Is eating dog meat immoral?

Livestock like pigs and cows are just as intelligent and loving as dogs

Question: Is eating dog meat immoral?
Position‹3 of 4›: Eating dog meat is no more immoral than eating other livestock
Argument1 of 2›: Livestock like pigs and cows are just as intelligent and loving as dogs

Many cite dogs' intelligence and empathy as reasons against eating them. However, many reports have shown that other livestock animals like pigs and cows are just as advanced.

The argument

The argument addresses the most common objection to eating dogs and finds that it does not in fact distinguish dogs from the animals already eaten. That objection holds that dogs should not be considered viable livestock because of their apparent intelligence and empathy — that a creature capable of understanding and of affection occupies a different moral category from one that is not. The argument accepts the principle and disputes the classification. Numerous studies suggest that traditional livestock animals possess these qualities to the same extent as dogs, if not to a greater one. The comparison the argument leans on is intelligence, because it is the more readily measured of the two. Pigs are usually classed as being between the fourth and sixth most intelligent animals, while dogs are usually not even listed in the top ten. If a ranking of that kind is what justifies the distinction, it points the wrong way: the animal already farmed at scale scores higher than the animal whose consumption is treated as unthinkable. Comparable claims are made about the capacity for affection, which livestock animals display towards their own young and towards familiar humans. What follows is a claim about consistency rather than a recommendation. The argument does not assert that eating dogs is good; it asserts that the criterion invoked to condemn it, applied evenly, would condemn a great deal of ordinary practice as well. Those who eat pork while treating dog meat as immoral are not applying the intelligence-and-empathy standard — they are applying a standard of familiarity and then reaching for intelligence to justify it. So the conclusion is that the distinction is cultural rather than moral. Eating dog meat is no more immoral than eating other livestock, because the properties said to make dogs unsuitable are present in the livestock already being eaten, in at least equal measure.

Premises

[P1]If an animal's intelligence and capacity for affection make it immoral to eat, this standard must apply consistently across species. [P2] Traditional livestock such as pigs and cows are as intelligent and emotionally capable as dogs, with pigs often ranking higher than dogs in intelligence studies. [C] Therefore, eating dog meat is no more immoral than eating other livestock.

Counter-arguments

The intelligence of an animal is unimportant in determining whether or not it can be eaten.

Rejecting the premises

[PR1] Dogs are carnivorous creatures, meaning there is a higher composition of chemicals in their body due to their diet, also putting them at higher risk for diseases.