Eating Dog Meat: Objectively Wrong

[SardiniaAtlantis]

Dog meat is said to raise the internal heat, and therefore be a good warming up meal in the winter. In some parts of China it is also seen as good luck during certain times of the year. In Vietnam and Korea it is seen as an affordable and plentiful food source. Even in the rural Swiss cantons of Appenzell and St. Gallen are known to have had a tradition of eating dogs, curing dog meat into jerky and sausages, as well as using the lard for medicinal purposes.


For those of us who are taken aback by this, the question is; Is it simply our own cultural bias, or is there something inherently wrong with eating Lassie?

The answer I argue is this. Due to the way that the dog came into existence eating them is not only wrong, but can perhaps be deemed immoral. Let me explain. It is thought that the current lineage of dogs was domesticated as early as 15,000 years ago. They were our first domesticated animal. Did we domesticate them for food? The canid is a carnivore, so domesticating an animal you will have to feed with meat, for meat, would certainly be counterproductive. And the evidence does not point to this. Many early human burials are found to be besides those of their beloved dogs.

What this means is that, the current dog itself would not exist had we eaten its ancestors early on. Our relationship and bond, has literally molded them into the animal they are today. We (or perhaps evolutionary pressure) favored those dogs which were more docile, loyal, trusting and intelligent. For thousands upon thousands of years we have through our mutual relationship developed the animal it is today. Since they are born it is in their DNA to seek affection, approval, and interaction with human beings. To take advantage of such a history, or to simply disregard it is, I argue objectively wrong.

But would your dog eat you? It has been observed that when a dog owner dies alone in his/her home and there is no one notified, the pet dogs will not eat the human until the brink of death by starvation is a very real threat. This, is akin to what humans who are faced with survival situations are often forced to do.
Of course Not all humans would go that route, and neither too would all dogs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/1782603.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...six-weeks.html

[Prince Of Macrobia]

I can't eat dog. my mouth won't accept to do such a thing. even Animal meat I prefer not to eat. Anyway, I'm vegetarian.

[Mortimer]

written well my bro. i love dogs too i think it is wrong to eat them.

[Fear Fiain]

I'd rather be a cannibal than eat a dog.

[cally]

I could never bring myself to do that but there is a lot of cultural bias, I agree.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

I could never bring myself to do that but there is a lot of cultural bias, I agree.

Yes carina, but I am trying to argue on the side of objectivity here without any of the cultural bias by getting to the root of how Dogs came into being in the first place!

[SardiniaAtlantis]

written well my bro. i love dogs too i think it is wrong to eat them.

Thanks I wasn't sure if my point came across quite how I wanted but so far it seems to be!

[Also]

I have 3 dogs and I love dogs.

But if I must be honest it is merely a cultural bias, pigs and dogs have pretty similar levels of intelligence and brain development. The fact we domesticated dogs to guard and to hunt rather than to eat them sounds like something relevant to us because more recently we selected dogs and breed them artificially to make them look more "cute" and to make us company and now we sympathize with them. But just because we do it like that doesn't mean people ought to do it like that.

You could aswell put a cute pig with his small cuties offspring if we want to appeal to emotion.



It is not the fact of how dogs came into being that should decide this questions, if it is wrong to kill some living form then it is wrong to do that in and of itself, regardless of how that living form came into being, instead of looking at the nature of the dog you looked at how it originated, and the nature of the dog is essentially no different than that of a pig. It's a lot of appeal to emotion and cultural imperialism.

Maybe when we all become vegetarians we might have some moral ground to ask chineses to stop eating dog meat, but not now.

[Empecinado]

Dogs are not healthy because they are carnivores, meat of mamal carnivores have a lot of nasty stuff. And dogs were created to do tasks related with surveillance, livestock care, hunting and more recently as pets, not to be eaten as pigs for example. So objetively is wrong.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

I have 3 dogs and I love dogs.

But if I must be honest it is merely a cultural bias, pigs and dogs have pretty similar levels of intelligence and brain development. The fact we domesticated dogs to guard and to hunt rather than to eat them sounds like something relevant to us because more recently we selected dogs and breed them artificially to make them look more "cute" and to make us company and now we sympathize with them. But just because we do it like that doesn't mean people ought to do it like that.

You could aswell put a cute pig with his small cuties offspring if we want to appeal to emotion.


It is not the fact of how dogs came into being that should decide this questions, if it is wrong to kill some living form then it is wrong to do that in and of itself, regardless of how that living form came into being, instead of looking at the nature of the dog you looked at how it originated, and the nature of the dog is essentially no different than that of a pig. It's a lot of appeal to emotion and cultural imperialism.

Maybe when we all become vegetarians we might have some moral ground to ask chineses to stop eating dog meat, but not now.

Why should the fact that thousands of years of a cooperative companionship nature that developed a bond akin a familial one between two species Not matter to us?
Intelligence is not what is in question here.