Okay? Most societies also judged women to be subservient to men, and black people were judged to be slaves rather than free. These were all commonly accepted at the time, but we understand now that society's judgements were wrong.
Again, it’s a false equivalence to compare humans to animals. So I’m not going to debate you on that. Humans are one species. Animals are many that have widely different characteristics.
That doesn't change the issue that we're still killing sentient animals who don't want to die for unnecessary reasons.
Well here we have a difference of opinion. I view meat as an important and often staple food of many cultures and is also a part of my diet quite frequently. Especially during the winter.
Do you think there's a moral difference between slitting the throat of a pig and slitting the throat of a dog?
No. Both are dying. While I am revolted at watching someone cut the throat of a dog more than that of a pig, death in an equal manner at an equal pace for an equal purpose is not different morally.
What factors should we consider when discussing the morality of this? Ability to feel pain, necessity of killing, will to live? In this respect, there wouldn't be any difference between a pig and a dog.
I mean, usefulness is a big factor. What can a pig contribute that a dog can not? Dogs are bred specifically for a task. A pig can not guard a flock of sheep. A pig can not help detain a fleeing criminal. A pig can not provide a loud, reliable warning. Bluntly speaking, dogs have far more uses than pigs do. And are this far more valuable. And is why society looks on in revulsion when they are killed. Simply: they are worth more alive than dead.
Sure, some animals do get more privileges. But the question is whether they should, if there's a moral difference between harming these animals.
I believe they should. I put way more value in a dog over, say, a fish. How you want to calculate value is one thing. But I am absolutely steadfast in my opinion that dogs are way more valuable alive than pigs are.