Why Killing a Pig Would Be Legal But Not a Dog Research Paper

Type of paper: Research paper

Topic: Christians, Animal Rights

Pages: 4

Words: 1100

Published: 2019/09/24

In a world where a bill of rights is highly regarded, human rights watch and human activists are awake every other moment stipulating vividly the rights and the freedom of every other individual.  Each individual in the present world is highly enlightened about his or her rights and freedom, the degree to which he or she can practice them without violating other people’s rights differs from one nation to another.

There exists a wide variety of freedom ranging from freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, freedom of life, to freedom of worship just to mention but a few. Each and every one has the mandate to exercise and maximize fully, and even to capitalize on his her rights without interfering with other peoples business. However, there are circumstances where ones rights and freedoms may be curtailed by the state.

In some cases, the freedom of movement, speech and association may be denied if the affected individual is likely to harm others or make defamatory statements against others or the state. Incase of interference the accused is bound to face the law and if found guilt he or she will be subjected to a sentence as per the law.

Freedom of worship is respected in many nations especially where we have many religious groups. Each individual is allowed to practice their religion according to their faith without any state or animal rights activists’ interferences.

Maua’s case therefore is not exceptional since he only practiced his rights of worship. He believes that by making a sacrifice allegedly to remove the evil spirits then his sick wife would feel better. After killing a pig, chicken and burning the US dollar bill, the health of his wife only gets worse and this pushes him to slaughter the dog, the only alternative available to secure his wife’s health by appeasing the evil spirits believed to cause such diseases.

The burden at hand which undoubtedly forced Moua to kill the dog was the health status of his wife. It is very obvious that his wife’s life was more important to him than that of the dog. Sacrificing the dog to secure his wife’s life was more appealing. Having tried to appease the evil spirits by killing a chicken, a pig and even burning a US dollar bill to no avail indicates his heightened frustration with his wife’s disease to  the extend that he killed the dog.

Anyone who definitely knows his or her freedoms would proudly practice them freely without having to be forced to, what of a case whereby one is forced by a certain circumstance like in the case of Maua. Just by practicing his freedom of worship a hardship which he was undergoing would come to an end. Thus he exercises his freedom of worship, offering a dog as a sacrifice at the pleasure of overcoming a certain burden at hand.

Within the human society there are animals whose products are widely accepted as edible. They are human consumed to an extent that there are some individual who can’t do without them. In the same society it would be a taboo to consume meat of a certain animals since they are inedible as per the society. Inedibility and edibility therefore determines legality or illegality to kill an animal. This varies from one society to another. In china dogs meat is consumed while in our society it is a taboo to consume dog’s meat.

Why killing a pig would be legal but not a dog

This question does not border on the law but the practices and ethics of a particular society. Man was given authority over all animals according to the Christian religion and he can thus kill any without violating the commandments of god. The matter of legality should not arise since all animals are the same. There should be no difference between a cow, a goat or a horse according to the law. The issue that may be contagious is the ethics of a particular society. Some societies have no problem consuming products from dogs as it happens in some parts of Asia while pork is not touched in other societies.

Killing a pig therefore is legal since its products are consumed by this particular society.  Some products from pig such as pork and, mutton are all over across the world adored for their delicious nature licensing the legality to kill a pig in order to obtain the products. I tend to believe that most people can’t do without pig product especially in a case where it is recommended by health personnel thus warranting the legality to kill a pig.

Another exceptional case is where the society doesn’t consume the pig’s meat. To them consuming pigs meat would be a taboo which if committed warrants one for expulsion or cleansing sacrifice to be carried out for him to be accepted back to the society. Such a society would hold you accountable for any killing of a pig.

Killing a dog is then illegal for the reasons that dog’s meat isn’t consumed by the human society, and across the whole globe it has never been accepted for consumption. It would be a greater taboo in the human fraternity if one was found consuming a dog’s meat, one would either be considered insane, cursed or an outcast in the society. Commiting such case would cause one to be ex communicated from the society.

Arguably in very extreme cases would killing a dog be legalized, cases of dire importance such as the case facing Maua. Cases like that would warrant legalizing the killing of a dog in order to meet some rare requirements. There are societies however, that consume dogs’ meat and therefore having them to kill a dog would be legal. In an exclusive story in Kenya, a family in the northern region was reported to have slaughtered and eaten a dog because of hunger; no rights body in the whole nation condemned the issue. This may be attributed to the circumstances in which the dog was slaughtered but not a case of legality or illegality.


Andrew L. Christianity and the Rights of Animals. Crossroad. New York, 1987

Tom R. Animal Sacrifices, Religious Perspectives on the Use of Animals in Science, Temple University Press, PA. [1986]

Tom R. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press. [1983]