http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/dining/03rabbit.html
I stumbled across this article on the New York Times this evening. Since we are currently discussing the morality of eating meat, I thought this was highly appropriate (and the timing couldn't be better).
The article, in brief, touches on the history of using rabbits as a source of food. While they are generally considered a food source of last resort (except among the French), there has apparently been a recent surge in interest in the animals as food, particularly among those who may not have the room to raise other livestock animals, such as those living in the suburbs.
It does touch on an interesting bit of history. As stated in the article: "Ever since the Victorians began keeping them as pets, the relationship between the rabbit and the table has been uneasy."
It is interesting to consider the view of animals as pets that makes viewing them as food uneasy. To throw in another example (unrelated to the above article), in some Asian cultures (China most famously), dogs are cooked and eaten, a practice that many (primarily Westerners) view as cruel and inhumane.
So I pose to all of you a question: Why is it that, once we consider an animal a pet (a creature whose sole purpose is enslavement by our species for, primarily, our own amusement), that we become uneasy at the thought of using that animal as a source of food?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that at least some of the trepidation at the idea of eating their pets (or animals that they associate as being pets) is because many people designate pets a place in their family, or some sub-component of the family unit. At that point, the practice of eating dogs, even dogs who don't belong to anyone they know in particular, seems cruel because it is loosely analogous to someone eating a person. Obviously I think the reaction to cannibalism is far more wide-spread and has a larger consensus as being cruel, but I think that this is the basis.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that all pets necessarily fall into the catergory of "slaves for their owner's amusment" ( it is feasible that some animals are taken as pets in order to prevent their abuse or imminent demise) but even if it was the case, people still become connected on a personal and emotional level with their pets. In short, they become attached. And in that sense, in most cases, people would find it morally reprehensible to consume their companion.
I replied to your post.
ReplyDeleteI also responded to your post.
ReplyDelete