Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
But at the same time, even if pet animals aren't aware of the social contract that humans knowingly abide by, they still provide a service to society---through emotional fulfillment to their owners that isn't likewise provided by food animals---that would be undermined if there were not laws to protect them. So, even if the logic is tenuous and at times contradictory, there is still a viable reason to give them at least some protection that doesn't necessarily extend to food animals.
|
Food is a large part of every culture in the world. To say(indirectly) there is no emotional attachment to food is an absurd reason for justifying different treatment of food animals vs pet animals. If anything food animals should be more valued by your logic (you know, like the appreciation shown by the Natives), regardless I view them as another living thing and I want a system that harms as few living things as possible and protects as many as it can. Also, there a **** ton of "pet" animals (Lizards, fish, spiders, etc) that don't provide a whole lot of emotion or help to society, do we afford them the same luxuries as dogs and cats?
I agree with JWB that the laws should be there as a guide to meet long term goals and suit our best interests, but I am sure our ways of defining those two things are much different.
Threaded Mode