Can you eat your pet?

Caleb Stegall has a point about pets as signs of conspicuous consumption, but he needs to really lighten up about childlessness. Many pets are bought (and catered to) by older people. Many people with families also have pets (I see them around me every day.) He reminds me a bit of Niobe in the Greek myth, who annoyed the gods by bragging about her kids. Not everything decadent in American society is because people commit the "crime" (in his eyes, no doubt) of having fewer or no children - and I see no consideration in his world-view of people who *can't.*

Caleb doesn't seem to be against the idea of pets per se - he is opposed to what he perceives as useless pets, pets as a replacement for children, pets as a replacement for an ordered relationship with nature. He fails to understand that sometimes companionship is also useful.

I think he misrepresents the history of pets - his assertion that they began as status symbols for the aristocracy is inaccurate - the archaeological record shows even early humans kept dogs and cats to assist in hunting, as guards, to chase away those rodents and even in warfare. Both dogs and cats were worshipped by earlier cultures. And it is clear that these dogs and cats were not just functional companions - we see ancient people being buried with their dogs, we have records from the 500's of monks naming their cats and speaking of them with affection. In short - the bond between humans and dogs and cats is very old and is not just about status. It is also not just about a substitute for children - anyone with kids and a family pet knows the sorrow they feel when the family pet expires.

I also think of the elderly - often seperated by great distances from children and grandchildren - who find companionship with a pet. So - while Caleb enjoys those steaks from his lovely hereford - perhaps he could leave the rest of us pet lovers alone. After all - most of us don't have a 1,000 pound hereford in the backyard!

Caleb would be appalled by the chicken owners I know - who love the eggs but would never eat their chickens !

I do of course agree that it is silliness dressing pets in outrageous outfits and spending all that money - surely a sign of having too much disposable income and too little sense!

What BS. Humans have lived aside dogs and cats for millienia. Pets have provided survival advantage. Dogs have been used for shepherding, hunting, protection, and tracking. Cats they kill rodentia bearing pestilence and let us worship them.

C.S.Lewis had some interesting comments about the all-too-human tendency to have pets. I'm working from memory here & don't know where his essay would be found--but please check the original source if this theme interests you. I seem to recall that he felt the capacity to love deeply and self-sacrificially a non-human animal was a kind of proof of the transcendent soul that distinguishes human beings from merely 'natural' beings. (Whether I have it right or not--Lewis said it much better.)

It does appear that many pets are used as surrogate humans. Bad for the critter!!! Worse for the lonely owner. A neighbor--very nice couple--fits Mr Stegall's article perfectly. An over-priced AKC breed that gets his nails done and hair salon-treated regularly and on his birthday gets presents and a family portrait professionally done. We laughed about that, my Mrs & I, until the basic sadness of the situation kind of sunk in.

I always thought that grim and utilitarian was Stalinist, not Crunchy.

My dog is blind, was abused by a previous owner, and has both thyroid problems and Lyme disease. The last thing he needs is some one to eat him!

Travis - good of you to take him in!

No, but I will cheerfully put anyone who thinks I should into a meat grinder.

What a crank.

By the way, what's up with all the little exclamation points in triangles at the end of each comment?

Yeah, well you know who else thought that keeping "useless" pets was a sign of decadence?

Chairman Mao, that's who.

Perhaps this is the root of the mountain expression, "Is that a dog or a pet?"

By the way, what's up with all the little exclamation points in triangles at the end of each comment?

Clicking on it causes an annoying popup that allows you to report inappropriate comments. But the silly window doesn't have a "close" or "quit" button so there is no way to get rid of it. Typical B-Net quality software!

Actually, I've read that studies show that people with pets (dogs and cats) tend to report less stress in their lives and have lower blood pressure. So in addition to fending off burglars and rodents, pets do help ones mental and physical health. That and they are just plain fun.

I agree that some people go a bit over the top and treat their pets as if they were their children. But the notion that pets are "a symptom of the deeper rot and sickness of conspicuous consumption" is a bit silly.

rr

Jillian - made me laugh. I don't know if you have been following the FPR feud with First Things - seems the accusation against FPR has been that their love of localism denies that a problem of localism is the exclusion of undesireables (for example inconsiderate Hispanic trick or treaters in Rod' neighborhood). Caleb hysterically IMO states "Repossession requires love above all—I have said this before—and no amount of anger or stumbling about trying to recover a lost identity will forge a lasting “localism” if it has not love." So we can conquer the tendency of locals to refuse black kids in their pools with - love. Caleb is getting soft!

