>
> Well, in my culture we don't eat dogs or horses either. (We do eat pigs,
> who
> are probably more intelligent than dogs.)
>
As Jules says, personality goes a long way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0zJSgHDnpw
On the other hand, this reverses what Marshall Sahlins said was the criteria for edible vs. inedible in American society (Sahlins famously tried to adapt structuralist Marxism to Anthropology). After setting up a series of dichotomies where he observes that cattle and pigs are edible whereas dogs and horses are not, whereas within these categories of edible and inedible, one was more edible than the other--beef vs. pork, horses vs. dogs--he observes, "The entire set appears to be differentiated by participation as subject or object in the company of men:" <BLOCKQUOTE> Dogs and horses participate in American society in the capacity of subjects. They have proper personal names, and indeed we are in the habit of conversing with them as we do not talk to pigs and cattle. Dogs and horses are thus deemed inedible, for, as the Red Queen said, "It isn't etiquette to cut anybody you've been introduced to." But as domestic cohabitants, dogs are closer to men (/sic/) than are horses, and their consumption is more unthinkable: they are "one of the family." Traditionally horses stand in a more menial, working relationship to people; if dogs are as kinsmen, horses are as servants and nonkin. Hence the consumption of horses is at least conceivable, if not general, whereas the notion of eating dogs understandably evokes some of the revulsion of the incest tabu. On the other hand, the edible animals such as pigs and cattle generally have the status as objects to human subjects, living their own lives apart, neither the direct complement nor the working instrument of human activities. Usually, then, they are anonymous, or if they do have names, as some milk cows do, these are mainly terms of reference in the conversations of men. Yet as barnyard animals and scavengers of human food, pigs are contiguous with human society, more so than cattle. Correspondingly, cut for cut, pork is a less prestigious meat than beef. Beef is the viand of higher social standing and greater social occasion. A roast of pork does not have the solemnity of prime rib of beef, nor does any part of the pig match the standing of steak. <End Quote> 172-3 /Culture and Practical Reason/
as for my earlier comment, I was referencing the general trend in trying to make animals more like humans (whether because they are intelligent or feel pain or otherwise) in order to invoke an ethical imperative not to eat them. I am still developing my schema, but in general, I am more interested in the way the food I buy does or does not support agribusiness corporations. It's no less problematic in terms of finding a precise index, but I'm working on it.
s