than not wasting good meat") rather than some universal ethical principle, but in this sense every decision is illogical.
posted by Dr Dracator at 3:58 AM on October 6, 2010 [1 favorite]
At the risk of derailing, this is not strictly true. Logic only deals with the sequence of arguments, not with the original premise from which they are derived. You cannot declare something to be illogical outside of a specific context.
Objecting to cannibalism is perfectly logical if we are aiming for a particular kind of stable society: it frees up the resources I would need to stop my neighbors from eating me to be used in other, more productive tasks. However, it IS illogical if we are stranded on a desert island with no food and our aim is to maximize the number of people surviving to be rescued.
I'm guessing what you are trying to point out is that the decision to eat horse meat or not must ultimately be based on some unexplainable, axiomatic principle ( for example "not making people sad is more important than not wasting good meat") rather than some universal ethical principle, but in this sense every decision is illogical.
posted by Dr Dracator at 3:58 AM on October 6, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think this is an area where a lot of people's thinking is fuzzy - mine, for example! A lot of my moral/ethical ideas are completely goofy and not backed up by logic, and my food ethics are no exception. I've never eaten horse, and it squicks me a little, but I wouldn't rule it out. I wouldn't eat dog ever because I have friendly pet feelings towards dogs (and I think eating carnivores is nasty). I would and have eaten (other people's) "pet" chickens, guilt-free. I'm very conflicted about eating pork in general and I don't think I'd be able to eat a pig that I "knew". I have much less problem with lambs and goats being both cute and delicious. I've solidly ruled out ever eating whale, even if it were sustainably harvested (and not full of PCBs and heavy metals).
But those are all my personal morals. I don't have a problem with other people eating horse; all else aside, if the horses were pets, that means they were probably treated vastly better than most of the animals most of us usually eat.
The evolutionary biologist Marc Hauser* argues that morals are a lot like language, in that they vary between groups, they don't follow "logical" rules, and that you have that same "just knowing" feeling about your own morals as you do about your native language (I'm paraphrasing out the wazoo, obviously). In general, I try to look at my morals through the eyes of reason, but I won't discard a strongly-felt moral/ethical belief just because it doesn't make sense (although I might try to stop myself from imposing that belief on others).
DarlingBri, I would say that there are some valid public health objections to cannibalism, which is a great way to get some super-gross diseases.
*Yes, he has screwed up big time and large portions of his research are currently suspect, but it's still an interesting point.
posted by mskyle at 4:06 AM on October 6, 2010
But those are all my personal morals. I don't have a problem with other people eating horse; all else aside, if the horses were pets, that means they were probably treated vastly better than most of the animals most of us usually eat.
The evolutionary biologist Marc Hauser* argues that morals are a lot like language, in that they vary between groups, they don't follow "logical" rules, and that you have that same "just knowing" feeling about your own morals as you do about your native language (I'm paraphrasing out the wazoo, obviously). In general, I try to look at my morals through the eyes of reason, but I won't discard a strongly-felt moral/ethical belief just because it doesn't make sense (although I might try to stop myself from imposing that belief on others).
DarlingBri, I would say that there are some valid public health objections to cannibalism, which is a great way to get some super-gross diseases.
*Yes, he has screwed up big time and large portions of his research are currently suspect, but it's still an interesting point.
posted by mskyle at 4:06 AM on October 6, 2010
Is there something that makes eating a "pet" inherently unethical.
Yes. 'Pet' is a label for a relationship between a person and an animal. Specifically, the animal trusts you, and you have a duty to care for it, to keep it safe from harm, and to help it to lead a happy life. If you don't think you have such obligations in respect of an animal, it's not your pet (though it may be 'a' pet).
Perhaps more helpful questions would be:
- are some horses pets?
- is it ethical to eat horses that aren't pets?
- it it ethical to eat other people's pets?
- is it ethical to do something just because people in another country think it's ethical?
- what duties do we have in respect of animals that aren't pets?
- what duties do we have in respect of animals generally?
- do these duties vary depending on the kind of animal (eg reptile, mammal, insect)? If so, why, and in what way?
Once the animal is dead, it's not going to care if it ends up on a plate or in a satin lined casket.
You won't mind if I beat you to death with a length of chain, then. After all, once you're dead, you won't care. You'll just be meat, and it won't matter how you were 'raised' - or even whether I eat you, leave you to rot, or hang you on my wall as a decoration.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:18 AM on October 6, 2010
Yes. 'Pet' is a label for a relationship between a person and an animal. Specifically, the animal trusts you, and you have a duty to care for it, to keep it safe from harm, and to help it to lead a happy life. If you don't think you have such obligations in respect of an animal, it's not your pet (though it may be 'a' pet).
Perhaps more helpful questions would be:
- are some horses pets?
- is it ethical to eat horses that aren't pets?
- it it ethical to eat other people's pets?
- is it ethical to do something just because people in another country think it's ethical?
- what duties do we have in respect of animals that aren't pets?
- what duties do we have in respect of animals generally?
- do these duties vary depending on the kind of animal (eg reptile, mammal, insect)? If so, why, and in what way?
Once the animal is dead, it's not going to care if it ends up on a plate or in a satin lined casket.
You won't mind if I beat you to death with a length of chain, then. After all, once you're dead, you won't care. You'll just be meat, and it won't matter how you were 'raised' - or even whether I eat you, leave you to rot, or hang you on my wall as a decoration.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:18 AM on October 6, 2010
"Don't eat your friends."?
posted by A Terrible Llama at 5:59 AM on October 6, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by A Terrible Llama at 5:59 AM on October 6, 2010 [2 favorites]
I think what you are seeing is a lot of individual's ethics together at one time. For me I would never eat a dog because I have dogs and love them and any dog I see I could picture as my loving, dependant on me pet. I'd eat a cat, but only if I was in some country where that was normal and I was in a situation, like at someones home-cooked meal, where it would be rude not to try. I see many people who love their cats, but I personally have never had cats so they don't hold that strong tie to "non-edible" that dogs do. Horse is like a notch lower than cat for me because i've never curled up in bed and had a horse next to me. If I raised livestock or pigs or chicken for a living...I'd just have to be a vegetarian I guess. I feel like if I take care of it, I can't betray it or any of it's kind by killing it for my own self when alternatives exist (like plants). But when separated enough from taking care of the animal, I enjoy their juiciness.
Basically, a lot of people have horses as pets that they love and that to them have individual personalities so those peopel could not fathom eating a horse. Now they are all getting together in one protest.
posted by WeekendJen at 1:53 PM on October 6, 2010
Basically, a lot of people have horses as pets that they love and that to them have individual personalities so those peopel could not fathom eating a horse. Now they are all getting together in one protest.
posted by WeekendJen at 1:53 PM on October 6, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by InsanePenguin at 6:02 PM on October 5, 2010