Is eating dog meat immoral?

Eating meat is normal for the human diet, even dog meat

Question: Is eating dog meat immoral?
Position1 of 4›: No, eating dog meat is not immoral
Argument‹2 of 3›: Eating meat is normal for the human diet, even dog meat

Dog meat is and has been a sustainable food source for many people. While during times of famine dogs were and still are seen as food. The preference for dog meat has decreased since then, but for places where it's still popular to consume dogs, it’s no different than raising cows or pigs for food.

The argument

In the past, peoples lifestyles were void of modern conveniences. There were no grocery stores or refrigerators to keep food from spoiling. Ancient humans survived on a hunter-gatherer lifestyle until the birth of agriculture. The raising of plants and animals changed the game entirely. No longer did people need to rely solely on hunting or gathering for food but they could raise it themselves. The idea that humans can survive without meat would not be true in the past. If crop yields were poor a farmer couldn’t just go out to the local store to stock up on non-perishables or go to their neighbour to ask for food to last an entire season. While there was a lack of crops, getting rid of some of the livestock would not only provide food but also get rid of another mouth to feed. Dogs were guardians for the other livestock but besides that they didn’t produce things like eggs or milk, falling more in line with pigs with how they are used for their meat. Dogs were a perfectly viable source of food for many people during times of struggle and famine. While the preference for dog meat has decreased due to the rise of pet owners, for places that still consume dogs like Vietnam it's still a very popular cuisine.

Premises

[P1]Eating meat has always been normal for human survival—before grocery stores and refrigeration, people relied on hunting and raising livestock for food, especially when crop yields were poor. [P2] Dogs, which don't produce eggs or milk, were a viable food source like pigs in times of struggle and famine, and dog meat remains a popular cuisine in places like Vietnam. [C] Therefore, because eating meat—even dog meat—is a natural part of the human diet, eating dog meat is not immoral.

Counter-arguments

Even in today's society meat is seen as a key ingredient to use in cooking and has been a part of our diet for as long as we’ve been on this planet. However, what our bodies require isn’t specifically meat, it’s the iron and protein they provide us. There are countless ingredients at peoples disposal to add flavour to food without needing meat to be a centrepiece at the dinner table. Preservation has only increased with the invention of the refrigerator. There are countless other techniques dedicated to giving food longer shelf life and giving simple ingredients a bigger punch of flavour and umami to make them delectable. Things like canning, salting, pickling, and smoking just to name a few. Farming has also increased allowing for bigger and better crop yields so people aren’t lacking in options for food. With such things at peoples disposal they do not have to solely rely on the food they raise and produce themselves, they can forgo eating meat and live on a plant-based diet.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This establishes that meat-eating is longstanding and was often necessary, which is a claim about history rather than ethics. Many practices are equally longstanding without being defensible, and the necessity described — no refrigeration, failed harvests — is exactly the condition the premise concedes no longer holds wherever grocery stores exist. [Rejecting P2] The comparison to pigs assumes what the debate contests. Objections to eating dogs rest on their role as companion animals and on the sociality and trainability that role reflects, so observing that both animals are edible does not meet the objection; it only notes that neither produces eggs or milk. That dog meat remains popular in some places records a variation in custom, which is the fact to be explained rather than the justification. [Rejecting C] "Natural" does no moral work in the conclusion. Whether something occurs widely in nature or in long human practice is a separate question from whether it is permissible, and the argument never bridges the two — a gap that matters most in the well-supplied conditions in which the question is now being asked.