4 ms·

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

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. For a deeper look at the psychology behind this, I recommend this great TED talk: https://youtu.be/o0VrZPBskpg https://youtu.be/o0VrZPBskpg

whatshisface 11y ago
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.)
- jschwartzi 11y ago
  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.

whatshisface 11y ago

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.)

jschwartzi 11y ago
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.