Agreed. The assumption we're fighting against, though, is cemented in sociology and culture. There's this big ball of religion and society that most people are indoctrinated into in childhood. Those early impressions of what is "food" and what is "pet" are hard to break down and reassemble, especially since we're so emotionally attached to some animal companions. Likewise, I'm sure there are places in the world that wouldn't think twice about chomping away on our domesticated animals while abhoring our taste for cow.
I suppose you could say common sense is bracing itself against society again. While the arguments for protecting one animal and eating another fall apart in the common sense view sans emotional attachment, society responds by affirming its stance with (sometimes) irrational arguments. I don't always find them irrational, though, and I think there's a lot to be said for the different kinds of domestication we've done over the millenia. The purpose is key. Back when I still ate meat, I don't think I could ever have brought myself to eat horse, dog, cat, or parakeet. I based my deicision for vegetarianism on more reasons than just suffering (or else I'd have to be vegan in order to remain consistent in my logic). Having been a vegetarian for more than 6 years now, I'd have to say that even if suffering was eliminated, I don't think I could ever eat another animal again, even if their life was full.
Something you might find interesting, as I did when I first started making decisions about what I ate, is a sort of essay by Carol J. Adams, a feminist author. I read it 6 years ago in a Religion and Ethics class my freshman year of college:
Adams, Carol J. 1993. "Feeding on Grace: Institutional Violence, Christianity, and Vegetarianism," from C. Pinches and J. McDaniel, eds., Good News for Animals?, Orbis, 1993, pp. 142-159. (Couldn't find it online, sorry, but it's good enough to seek out).
no subject
I suppose you could say common sense is bracing itself against society again. While the arguments for protecting one animal and eating another fall apart in the common sense view sans emotional attachment, society responds by affirming its stance with (sometimes) irrational arguments. I don't always find them irrational, though, and I think there's a lot to be said for the different kinds of domestication we've done over the millenia. The purpose is key. Back when I still ate meat, I don't think I could ever have brought myself to eat horse, dog, cat, or parakeet. I based my deicision for vegetarianism on more reasons than just suffering (or else I'd have to be vegan in order to remain consistent in my logic). Having been a vegetarian for more than 6 years now, I'd have to say that even if suffering was eliminated, I don't think I could ever eat another animal again, even if their life was full.
Something you might find interesting, as I did when I first started making decisions about what I ate, is a sort of essay by Carol J. Adams, a feminist author. I read it 6 years ago in a Religion and Ethics class my freshman year of college:
Adams, Carol J. 1993. "Feeding on Grace: Institutional Violence, Christianity, and Vegetarianism," from C. Pinches and J. McDaniel, eds., Good News for Animals?, Orbis, 1993, pp. 142-159. (Couldn't find it online, sorry, but it's good enough to seek out).