Taboo Scenario 3: Eating your Pets

A family's cat was killed by a car in front of their home. They had heard that cat meat was very tasty, so they cut up the cat, cooked it and ate it for dinner. To date, they have never regretted the decision and they have not suffered any harm as a result of cooking and eating the cat. Is anyone harmed by the family's eating of their family pet?

Clearly not.

Would it bother you to see a family eating a pet which had been killed in a car accident?

No, although it might bother me to see them eating my pet.

How do you judge the actions of the family in eating their pet cat?

Not wrong at all

Should the family be prevented from eating any of their future pets or punished in some way for eating this pet? [Note: if you think that either or both of these things should occur then you should answer 'Yes'; only answer 'No', if you think neither of these things should occur.]

No, although it may be appropriate to institute health codes, and roadkill might well fall under this category. I assume though, that the question is focusing on whether the status of the animal as a pet, as opposed to an animal raised for food deserves punishment and I find no reason to treat the two categories differently.

Suppose you learn about two foreign countries. In one country, it is normal to eat the family pet if it is killed in a road accident. In the other, pets killed in road accidents are not normally eaten. Are both these customs okay morally speaking or is one of them bad or morally wrong?

Both are Ok.