- So, were the Thai government officials acting justly in stopping the slaughter of the dogs in Nakhon Phanom? Or were the arrests and other actions to prevent the dogs being eaten immoral?
- Should those who enjoy Poodle or plump Alsation for lunch be indulging that taste?
- Is it OK to eat dogs?
- Should eating dog be illegal?
- When may dog be eaten?
- When shouldn't it be eaten?
- Should the saved dogs be killed or kept alive? Always?
- Is killing dogs wrong? Why or why not? Under what circumstances?
__________
References
Aphisakulchat, T. (2011a, August 14). Dog traders given bail by Isaan court. The Nation. Retrieved August 19, 2011 from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/08/14/national/Dog-traders-given-bail-by-Isaan-court-30162712.html
Aphisakulchat, T. (2011b, August 18). Donations, food pour in for rescued dogs. The Nation. Retrieved August 19, 2011 from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Donations-food-pour-in-for-rescued-dogs-30163054.html
Phanom, N. (2011, August 13). Dogs saved from dinner tables, but still in danger. The Nation. Retrieved August 19, 2011 from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/08/13/national/Dogs-saved-from-dinner-tables-but-still-in-danger-30162662.html (I am certain that The Nation does not really have a reporter with this name, but it is the person to whom they've attributed the article.)
Ummmm.. I am afraid since I share my opinion, dog lovers will stop talking to me, just kidding. Honenstly, I don't think eat dog shoud be illegal, I don't feel how different between dog and other animal people have eaten like pig, cow, chicken. In this point, I think government should let people decide by themselves whether eat dog or not. However, in terms of slaughter of the dogs, it is a crime and it can cause an outbreak of animal disease which government must enforce for this.
ReplyDeleteDew makes a good point I think.
ReplyDeleteIf we may eat chickens, pigs and other tasty beasts, why shouldn't we eat any other animal?
Are there any animals at all that humans should not eat? What? Why not?
I love dogs, I don't eat dogs, but I can say that it's not a big deal of eating dogs. Everybody has their own right to eat whatever they want except human meat... If we say that eating dogs is brutal, so why eating pigs is not?? Both are animals, what is the difference? I think, we must not judge others because they act out of our ways.
ReplyDeleteI think other animals that we should not eat are reserved animals because the decreasing number of them can affect to circle-life which leads to other natural problems.
The single vote for the option that "we may normally eat dogs" is mine, so I'm a bit surprised. From the comments, I would have expected more votes for that option. If people think "we may normally eat dogs", why are they voting for a different option?
ReplyDeleteTang,
When you write that "Everybody has their own right to eat whatever they want" (August 21, 2011 12:37 AM, ¶ 1), does that mean it's OK for everybody to eat pandas, whales and other "reserved animals" if they want to(¶ 2)?
"We may normally eat dogs", people did not vote for this the statement, because another options are more preferable. We may normally eat dogs, but we should not. We may normally eat dogs, but it depends. I think a feeling of morality leads us to answer.
ReplyDeleteI, also, think that human have right to eat everything they want. In a dry land of Africa or other regions, a drive for surviving makes people eat everything, even it is eating preserved species which is illegal. In Thailand recently, flooding makes people eat all dogs which live in that area. Long time ago in a plane crash, we know that human even eat other human' remains, because there had no other food resources around the freezing area.
However, morality make us don't want to do that. It may come from our evolutionary. If every human eat everything, it can be an end day of human culture. No other species would be left. Dogs helped protecting home since an ancient time. They live close to us, and this could be a reason why some people don't eat cows or buffaloes or elephants.
Dig, thank you for helping me see that I need to clarify my ideas.
ReplyDeleteWhen I wrote "We may normally eat dogs", I meant "it's not normally morally wrong to eat dogs".
Conversely, "We should not normally eat dogs" means "it's normally morally wrong to eat dogs".
I inserted the word normally to deal with extreme or odd special cases, such as the plane crashes and floods that you mention. It's the morality of the normal range of situations that is most interesting, although I think that your extreme examples are very useful because they help us to better see and understand relevant points to consider, such as what makes it morally OK in some situations but not normally, and vice-versa.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI'm confused(?) What do you mean about "does that mean it's OK for everybody to eat reserved animals if they want" ? I didn't write like that, so I don't know what you are talking about. Actually, I mean people must not eat those animals because they are all mostly extinct, so we have to conserve them in order to maintain normal life-cycle.
