In this blog post, we will take a balanced look at the pros and cons of eating dog meat from the perspectives of speciesism, ethics, and culture.
Beef steak, loved around the world, and samgyeopsal and chicken, popular in Korea, are all forms of meat consumption. When we eat these foods, we mostly just think, “This is delicious,” and rarely consider the animals that were sacrificed to become meat. The process of pigs, cows, and chickens being slaughtered and ending up on our tables is deeply ingrained in our daily lives, and the reality is that we consume these foods naturally without giving much thought to the ethical implications of this process. However, the situation is completely different when it comes to dog meat.
The consumption of dog meat is one of the most controversial topics both in Korea and abroad. In Korea, in particular, every year when the summer solstice approaches, the debate over the consumption of bosintang (dog meat soup) and dog meat becomes as heated as the summer heat. In the past, when the government launched a large-scale crackdown on bosintang restaurants ahead of the Seoul Olympics, this measure was criticized as a servile attitude toward the international community. In 2001, French actress Brigitte Bardot harshly criticized the Korean dog meat culture, disparaging and ridiculing Koreans, which sparked strong resentment and hurt national pride. Recently, the issue of dog meat consumption has once again become a hot social topic after it was revealed that someone attempted to present dog meat as a gift to the US ambassador to South Korea.
Animal protection groups and related civic organizations unanimously maintain the position that “eating pets is absolutely unacceptable.” According to their argument, eating dogs, which have emotional bonds with humans, is unethical and considered a symbol of cultural backwardness. However, I am in favor of eating dog meat.
We enjoy meat such as pork belly, steak, and chicken without hesitation. However, we rarely feel sad when we think about how many animals are slaughtered before these meats reach our tables, or condemn the act itself as “cruel.” Rather, we accept it naturally as part of our daily meals without any ethical concerns.
Interestingly, even those who oppose the consumption of dog meat have no qualms about the slaughter and consumption of cows, pigs, and chickens. This is because humans have assigned a social classification to certain animals as food animals. Cows and pigs have been raised for food for a long time, so their slaughter and consumption are culturally justified.
On the other hand, dogs have traditionally been regarded as creatures that have evolved from “pets” to “companions” and have been protected in their emotional relationships with humans. As a result, unlike other forms of meat consumption, the consumption of dog meat is subject to ethical condemnation. However, this logic stems from a speciesist perspective that grants special status to certain species, which is a highly contradictory position.
Opponents of dog meat argue that dogs are companions, so eating them is cruel and barbaric. However, if killing a living creature is barbaric, then all acts of carnivorism should be considered ethically problematic. To maintain a truly consistent ethical stance, one must reject carnivorism itself and adopt vegetarianism or even veganism. However, when we think about it again, plants are also living beings, and vegetarianism is also an act of sacrificing life, so it is difficult to make an essential distinction. Humans are heterotrophic organisms that must consume other living beings in order to survive, and both meat-eating and vegetarianism are natural phenomena for survival. Therefore, it is difficult to justify the argument that meat-eating should be prohibited only for certain animals.
Opponents also misunderstand that dog meat comes from beloved pets. However, dogs used for meat are not pets raised in homes, but are managed and bred in specialized facilities, just like cows, pigs, and chickens. In this respect, there is no fundamental difference between dog meat and other meats.
Equating dogs that are considered companions with dogs that are raised for food and approaching the issue emotionally obscures the essence of the debate. At the heart of the argument that dogs should be treated differently is the issue of speciesism. It is hypocritical to demand special protection only for animals that humans feel emotionally attached to, while considering it acceptable to consume animals that we do not feel emotionally attached to.
If we abandon this speciesism, dogs are no different from cows, pigs, or chickens, and eating dog meat should be understood in the same context as eating other meats.
Some argue that dog meat should be banned because dogs are raised in unsanitary conditions. Of course, food produced in unsanitary conditions can cause health problems, and these problems should not be overlooked. However, hygiene issues are ultimately a problem with the farming and distribution structure, not an inherent problem with eating dog meat itself. This is like arguing that pork and chicken should be banned because some pork and chicken are produced in unsanitary conditions. The core issue is hygiene, not the type of meat.
In summary, when discussing the consumption of dog meat, we must take a more rational and reasonable approach rather than an emotional argument that “dogs are companion animals and therefore should not be eaten.” We must move away from speciesism, and in order to ethically question the consumption of dog meat, we must apply the same standards to all acts of meat consumption. If we oppose the consumption of dog meat on the grounds that we must fully respect the rights of all living beings, then we must also prohibit the consumption of both animals and plants. However, this is an unrealistic claim, as meat-eating and vegetarianism are inevitable due to the physiological structure and survival methods of humans.
Ultimately, meat-eating is an essential act of survival for humans, and the consumption of dog meat falls under this category. The choice of individuals who refuse to eat dog meat must be respected, but they do not have the right to suppress the food culture of others. I am in favor of eating dog meat, but I believe that this debate is not simply a matter of pros and cons, but a complex issue involving various factors such as culture, ethics, and the environment, and therefore requires ongoing discussion and social consensus. However, it is clear that we cannot conclude that eating dog meat is immoral simply because humans consider dogs to be special compared to other animals. Ultimately, we must move away from speciesist thinking and look at the issue of dog meat consumption, and only then will we be able to reach a more reasonable and consistent conclusion.
