I'm more curious to know how you feel rather than hypotheticals. Are you an utilitarian? What utility can be derived from killing a dog? As for being "treated humanely" what does that mean? Is it ok to kill someone if we treat them well while they are alive?
Well, if a family derives pleasure from dog meat, then that would be utility. Under classical utilitarianism, if the pleasure of that family outweighs the harm done to the dog, then it would be ok, though no utilitarians today actually believe in this naive formulation of utilitarianism, due to problems that should be obvious. Under negative utilitarianism, which shifts the focus to reducing suffering rather than increasing pleasure, there wouldn't be sufficient grounds for subjecting a dog to the dog meat industry unless the industry caused negligible harm to the dogs. Harming dogs would be permissible, however, if it prevented greater harm to other humans and animals (like with medical research). No, because I, like most people, happen to believe that we have extra duties towards humans that transcend the basic utilitarian framework.As for being "treated humanely" what does that mean? Is it ok to kill someone if we treat them well while they are alive?
It's a shame that you answered with hypotheticals rather than your personal views. When I said "Is it ok to kill someone if we treat them well while they are alive?" I was actually referring to animals. I don't see them as things I see them as individuals with their own personalities, social bonds and capacity to enjoy life, even if they can't always express it in a way that we understand. Following your view that humans have extra duties (i.e. rights) that don't apply to animals, who would you feel more connected to a child rapist paedophile or a puppy? And why?
Well, ok, I generally consider myself to be a negative utilitarian and a preference utilitarian (that is, harm is defined as frustration of preferences, not just bad feelings). But on top of that I also understand that human society is necessarily governed by social contract, which to an extent creates extra rights and duties within the human community, the national community, and the family. I never said I don't see animals that way. Indeed, as far as I know we're scientifically compelled to. Again, it depends. The pedophile has violated the social contract and basic moral norms, and any sane society would ostracize him/her. As for this puppy, it would deserve protections as a result of its being a sentient being. If it was my puppy, I would have greater moral obligations to it as a result of our relationship. If it was just a feral puppy, probably not.I don't see them as things I see them as individuals with their own personalities, social bonds and capacity to enjoy life, even if they can't always express it in a way that we understand.
Following your view that humans have extra duties (i.e. rights) that don't apply to animals, who would you feel more connected to a child rapist paedophile or a puppy? And why?
Great, so in this particular case you wouldn't grant special rights to the paedophile simply because he was human. The puppy on the other hand would enjoy well deserved protection. Up until here do we agree that species should not be the sole measurement of provision of rights since the puppy would enjoy more rights than the paedophile? Now my final question is, do you think that the selective animal discrimination ingrained in our Western cultures, where dogs and cats are treated with love and care and pigs, cows, sheep, chickens and so on are bred, subjugated and killed to serve our pleasure, is fair? I'm referring to animals in modern societies where we've gone past survival and we now know that it is scientifically possible to live without animal products.The pedophile has violated the social contract and basic moral norms, and any sane society would ostracize him/her. As for this puppy, it would deserve protections as a result of its being a sentient being.
Yes, we never disagreed there. However, I think the provision of those extra rights comes from membership in a civilization, country, and family, rather than membership in a species. Hence, animals we keep as pets, which belong to our communities, are entitled to those extra rights, whereas livestock animals that do not belong to our communities are only entitled to rights and protections granted by the basic utilitarian framework.Up until here do we agree that species should not be the sole measurement of provision of rights since the puppy would enjoy more rights than the paedophile?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. So what's the criteria for selectively using some animals for companionship and others for taste pleasure in an age when we can live without those?animals we keep as pets, which belong to our communities, are entitled to those extra rights, whereas livestock animals that do not belong to our communities are only entitled to rights and protections granted by the basic utilitarian framework.
Custom, I guess? That's not morally relevant within my framework as long as the proper rights and protections are given to the animals in each role (which, as you've indicated, we usually don't do, which is unethical).So what's the criteria for selectively using some animals for companionship and others for taste pleasure in an age when we can live without those?