Photo by Noel Zia Lee

Is the value of a cute and familiar animal greater than that of an unfamiliar animal?  I’m defining familiar in terms of closeness to humans.  Of course this varies across cultures as well.  Eating a dog or cat would seem unthinkable to most people in the United States, but it is commonplace in Asia.  But this bias toward animals that we think are cute or animals we have become accustomed to living among seems inconsistent.  The value of a dog versus the value of a cow does not change with the human opinion.  Both are four-legged mammals and neither have any discernible mental advantages over the other.  So our decision to eat one and adopt the other comes down to how friendly these animals are to us.

We could adopt a subjective view of the world and claim that whatever we perceive as value is value, making the friendliness of the dog its higher value.  But in this view, I would also become acceptable to differentiate among humans like this.  I would be able to kill anyone that I believed had lesser value to me.  Obviously this is not the prevalent philosophy.  The people that eat cows are for the most part, people that think humans have value and certain animals have value.  Outside of the subjective view, we have no logical basis for differentiating among different animals.  Without a logical basis, it is just inconsistency in its most obvious form.

How can a person be against eating dogs, but eat cows?  Most consumers of beef or chicken would not want to cause the death of a cow or chicken, yet they eat them.  It seems that we are just choosing to ignore what’s not in front of us.  It’s more convenient to make these differentiations than to face our inconsistency.  A person who chooses to eat animals should be perfectly willing to kill animals.  Some might be willing to accept the killing but want someone else to do it, even this is fine because they are accepting responsibility.  But to eat meat without wanting animals to die is wrong.  A person who chooses to eat meat and kill the animals that gave rise to the meat must also accept the killing of other animals.  If I choose to kill and eat stray dogs, the beef eater should not tell me that I am wrong.  It would just be a matter of taste.

The existence of an objective moral truth is arguable, so I cannot claim whether it is right to kill animals or not, but either belief should be practiced with complete consistency.  The meat eater should be willing to accept the death of every kind of animal.  The animal rights activist should not cause the death of any animal.  To choose among animals corrupts whatever we believe and we end up with an inconsistent and faulty moral code.