Eating dogs.....

Read this blog post about the guy who ate his dog and it provoked some thoughts in response.

I'm not sure I see a moral dimension inherent in any of the arbitrary human categorisations of the things around us. "Mammal", "animal", "human"....all just made up so we can communicate more easily about the things around is. Why is a pet cow's meat different to the sirloin steak eaten in a million restaurants around the world yesterday?  What makes a dog different to a cow? Or a human?

There are clear practical reasons why we don't think eating other people is a good idea. I don't want my neighbour cooking up my kids. In return, I won't be eating his.  All good.

Property rights come into it. I won't eat his dog or cat or even the lemons on his tree without persmission because they are his. So far, I think we can all agree.

But what about MY dog? Can I get out the pepper sauce and rosemary?

I won't, because he's my mate. I don't eat my mates. Normally.

I do see a possibility for a moral dimension in eating an emotional dependent. There is a relationship there. One of trust in both directions: man feeds dog / dog is man's friend or at least object of interest.

What happens when the animal violates the de facto terms of the relationship? The dog, by some accounts, had become unruly and was seen as threat to the safety of those around it. The man's wife was afraid of it and wanted it gone.

The relationship was over...at least from the human perspective. Time for a change.

At that point, the responsible thing for a dog owner to do with a dangerous animal is have it put down. If the owner is going to have it killed, then let's not waste it.....and maybe honour the memory of our former friend....in the freezer. As you bite into the canine cutlet, think fondly of the puppy he once was and how he may have been your wee mate for a time......until he became dangerous and untrustworthy.

I'd say eating THIS dog was the least wasteful, most constructive things to do in THOSE circumstances. This is in no way an endorsement of commercial puppy farming for more tender dog meat.....to present the same act in an entirely different context.

Context is all when trying to make moral sense of anything. Unfortunately, context often comes with far too much detail for most people to be bothered trying to reach a correct and complete understanding of almost all situations....including those in one's own family involving those nearest and dearest to you.

I eat meat. I don't plan to stop. I don't eat a LOT of meat....everything in moderation. I prefer chicken and fish. But lamb is nice, too. Aren't they cute! I had pet lambs once. They grew into sheep. I didn't eat them. But a samoyed Husky that jumped the fence one day had a real good go at one of them and ripped most its pelt off. We had it put down and buried it in the garden. What a waste.

Pass the mint sauce. It makes no sense. That's just how we all are...drawing lines around things based on our emotions and relationships. Very practical on an emotional level.  Not so practical if expanded into all realms without regard for context.  Being a vegetarian makes no sense on that basis. It's just one more arbitrary assertion of black & white thinking rising in one context and being arbitrarily applied to all others - appropriate or not. 

If we're all vegetarians, then cattle, sheep, pigs, etc...will become rare and seen as an indulgent luxury. After all, they consume food grown on land that could be used to feed hungry people....and that would be immoral, right? I can think of a hundred other such examples.

At the bottom of all this is the selfish ape we know as "homo sapiens". We as a species still aren't prepared to limit our wants and desires with more than our most immediate needs in view. We can't / won't think about our own population growth in any conscious, deliberate way. At the same time, we will happily declare "immoral" any other thing that endangers human life and obstructs our cancer-like expansion into every nook and cranny on the planet, most often destroying or disrupting the natural systems we encounter without regard to the consequences. For what we imagine will be forever.

As you can tell by now, I see the word "moral" as a dangerous word....usually laden with the emotional baggage and vested interests of the person or group employing it to gain the thing they want or keep something they already have.  

I prefer law to morality. Law based on clearly articulated values that we all agree make sense while at the same time bearing some practical resemblance to what is required of us as a species to ensure survival in the millennia ahead and whatever quality of life we all (or most of us) agree is good enough. If that's what we want.

Problem there is we to often don't know what we had until after it is gone. The fish-filled streams and rivers you could dip your hand into and drink from. Most now aren't old enough to remember it. Many of them don't know such things ever existed at all. Or forests stretching across the plains from the edge of the sea and up into the mountains....mostly gone...and the powerful among us are moving now to secure the remnants for their use or profit. "Good for the economy", they tell us. Them. Now. As an example, the fight over water in the South Canterbury area is already well underway and the farmers who want it recently moved to secure control of it. The rest of the population paid little attention to the water coup. Maybe they will when their taps run dry and it becomes a "moral" issue. Access to water will be a huge issue in the years ahead as a growing population contends for limited resources  with commercial farmers used to "cheap" water as a public good.

Against a background of such issues, eating a dog is the least of our problems...and that dog - in that context - appears to have punched his own ticket and the only real debate isn't about whether or not he would become a corpse.....but what should have been done with the corpse.

Pass the pepper.