Beating a delicious horse

[urbpan]

I know I've brought up this subject many times before, but it has come to my attention (to my email box, in fact) that Time Magazine has now written an article on it. I was considering, earlier today, to bring up the general subject of the human uses of animals, but I'll table that for a little later.

In short, why are horses on the short list of domestic animals that Americans don't eat? (And in fact there are laws against eating horses in some states.) The last paragraph of the article sums it up pretty neatly:

It's not that I don't think killing horses is cruel. It's just that I think killing chickens, pigs, sheep and cows is equally bad. Morality based on aesthetics is pretty shallow. In fact, the only weird part about eating horse was that, unlike with bacon or rib eye, we kept picturing the animal, which was kind of gross. Nonetheless, until I decide to stop my less-than-noble practice of eating other animals, I've got little choice but to order up some more horse.
(Joel Stein is the author of this article.)

I pretty much agree. While I don't eat meat, unless it comes from an animal whose life and care I knew well (I eat pork sausage from my farm), I don't see any problem with eating horse--or rabbit, or guinea pig, or whatever. Animals are animals, and they all are capable of suffering. No domestic mammal is hurt more or less from a trip to the slaughterhouse, or from a life in a stall, pen, or cage.

Comments

[droserary.livejournal.com]

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).