I suspect while this sounds so lovely - sort of like a Maya Angelou Hallmark card - it has no relationship to human experience - think a chat about "love" would get those folks at the country club to allow those black kids back in? It is funny how Caleb jumps from love overcoming the exclusionary practices of prejudiced people to eating one's pets.

Rod, who knows? You may have been eating pet for years and not known it.

Some of you should be posting there instead of here, though it would perhaps go against your character to directly confront someone.

We have friends who were in the process of adopting a child from South Korea. They we required to send a picture of their family, including extended family. They were cautioned on two counts. One, that the women in the family needed to wear sleeves because simple straps are seen as immodest, and two, not to have any pets in the picture because pets are seen as wasteful and self indulgent.
Interesting perspective, isn't it?

Those Korean child welfare people haven't visited Korea lately, then. Walking from one end of the Daejon underground to the other, probably one young woman in three had spaghetti straps, in season, and that was in the late 90's. Korea is also where I was introduced to the concept of neon-dyed poodles. Pets aren't as ubiquitous there as they are here [a lot more apartment dwelling] but they do have them.

Thanks Rod for posting this. Finally someone has the guts to post about something that's been a pet (No pun intended) peeve of mine for years. Three cheers for Caleb. I absolutely agree with him on this. I am so sick of how our culture (Europe as well) has elevated animals and pets up to human status but refuse to have children, or gladly abort them. I am sick of hearing about people who ream out people in grocery stores for having more than three children and then go home to two dogs a cat and a fricken hamster. It's appalling and a symptom of a greater problem. I can't tell you how many young couples I've heard (I live in a pretty progressive town) who talk about how they will pick up this stray here or that stray there and adopt this cat or this dog. But when you ask them if they plan on having children they look at you like you are an alien and say "Oh no I don't like children, there too inconvenient", You mean they won't die after a couple of years like pets do. No kids stick around. Yech! Or I don't want to contribute to the overpopulation of the world by humanity. Yeah but what about the over-population of all the stray dogs that live in your house. Oh and don't get me started on Peta! Once again thanks Rod and Caleb I'll stop ranting now.

I am surprised at some of the comments on this post because more than a few criticisms of Caleb's position are not only misrepresentations of that position, but are also directly refuted in Caleb's original post.

Cecilia comments, "[h]e fails to understand that sometimes companionship is also useful." Yet Caleb evidently does not fail to understand this, as he writes in his first endnote, "[t]o be clear, and to avoid being accused of stereotyping, I should say that I am well aware that many a “family pet” is likewise loved with a proper love and that everyone who keeps Fido is not doing so as a status seeking gesture or to fill a childless void, etc. This is but a short blog post and I am reflecting on a structural phenomenon."

Zoey comments, "just because something isn't ‘useful’ doesn't mean that it's disposable or worthless. Just because some people are idiots when it come [sic] to dogs and cats doesn't mean cats and dogs should be eaten." No where in his post does Caleb say animals kept merely for companionship (the “family pet” loved with a proper love) are disposable or worthless. Caleb’s reference to the etymologically of the word “pet” simply cannot be read to mean that the animals kept as proper pets are disposable or worthless. In light of the fact that Caleb is responding to the question posed by Noah Millman, it is clear that Caleb is saying that the animal itself has worth, but its status as a pet does not (at least not a worth beyond the companionship gained from a pet loved with a proper love). That is, if I keep an animal as a pet for a year and then decide to eat it there is nothing morally objectionable to that (contrary to the modern impulse and in answer to Millman’s question). One of the commentators to Stegall’s original post on FPR put it nicely: “Dogs have a place on the Front Porch. But it’s next to the rocking chair, not in it.” Nor does Stegal l anywhere say that dogs and cats should be (i.e., ought to be) eaten. Again, when considered in the context of Millman’s question (in answer to which many in our time would emphatically say, “no”), Stegall is obviously saying that one could eat one’s pet. Stegall isn’t advocating killing Fido; the whole point of Stegall’s article is that just because Fido is a pet (even a pet loved with a proper love) doesn’t make it wrong to eat Fido (and a well-balanced person would eat Fido in certain circumstances, such as when faced with starvation). In any event, both of Zoey’s responsive comments erroneously infer upon Stegall positions not found anywhere in his post.

