Part I

The main idea of the first segment is the relationship between humans and animals as food, as a product that we consume and what it does to us mentally. The first example shows a woman who believes that fish are not animals; she considers herself vegetarian even though she still eats fish because of her beliefs. When her husband comes into her life she eventually comes to terms that fish are animals, and has a sort of identity crisis on her relationship with animals and who she is, affecting her mentally as described in the main idea. He also tells of a man who used to work in a poultry research lab where he dispatched chicks. But once he read about the treatment of animals, it had a huge mental toll on him which resulted in him not eating animals anymore.

The main idea of the second segment is our relationship with animals emotionally. A woman fell in love with a manatee and developed a close relationship with the animal. Later in their relationship, she went on vacations with her husband; the time away from the manatee took a toll on the both of them. The manatee became distraught and the woman did everything she could to keep the animal happy and healthy, even risking her marriage. Our relationships with animals are not only emotional within us, but also within the animals themselves.

The main idea of the third segment is about the implications of keeping predators as a pet, and more of the morals between them. He explores boas and an average house cat. He explores how even though feeding a cat to a snake may be morally wrong, but if the cat is dead, how could it be so wrong? Along with this, cats statistically eat more pounds of meat compared to the snake. So morally when keeping a pet, which is better?

The main idea of the fourth segment is about morally problematic situations. Hal tells of a man who surgically destroyed parts of cats’ brains. He later became close to these cats, and it destroyed him when he had to “sacrifice” his cats, who had become his pets. This can be the same with dogs. They can be considered a family member, yet can bite millions of people as well as bite a couple dozen every year. Does this make it okay that Koreans eat dogs? Or does the fact we consider them family members make it morally wrong?

Part II

When I first read this scenario, I truly was a little shocked. The dog was a loved one, a part of the family. Why would you defile a loved one’s body like that? At the same time, some families do not see a pet as a part of them, only more of an additive or something to provide something to them. So would these people feel less remorse? Would it be seen as just a part of life and that they should move on? The situation also does say that the family “celebrates the life of the dog”, but it also is followed by “as they appreciate the savory flavor of its tender ribs”. To me, that sentence goes from something possibly being seen as a possible honor, and it is turned into something that is pretty disturbing to say nonetheless.

If I were a member of the family, I could never bring myself to eat the dog, or even let my family consider it. Pets are family, they are one with us. For me, it would be the same as one of my cousins being in the same situation and having my aunt say that we are going to eat them in their honor. It just does not seem plausible. If my father came up to me and said we are going to eat our dead dog, I would probably fight with him until I am blue in the face; there is no way I would let that happen.

As said before, pets are family, eating a pet is the same to me as eating another human family member. There is also just too much love going into that small being and I could never ingest the body of a dead loved one. To me, it is morally and ethically wrong, I could never bring myself to do it. Lastly, along with being morally wrong, I feel as though the act alone of eating a dog is particularly disgusting, especially in western culture. Some eastern cultures eat dogs and cats, but on this part of the world, it is more than just frowned upon and shamed.

I already know ahead of time that my reasoning behind eating dog meat is mainly (if not entirely) dependant on emotional reasons. Eating dog meat is not right. I understand that in Korea, as Hal Herzog explains, dogs can be either a pet or an item on a menu. But the way that they treat the dog beforehand is unethical. They are treated horribly before being just as horribly killed to be eaten. Festivals for eating dogs treat them even more inhumanely. But that is eastern culture, Korean culture. In the western world, dogs are not seen as food, it is our culture. We have different morals compared to other countries. For example, in India, they do not eat beef for religious reasons. Though we do not worship dogs the same way they worship cows, it still all can boil down to morality.

Part III

The “troubled middle” is a hard place to be in. It is when you are sort of “on the fence” with certain moral issues and “our ethical obligations to animals” as Hal Herzog puts it in his article. The issue here is that you may be seen or even consider yourself to be hypocritical. Hozerg opposes testing on animals with things such as for cleaners and makeup, but still eats meat and encourages testing on mice to find a cure for cancer. Even though it can be a battle between yourself, along with others, Herzog explains how there is a plus side to all of this. Normally, when you swing one way or another, you only see in black and white, but with being in the “troubled middle”, you can see the greys. You are able to recognize the complexity and complications of each situation. For me, whenever I hear about how an animal was put down due to it attacking a human, I feel very conflicted. On one hand, the animal attacked and possibly killed another of my own kind. But on the other hand, the animal was only following its instincts. The animal is wild, it has to eat and feed. Even if it was not a wild animal, it still has those instincts inside of them. So is it ethical to straight out kill or euthanize the animal?