The question in the title opens a veritable minefield and this answer is politically correct 😉😎 - sort of. The answer is muddied very much by the cultural differences in different countries. In some places eating cats and dogs is unacceptable because they are companion animals very often (normally). While, in other countries, eating cats and dogs can be seen as fairly normal. Rabbits can sometimes be pets but rabbits are often eaten because the culture in a particular country allows for it.
The answer often comes down to cultural norms, personal beliefs and societal values. What is acceptable in one country is unacceptable in another or the differences could even be within the same country but in different parts of it. It's a complex topic.
But can there be an absolute answer? Can there be any a universal response to the question? A universal answer would touch on the necessity of eating animals in the first place. There is an argument that we should all be vegetarian or vegan in the modern age both for humane reasons and in terms of climate change (eating cows and cows producing methane).
But going back to the question in the title, it is really referring to the emotional bonds people have with their pets. Rabbits have a lower status than cats and dogs in the human world. Although rabbits can be pets they are often wild animals as well. Rabbits are often shot for the fun of it by farmers. You can't shoot cats and dogs because there are laws against it in developed countries.
And so the answer depends upon the value we place upon the animal although this is inherently incorrect in an absolute sense because every animal in terms of their sentience has the same value. The problems really arise because of the way humans interact with animals. It's about the relationship we have with animals including domestic and wild animals.
And that relationship varies tremendously across the globe and it is always coloured by human concepts which are often distorted by cultural values sometimes entrenched from thousands of years ago. Ancient values tend to lead to animal cruelty because the values were created at a time when there was a much less sophisticated relationship with animals.
An absolute (unqualified) response to the question might focus on the capacity for suffering - sentience. Animals are sentient beings whether they are rabbits or cats and dogs. When you kill them you cause pain. I say that because most often when cats and dogs are killed in places like the south of China they are brutally killed causing great suffering.
The place on the planet where cats and dogs are most often eaten is in the south of China and therefore you have to attach great suffering with the eating of cats and dogs. On that basis it is highly objectionable and totally unjustifiable.
But in essence you can't separate rabbits and cats and dogs. If you say it's okay to eat rabbits with mustard in France then you should be saying it's okay to eat cats and dogs in the UK but you won't hear people saying that because people like to distort absolute values and colour their values through cultural norms. It is highly muddied. It is not a clear picture.
In a better world, all animals would be treated entirely equally. And in a better world, cats and dogs and rabbits would not be eaten and I would argue that all animals would not be either. That world may arrive one day. Ultimately, the ethics around eating different animals can be complex and depend on cultural context, emotional bonds and individual beliefs. One person's beliefs don't really carry much weight. What I say here is pretty meaningless. Many people would disagree with me.
Many people believe you can't distinguish between eating cats and dogs in the south of China and eating cows in the developed world. It's all animals being killed and eaten. There is a difference however because as mentioned when cows are slaughtered they are slaughtered humanely under strict regulations whereas cats and dogs in south of China are brutally killed in an unregulated manner in a market which is dripping in blood and agony.
But some moral principles can transcend cultural differences especially regarding the capacity for suffering and the rights of sentient beings. One could argue that causing suffering to any sentient being including cats and dogs is morally wrong. The same will apply to rabbits. This is an animal rights philosophy. It should be a universal philosophy. Many philosophers have argued for this. At the moment in the world it is only animal rights activists who argue like this and they are often seen as extremists when arguably they are not. They are just taking an absolute, pure and morally justifiable high ground in this discussion.
There is no universal answer to the question. One day there might be. Please share your views.
------------
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق
Your comments are always welcome.