Jon comments, “[b]y this guy's logic I should probably dig up my rose bushes and replace them with tomatoes. Not that I don't have tomatoes also, I do-- but aren't roses pretty useless?” And Scott Walker comments, “I always thought that grim and utilitarian was Stalinist, not Crunchy.” These comments, aside from finding no support in Stegall’s post, are also answered by Stegall’s “proper love” endnote. Even if they weren’t, Stegall can’t be read to be advocating a strict utilitarianism in regards to animals for the same reason that he can’t be read to be saying that dogs and cats are disposable or worthless. Stegall’s post is in answer to Millman’s question and to the impulse to treat pets as having more essential worth than they actually have or should have. Roses are pretty useless if by “useless” you mean that they can’t be readily eaten. Even so, they are beautiful and pleasant, and I like having them in my garden their flowers in my kitchen. Nevertheless, hardly anyone would contend that it would be morally objectionable for me to dig up my rose bushes and replace them with tomatoes the same way that many of us contend that it is morally objectionable to eat a pet animal.

KateA comments, “[d]ogs and cats provided a variety of services to their humans… My dog happens to save me a lot more than she costs because she's a great watchdog--even though she's harmless, so far as I know, she has a vicious sounding bark. I wouldn't put it past her to attack an intruder and at 90 pounds she could do some damage, if she put her mind to it. This service saves me a great deal of money because I don't need to pay for security system and I sleep well at night.” She then concludes, “[p]ets are a blessing, not a frivolity.” The first part of this comment is actually in harmony with Stegall’s post rather than in dissonance with it. It appears that KateA reads (if she in fact read the post at all) as standing for the proposition that we ought to eat pets because they are useless, a proposition not at all amenable to Stegall’s post. In the second contention (that “[p]ets are a blessing, not a frivolity”), taken into conjunction with the first contention, KateA seems to be saying that since pets/animals provide a number of benefits (including utilitarian ones and “proper love” companionship), pets are not frivolous. Again, this contention misses Stegall’s differentiation between animals and pets. Animals are blessing and not frivolous; pets kept merely for the sake of keeping a pet are by definition frivolous (i.e., lacking any serious purpose or particularly serious essential worth). This doesn’t mean it’s morally objectionable to keep a pet for the sake of keeping a pet any more than it is wrong to keep paintings on the wall or rose bushes in the garden.

Travis Mamone comments, “[m]y dog is blind, was abused by a previous owner, and has both thyroid problems and Lyme disease. The last thing he needs is some one to eat him!” Again, no where in his post does Stegall say that we ought to eat our dogs, blind or not.
I could go on, but this is tiresome business. My point is: the prudent thing to do before opening one’s big mouth to comment on a post, or an article, or a book, or whatever… is to READ IT! None of the comments quoted above address positions articulated in Stegall’s article. At the very most, Stegall can be read as saying that we tend to perversely treat pets as more valuable than they really are. Does this mean we should (i.e., ought to) all start eating our pet dogs and cats? No. Does this mean it’s wrong to have a pet dog or cat? No. Does this mean it’s wrong to enjoy the companionship of a pet dog or cat? No. It means that the keeping of a pet for the sake of keeping a pet ought to be done properly, which entails assigning worth and value to the pet commensurate with its place in the created order of things. None of the quoted comments address this position, and they are therefore more than frivolous; they’re just noise, much like the dog two doors down that won’t stop barking.

All I said was, some people keep dogs for "improper" purposes (like women who keep dogs as baby substitutes) but the people themselves may not be badly motivated. This is objectionable?

At the very most, Stegall can be read as saying that we tend to perversely treat pets as more valuable than they really are.

To which the proper response is, "Yeah, so what?"

Only a highly puritanical religious-right lawyer would come up with such a "logical" case against animals that would be seemingly useless - - other than the not insignificant fact that they bless God by their very existence and are in their own way a blessing to those made in His Own Image.

What would he have them and us do about this terrible moral scourge of pet ownership blighting our nation? By "us" I mean society? Are we supposed to say that there should be a law banning pet adoption for people whose lifestyles don't reflect "family values?" Would that satisfy Mr. Stegall's high moral standards?

And what about the fact that in normal families, pets are excellent training tools for children to care for those who cannot care for themselves. including their future children?

Caleb Stegall - the pet Nazi - "no pet for you!"

And yes, I am indeed disgusted in DC. As Charleton Heston might say, "you can take my kitties away...from my cold dead hands!"

"Pets" as a category are a symptom of the deeper rot and sickness of conspicuous consumption in American culture and life."

Sometimes, there's really no argument to make about such pompous idiocy except to point and laugh.

"a good belly-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms" - H.L. Mencken

The little old ladys with their white dogs..... they didn't have anything else in a world that sped by