Is eating dog meat immoral?

The practice of eating dog meat often originates from famine

Question: Is eating dog meat immoral?
Position1 of 4›: No, eating dog meat is not immoral
Argument‹3 of 3: The practice of eating dog meat often originates from famine

Dog meat as a food source is usually an idea and action that comes into existence during times of famine. Dogs were both guardians for livestock and emergency food sources when food started to get scarce. While western culture dislikes the idea of it its still a popular food in eastern countries.

The argument

Many of the world's cuisines originate in periods of famine and rationing. When ingredients were scarce, people had to get creative — making what they had stretch further, or finding new ways to make ends meet — and the dishes that resulted were later handed down as tradition. Every culture keeps a few of these in its recipe books, and proponents of this argument point out that what a society eats has always been shaped more by what was available than by any considered moral choice. The history of lobster in America illustrates how unstable those judgements are. Lobster is now among the most expensive seafood on the menu, but it was not always so popular. It was once considered poverty food, so lowly that even jails were not allowed to serve it more than a couple of times a week. Because it was a coastal food, the invention of the railroad allowed it to be marketed as a unique food item; after a bit of time and some rising popularity, the poor man's meal was turned into the luxury dish people see it as today. Nothing about the animal changed. What changed was the story told about eating it. On this reasoning, the distaste many Western cultures feel towards eating dog is a claim about custom rather than about morality. In the West a dog is a companion animal, and eating one reads as a violation; with some Eastern cultures that classification simply does not hold, and the meat sits in the same category as any other. If a food's moral standing can be reversed by a railway line and a change in marketing, as lobster's was, then the revulsion is doing the work of an inherited preference rather than an ethical principle. Judged by the same historical standard applied to every other cuisine, eating dog meat is not immoral.

Premises

[P1]Many culinary traditions, including now-prized dishes like lobster, originated as survival foods during famine or poverty. [P2] Eating dog meat similarly arose in some cultures as a practical response to scarcity rather than as a moral transgression. [P3] Judging such food traditions as immoral ignores the cultural and historical context from which they emerged. [C] Therefore, eating dog meat is not immoral.

Counter-arguments

As second world countries like China and Vietnam are evolving, so are their ideas on what is moral and immoral. As the country evolves, so does what is at the disposal of the people, not just trade but infrastructure and even the economy. When these things build up people gain more opportunities to benefit themselves and their families, which in turn gives the allowance of luxuries, such as more expensive food items, perhaps excluding dog meat from the menu.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The lobster case shows that the social status of a food can change, which is a claim about prestige rather than about morality. Nothing about lobster was thought wrong; it was thought cheap. [Rejecting P2] Origin in scarcity does not describe the present practice. The objection most commonly raised concerns how the animals are sourced and killed — including trade in stolen pets and the methods used — none of which follows from a famine origin. [Rejecting P3] This applies the genetic fallacy to ethics. How a practice began does not determine whether it is defensible now, and cultural context explains a custom without justifying it. [Rejecting C] The argument proves either too much or too little. If historical origin insulates a food tradition from moral criticism then no practice could be criticised; if it does not, the premises leave the question exactly where they found it.