Tang,
ReplyDeleteI asked the question about reserved animals (August 21, 2011 7:13 AM) because in your first paragraph you wrote that "Everybody has their own right to eat whatever they want except human meat" (August 21, 2011 12:37 AM), which means that all reserved animals, such as panda and whale, may be eaten if people want to eat them (they are not human meat). But then in the next paragraph you wrote that "we should not eat ... reserved animals", which I think means that those animals may not be eaten, and you give a supporting reason for that - they are endangered and their declining numbers could have serious consequences for the eco-system. The two ideas seemed contradictory to me, so I wasn't sure which one you thought was true. That's why I asked.
In my own response writing here on this topic, I decided to make my own ideas clearer after reading Dig's comment. I don't think that's a problem - I didn't spend hours planning, I just wrote down what came to me mind, so it's not surprising that it wasn't perfect and that I had to improve it after Dig's critical comments. (see OALD, "critical, adjective", definition 4). This sort of critical thinking and response is an important element of academic discussion.
Actually, I agree with your idea in the second paragraph, that we should not eat some animals, possibly for more than one reason. But that means I disagree with the idea that "everyone has their own right to eat whatever they want". If there is are reasons why some animals should not be eaten, then it cannot be true that everyone can eat anything.
I really agree that eating dogs should be legal because dogs are animal like pigs, chickens, fish, and other animals that humans usually eat, so why people can't eat dogs.
ReplyDeleteIf we talk about eserved animals, I completely agree that we must not eat it because it will become extinct, but in case of dogs, I can't find the reason that why we can't eat it.
However, people who want to eat it must not steal dogs that have owner for eat.
I'm just rereading chapters 5 and 6 before class, and Jack's questions in response to Ralph's desperate plea on page 91 that "you're breaking the rules" (Golding & Epstein, 1954) also seems to me relevant here. In particular, it explains why the last option in the poll is an awful choice - not just wrong, but morally deadly. Unfortunately, it is also a popular belief these days, as Jack's question reflects.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think? Is the idea that right and wrong "depends on culture or personal opinion" false and morally disastrous? Why or why not?
Is this also Jack's answer to moral questions?
References
Golding, W., & Epstein, E. L. (1954). Lord of the Flies. New York: Perigee.
I'm becoming an ever more isolated supporter of the idea that it's not morally wrong to eat dogs.
ReplyDeleteAnd following my last comment (August 22, 2011 8:12 AM), a growing consensus seems to be favouring what seems to me to be Jack's approach to moral questions.
Golf suggested this morning that I was Jack, but I think my vote in favour of the reality of moral right and wrong means I'm not a Jack-like person, nor are the two who have voted against me, that we should not normally eat dog: at least we agree that there is a moral question, and that one of the answers is right and one wrong - we just don't agree on which is right and which wrong.
I liked the way that Golf related the ideas in the novel to wider issues when she jokingly equated me with Jack. It is the same sort of thing I did in my previous comment. Like Golf, I saw a relevance to other issues that seemed worth discussing and exploring, even if I later decided that my idea was wrong. Golf's idea of equating people we know to characters in the novel can help both to sharpen our understanding of those characters, and perhaps also the reverse - provide new insights into people and situations which we might be unthinkingly familiar with, which is one reason often given in favour of reading great literature. I'm glad to see you doing this.
So, who are the Jacks?
Have I misunderstood an important characteristic of Golding's character in Lord of the Flies?
And on the BBC News, I just noticed this fresh morsel, "Who, What, Why: Is it legal to eat wild birds?", which raises similar questions to the eating of dogs.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm too tired to really comment now. I've just spent 3 full hours solidly working on step 4, the actual writing, of my essay on Simon, so I'm going to bed now. I think it needs about one more hour tomorrow morning to write an introduction and conclusion, and review the ideas and organization. I like Simon, and writing the essay has forced me to closely re-examine, and revise, my ideas about him. Now, I think he's even more admirable than before I started writing the essay on him. And Golding does an excellent job of introducing him in the first four chapters of his novel. But it hasn't been exactly easy.
References
Who, What, Why: Is it legal to eat wild birds? (2011, August 23) BBC News. Retrieved August 24, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14631856