The Dog Argument

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Post Reply
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

The Dog Argument

Post by EquALLity »

IslandMorality wrote:I have no time nor patience to explain to the less intelligent among you why arguments like me not eating my dog is idiotic. Although Ill throw you a bone here (get it? throw you a bone... dog... anyway...) and say that this particular one is idiotic because its a false analogy because you have a pet dog for the sole purpose of having a meaningful relationship with it. I wouldnt kill and eat my perfectly healthy pet pig either.
EquALLity wrote:You don't seem to understand that argument.

The argument isn't like, "Wow, huh, I just don't understand why meat-eaters won't eat dogs! It's so confusing. Checkmate meat-eaters!"

The argument is that, in reality, there is no difference (ethically speaking) between killing a dog and killing a pig, since they are both of the same sentience (relatively). People arbitrarily make dogs pets and pigs food because of their culture, but dogs and pigs are actually pretty much the same in regards to how they should be treated.
IslandMorality wrote:No my friend, you just seem not to be able to read. I am strictly adressing the idiots who literally use "you wouldnt eat YOUR dog would you?" as an argument. Not the ones who present your current argument. I have literally had that happen on repeated occasions in debating vegans and vegetarians.
I began by taking it the way you are describing it now, which is also stupid by the way, because thats easily refuted with the simple fact that I would have no problem eating dog meat if it was available relatively cheaply, it tasted good, and had one of those labels on it that ensures those dogs had a good life until they got a hammer to the face and their throats cut.
Those people then literally started making it about my dog in specific.

And this is the last time Im addressing this level of argument again in this topic, just so you know ;)
EquALLity wrote: :? What?

Um, no, you just don't seem to realize that you're making a distinction where there is none.
There's no real difference between the argument, "Why not eat your pet?" and "Why not eat dogs (pets)?"
They're both pointing out the same exact thing in the same way.

Why not eat dogs argument:
The argument is that, in reality, there is no difference (ethically speaking) between killing a dog and killing a pig, since they are both of the same sentience (relatively). People arbitrarily make dogs pets and pigs food because of their culture, but dogs and pigs are actually pretty much the same in regards to how they should be treated.

Why not eat your pet dog argument:
The argument is that, in reality, there is no difference (ethically speaking) between killing your pet dog and killing a pig, since they are both of the same sentience (relatively). You arbitrarily made that dog your pet, and pigs food, because of your culture, but your pet dog and pigs are actually pretty much the same in regards to how they should be treated.


That argument makes perfect sense, because most meat-eaters would not eat dogs.
In addition, it points out your hypocrisy in apparently having no problem eating dogs, but not being willing to eat your dog.
IslandMorality wrote:
And this is the last time Im addressing this level of argument again in this topic, just so you know ;)
EquALLity wrote:
brimstoneSalad wrote:
This may not be hypocritical, it's just being an asshole/blinded by irrational sentiment and incapable of seeing the actual ethics in an action in terms of its effect on others. That is, he only cares about his own feelings, not the feelings of others.
Like the willingness to melt down other people's jewelry for gold, but not your own because it has sentimental value to you -- If I understand his argument, he sees no more innate value in the life of an animal than in a chunk of metal, only the value he gives it.

If he thinks irrational sentimental value is equivalent to ethics, he's just a moron (and that's a different matter you could get into).
I don't know if this is the claim he is making yet, though, so I'm unsure if I should address this.

He apparently thinks mere sentiment (or utility, like the dog protects the house) is the reason most people won't kill their pets, and can not fathom the objective and rational ethics of respecting another being's will to live regardless of personal attachment or lack thereof to it.

While this is true for some rather amoral people -- only abstaining from killing their dogs while useful, or because they have sentimental attachment -- for many there is at least some substantial moral concern regarding the wrongness of killing a being who doesn't want to die (which is inconsistently applied to dogs and not pigs), and that's what the argument about "why not kill dogs?" addresses.
Ah, true, so it's not necessarily hypocritical, if a person is only concerned with sentimentality, and doesn't care about real value.

But I think that the two arguments are still really the same.
They're both pointing out the irrationality in their giving of 'value' (either by arbitrarily caring about dogs in general or your dog specifically), but not really being ethically consistent (by showing people that there's no real difference between harming a pig and dog, and that they just think that there is because of cultural conditioning etc.), presuming you care about real value.

Isn't sentimentality just a form of arbitrary value?
IslandMorality wrote:
Again, and also for the last time, the people I was addressing when I wrote that comment were the ones that in former debates after I gave my "I would also eat humanely cultivated dogmeat" response, in which I address the argument of there being no difference between killing a dog or a pig, they made it about my dog specifically.
Yes, I know. I was saying the arguments are the same.
IslandMorality wrote:
And the point of that argument (you wouldnt eat YOUR dog?) is null, considering it is a false analogy. It is definitely not the same one as "there's no reason for dogs and pigs to be treated differently", because then they would just be asking me to repeat the explanation I just gave them.
Perhaps they were using the same logic of arbitrary value being irrational, just applying it to your dog, because they realized that you didn't give 'value' towards dogs in general (but thought you might towards your own dog).
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
IslandMorality
Newbie
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:53 am

Re: The Dog Argument

Post by IslandMorality »

You're right, I agree. They are both in essence the same argument. I got mixed up because of people with a different ethical framework than me presenting it to me one after the other and me having 2 different responses to the two different representations of this argument because of my different ethical framework.
Like I said, the one version I respond to with saying I would have no problem with people killing and eating dogs, whereas the other version I respond to with I would not allow my dog to be killed because I choose to have a meaningful relationship with it and have become emotionally attached.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: The Dog Argument

Post by EquALLity »

^Oh, alright! I'm pretty surprised that you agreed.

I'll try to get to your points on the other topic tonight!
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
IslandMorality
Newbie
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:53 am

Re: The Dog Argument

Post by IslandMorality »

EquALLity wrote:^Oh, alright! I'm pretty surprised that you agreed.

I'll try to get to your points on the other topic tonight!
If im wrong Im wrong. I have no interest in anything other than whats rational.
Doesnt happen that often fortunately :lol:

Apparently I didnt read that well myself this time. Irony is a bitch :lol: :lol: :lol:
Post Reply