For me personally it's:

Humans > tool-and-reason-using animals (certain primates, corvids, cephalopods, cetaceans, etc.) > other animals in descending order of perceived capacity to suffer > bivalves > non-animal kingdoms.

Same here, it's why I cannot justify getting offended by people eating dogs when I eat pigs which are about as smart.

That classification also made me stop eating octopus even though it's one of my favorite dish.

Dogs and cats were domesticated as companions.

Pigs and cattle were domesticated for food.

I think most people's feelings toward these animals have deep evolutionary roots.

I don't think it's evolutionary at all - people who associate with some animal types convince themselves they're in a bilateral open relationship (the animal is choosing to be their friend), or even adopt a mental attitude where they use the animal as a proxy for a human infant.

This seems the result of socialisation in to that behaviour.

In the UK, outside food chain fraud, we don't eat horse, but plenty of other countries do - I don't think that's because we evolved differently.

I don't believe it's entirely a trick of the mind. There is a difference between animals which have been selectively bred to perform social roles and ones bred for food. They actually do display more social traits because they've been bred that way.

Not generally, however it's possible to buy horse meat from some butchers and in fancy restaurants. It's not as taboo as eating cats/dogs.

I didn't think horse was even legal, I've never seen it on sale in UK.

Totally legal though:

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summ...

Yeah, although a life long vegetarian I've done a small amount of work with systems for butchers. Personally, I agree with others in this thread that eating pig is really no different than dog, cat etc. looking at things objectively. Being a soppy old Buddhist I try hard not to hurt any living creature.

I'd agree that from a position of inferred intelligence implying a mind is present then the morality is similar.

I think there are moral implications of dogs and cats having been bred as domestic animals; probably also there are tertiary implications through the differences in resources and methods needed to farm them (though these would presumably reduce as the animals were adapted to be cattle).

Meta: I know self-deprecation is a common pastime for us Brits but standing by your moral convictions to preserve all life is a noble endeavour, not soppy, and probably the greater for the wisdom that usually follows age.

Thank you for your comment, spot on about our British reservations. Also interesting point about cats and dogs being domesticated. I'd say to a large degree most animals farmed are in some way domesticated and wouldn't be able to survive in the wild as well as you would think. I know scrub bulls and other 'estranged' animals can thrive if the environment allows, but most pigs say wouldn't survive as well as wild boar do.

Doesn’t it make more sense to be upset at people eating pigs and dogs? Same here about octopus too, although it was never my favorite, I won’t touch the stuff. Pigs, dogs, cats... I try to avoid eating anything that can out-think a toddler.

This is more the line I was going down - I think in the future it will be difficult to justify, morally, the killing of any mammal for its meats. Especially when grown meat alternatives become affordable.

I say this as a staunch carnivore. I just don't see how it's morally sustainable. What if we develop methods of chemically induced greater intelligence, and a Peta activist goes to a farm and injects it into all the cows? Shit like that are what I think will eventually drive the world to vegetarianism. That or species extinction...

People don't preference other people who have higher intelligence. I find it hard to imagine they will forgo eating in order to preference other species of higher intelligence.

There's a simple moral justification for atheists - morality is a human construct, we can ignore it when we find that useful.

What makes you a staunch carnivore, if I may ask?

1. I love the taste of meat

2. Cooking is my primary hobby. I am fascinated by the history and culture of it, much of which is based around meat

3. I lift a lot and can't hit my macros at reasonable calorie to protein to dollar ratio without chicken and eggs

4. I have worked on a farm and as a result, as long as I'm buying properly sourced meat (pasture raised, not factory shit) I don't feel much guilt as I have confidence the animal had a comfortable life by the normal metrics of animal life, and was killed quickly and with little pain.

I just woke up and saw this, going to briefly touch on these points but please don't take it as trying to argue or push my beliefs ^_^

1. Do you love the taste of meat or is it the texture of the meat + the taste of the (plant) seasonings?

2. If it is your primary hobby, you should dive more into cuisines that don't focus heavily on meat as a personal challenge (as well as trying to make plant-based versions of things), I think you'd find it a lot of fun.

3. You can, that is a common misconception but there are a lot of resources on the internet about this–on phone and precaffeinated but I can look later if you'd like.

4. This is a classic reasoning I hear, I think it is honorable that you try to eat humanely killed animals, but there are other issues (factory farming is more environmentally friendly, selective breeding causes health issues, can't be sure all farms are as ethical as the one you worked on, eating meat at basically any restaurant goes against your defense, etc.)

Need to walk my dog, make breakfast, and go to work but I am down to continue this discourse at both of our leisures–hope you have a lovely day :)

I agree. The only animal products I eat are bivalves, though I was vegan for three years prior and vegetarian on and off for a decade prior to that. I'm finally at a place where I feel I'm eating in line with my morals, which helps stave off depression.

If this is true then why does non consenting human experimentation happen ever?

In any case, hierarchies like that are almost totally arbitrary, like anything about a culture.

I'm just poking the bear here and seeing what comes out. Let's play with this more.

Yup, totally arbitrary. That's why I prefer the poetry yeast writes about the beauty of the universe and the pain of existence to that written by humans.

Is your point that only humans have culture? There is evidence of culture and learned behaviors in animals as simple as birds.

My point is that the hierarchy is ordered by increasingly sophisticated internal conscious experience. This is the least arbitrary thing ever when it comes to concern around suffering.

My argument was more that there is no association between a theoretical "hierarchy of care" and actual, real brain sophistication. If there were, people would for example eat cats before they ate pigs.

Cats don't have much meat, I imagine larger mammals are farmed because they're large. But inhibition to eating pigs would be larger than that for eating cats, I'd agree on that.

Sorry edit: I disagree strongly that there is no association, it's an 80-20 thing. 80% can be explained by real brain sophistication, with 20% explained by cultural baggage.

I didn't realize that was your argument. I'd agree with that.

"As simple as"--are you placing birds in a hierarchy?

Sure, a hierarchy of complexity. You don't think such a thing would exist?

Why are you trying to seek out a hypocrisy angle in my arguments? I feel like that's a somewhat boring way to go about this.

> why does human experimentation happen ever?

There are a lot of drugs that pass animal testing only to fail human testing. Ethics review boards are a pretty good, but imperfect way to moderate the harm of human experimentation.

> hierarchies like that are almost totally arbitrary

This hierarchy corresponds roughly to some mix of genetic, morphological and behavioral similarity. It's obviously not arbitrary.

> like anything about a culture

lol

You seem to be amused by my assertion that culture traits like this are arbitrary. I'm guessing you also believe in universal morality.

Anthropologists that argue against universal morality are used to being derised and mocked, but I don't mind being a punching bag - please, feel free to present your evidence that the hierarchy of care is the result of perceived similarities, and how this must apply rigidly and universally across all cultures. That, for example, there was never a culture in all of human history that placed a less-human-appearing animal's value over a more-human-appearing animal... or even over other humans.

Because expiraments on humans can provide information that expiraments on other animals can't, and the information in question is information that we care about.

In addition, humans can consent to things.

Consent is interesting, usually poor people will get paid for it, in which case it's a sort of coerced consent.