Yes, there's absolutely no reason to believe pigs suffer less than dogs. In fact, they have similar cognitive levels. So we need to do some mental gymnastics to justify how we treat them.
This behavior is labeled "moral schizophrenia" by some.
We say that we recognize that animals are sentient and therefore deserve moral consideration and freedom from unnecessary suffering, but we often behave toward them as insentient things and treat them in ways that are diametrically opposed to any moral consideration of their interests. Unless we label them as pets, of course. Then they are automatically included in our circle of compassion.
I think you make it sound more callous and arbitrary than it is.
It's simple: we have an alliance with dogs and treat them as our friends. Had truffle pigs been as common as hunting dogs, we wouldn't eat as much bacon. Now that this alliance is vestigial, we may see it decay - perhaps you don't believe in it.
Honestly, we probably feel more brotherhood with our work animals than we do with citizens of opposing countries. Makes sense, if someone came to rob your house the Soviets wouldn't bark.
Then, there is the idea that dogs reciprocate. We know at least some do, and we know that nearly every dog owner will claim that theirs does, and we know that a sufficiently inbred poodle won't have the faculty for it. Ether way, we are all told that dogs our our buddies who want to help us. Who would eat a buddy that wanted to help you? How many bacon-eaters think that the pig would, if it could, keep them safe and help them find other things to eat? Probably none.
(Note: I know that there are pig pets. Maybe they are friends, like dogs. If that's true, get the word out and porkchops stop tomorrow.)
This is certainly how I feel about dogs and horses. They're both useful animals. I think the fact that they both have exposed sclera helps cement the alliance.
1) We domesticated horses and dogs to perform a service, not serve as food. These animals were not bred to be flavorful.
2) If you are eating a service animal, that implies it was either too sick or too old to be of service. An old or sick animal is unlikely to yield quality meat.
3) Domestication is a powerful force. With great power comes great responsibility. Warning, the next paragraph is dark.
One of the most abominable animal abuses comes from eating dogs. Dogs are bred to be timid and sensitive. Consequently they are easily tormented. While it is an uncommon practice, in rural Korea dogs are tormented prior to butchering and then served in such a way to give the consumer an adrenaline buzz. These dogs are also a special farm-breed that is more flavorful.
The above story was told to me by several hosts while I was in Korea.
2) Based on the article, the horse butcher claims that all their meat was from working horses, but that they were butchered before the "prime" of their life (before 9 years) or after 14 years because the meat is more tender then. These working horses are fed a good diet, so the meat is supposedly good tasting compared to farmed animals who are fed specific food to get them fat & large faster.
The contradictory way in which we see one living creature's value over another is the reason I became a vegetarian. We bred dogs to be (insert reason that's not food) we also bred cows to be (insert reason that is food), We are the factor here, not the animals. Just because we bred animals to be a specific way doesn't itself justify the industrial slaughter of one versus another.
With that said, my choice was: embrace eating dog, or stop eating meat. I chose the latter, but I fully support anyone who chooses the former, but hope they don't do so under the premise that one animal we control is somehow more appropriate to kill and eat than another.
> With that said, my choice was: embrace eating dog, or stop eating meat.
Why is that the choice? I'm not eating dog since there is no way I can ensure that the dog was treated with some minimum level of care before being killed. Probably a lot of the meat I eat was not killed in the most ideal conditions, but I like to think that I am buying better raised animals these days.
> The contradictory way in which we see one living creature's value over another is the reason I became a vegetarian.
My idea is that if we look at the economic value of animals it becomes less contradictory. Some animals taste good, can be put to work, give us enjoyment, provide materials we can use, are cute, are just fascinating etc. We're willing to bear the cost of keeping these around in some way. Others have really little going for them, e.g. the mosquito.
> The contradictory way in which we see one living creature's value over another
Just playing Devil's advocate here - what's contradictory about assuming that humans are the most important thing in the universe and everything else is here to serve us? I'm not saying it's the ethical thing to do, but contradictory is not a charge I'd level.
An old or sick animal is unlikely to yield quality meat.
A sick animal is unlikely to yield quality meat. (Or at least, much meat, even if the quality is fine. Ask me how I know!) The older an animal gets, however, the richer and more intense the flavors can become. We eat young steers, barrows, and chickens because it costs less to feed an animal for 18 months than it does to feed it for ten years, not because the taste is necessarily better. Of course there are many other factors that affect flavor and quality of meat, but it's wrong to assume that younger is better.
2) true, but you'll find looking at places which had traditionally high rate of horse meat consumption that they also used to had a local chivalry military garrison. those are the horses that were used back then for consumption, because they weren't as hardened as work animals and they ended their useful life before being totally spent.
It's certainly true that there is a wide and long history of eating dog meat around the world [1]. However, I think a distinction can be made between eating the meat of a herbivore (horses) and eating the meat of a carnivore/omnivore (dogs). And I'd suggest that it is healthier to eat the meat of herbivores.
> However, I think a distinction can be made between eating the meat of a herbivore (horses) and eating the meat of a carnivore/omnivore (dogs).
What distinction would that be? People eat bear-meat, hogs are at least partially omnivorous, and virtually every food species of fish and seafood is carnivorous. Or else a carrion-eater, like lobsters.
In the US at least, horses are not raised for meat. This means that veterinarians use whatever drugs they deem necessary when treating horses many of which might make the meat toxic.
I've had this told to me by several horse people including my wife and a horse vet but don't know how true it actually is.
The dangers of drugs in horse meat are vastly exaggerated by those opposed to eating horse meat. The thing to remember is that drugs, especially those that might pose a problem, are expensive. As such, they might be in common use for e.g. valuable Thoroughbred stallions in Lexington KY but are vanishingly rare for swaybacked old "killer" horses fending for themselves on weeds and thornbushes on someone's back forty. Sure they might have been "worth" such drugs when they were younger, but that was years ago. Experience from cattle drugs indicates that everything is out of the system in 60 days.
Well, the other way around as well: those animals have evolved special feelings for us. It's harder to eat something when our conscience gets in the way...
Pigs have too. If you raise them like pets they will have that same thing. There is no difference and people are hypocrites valuing one life over another that way.
Edit; the will is do here; I had pet pigs and did not eat them, they are smart(er than dogs) and very rapidly bored. But a lot of fun. Very happy animals in the right environment.
