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 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".