Isn't it funny how this is a completely arbitrary definition?
The most sensible explanation I've seen about this phenomenon is called carnism and it's brilliantly explained by Dr. Melaine Joy in this TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0VrZPBskpg
No, it's not arbitrary at all, it's just subjective and depends on your personal relation with the animal.
Frankly, that video sounds like BS to me. How much time did she spend within family farms that raise animals? The idea that you need "invisibility" or to abstract animals as non-individual or as objects is so untrue it's not even funny.
The claim that every culture only picks a handful of animal species to be considered edible, and this is part of some sort of psychological defense mechanism, is BS too. Counter-example: China, or any society that has access to a diverse hunting ground for 'game' or 'bushmeat'.
Even a 'picky eater' society like the US that only eats a few kinds of land animal species treats all fish as edible but only a few named species as 'the good ones', and only a handful of plant species are commonplace in the diet despite lots more being readily available.
The fact that people think dogs have higher intrinsic value than pigs, and hence deserve more rights, is based on completely arbitrary characteristics. The proof of that is that dogs are seen as food in some cultures, cows are seen as sacred in others, etc. It's all part of belief systems that, in most cases, are inherited without being questioned.
I have no idea if she has spent time within family farms, but I would guess that she, like most people versed in animal rights, would strongly disagree with exploiting the bodies and reproductive systems of animals unnecessarily. Regardless of it being done in a factory farm or in the best family farm, where animals roam free until the day they are sent to the house of slaughter, at a young age.
If you sent a perfectly healthy dog (or horse, or cat, or elephant) to slaughter, for profit or pleasure, in a culture that sees those animals as members of their moral community, you would get a very different reaction from society.
The fact that people think dogs have higher intrinsic value than pigs, and hence deserve more rights, is based on completely arbitrary characteristics. The proof of that is that dogs are seen as food in some cultures, cows are seen as sacred in others, etc. It's all part of belief systems that, in most cases, are inherited without being questioned.
The fact that the reasons are different doesn't mean they're arbitrary, merely not universal. Some cultures practice(d) cannibalism, does that mean that our opposition to that practice is necessarily arbitrary?
I think it's clear that many, if not most, are not arbitrary - which doesn't mean they are well supported; not everything is valid just because it has some reason behind it.
I have no idea if she has spent time within family farms, but I would guess that she, like most people versed in animal rights, would strongly disagree with exploiting the bodies and reproductive systems of animals unnecessarily. Regardless of it being done in a factory farm or in the best family farm, where animals roam free until the day they are sent to the house of slaughter, at a young age.
No doubt, but that wasn't my issue with the video. I wasn't disagreeing with the opposition of exploiting animals unnecessarily, just with the theory of Carnism that she uses to support it.
I inquired about her experience with family farms, not because they don't exploit animals, but because I believe they put a very obvious hole in her theory about why people do exploit animals.
If you sent a perfectly healthy dog (or horse, or cat, or elephant) to slaughter, for profit or pleasure, in a culture that sees those animals as members of their moral community, you would get a very different reaction from society.
No doubt, but her theory had more than just "people treat animals differently".
I think it's clear that many, if not most, are not arbitrary - which doesn't mean they are well supported; not everything is valid just because it has some reason behind it.
The definition of arbitrary is "having no reason behind it". Sure, judging whether a particular classification counts as "arbitrary" is hard because the definition of "arbitrary" is squishy. But what you just said amounts to:
It's not arbitrary. It might be arbitrary, but it's not arbitrary.
The fact that people think dogs have higher intrinsic value than pigs, and hence deserve more rights, is based on completely arbitrary characteristics
Dogs are a bad example. Dogs have been our companions for tens of thousands of years. They have been so because they are useful to us -- we have developed a symbiotic relationship. Dogs understand us and are attuned to our emotions to a much higher degree than any other non-human animal. I wouldn't say it's arbitrary to place a higher intrinsic value on dogs than pigs.
Don't get me wrong, I don't claim that as justification of anything. I'm a vegan. I just don't think something has to be arbitrary to be wrong.
I didn't watch the video, but it seems like a common misconception. People don't like the idea of killing an animal with a name and personality for meat, so they think it must be impossible. But in reality, plenty of farmers develop bonds with the animals they will eventually kill.
Isn't it funny how this is a completely arbitrary definition?
The most sensible explanation I've seen about this phenomenon is called carnism and it's brilliantly explained by Dr. Melaine Joy in this TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0VrZPBskpg