The Instigator
Bryson3327
Con (against)
The Contender
Dookieman
Pro (for)

Is dog meat consumption really bad?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Bryson3327 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 327 times Debate No: 102733
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Bryson3327

Con

Dog meat shouldn't be banned. There was dog meat cuisines in Asia for over 5000 years and being a man's friend or not is depended by whether it has its owner or not. Many of the reasons of banning dogs are with emotions. Not all dog farms are cruel. Cows are worshipped by people in India, but we eat them. How about dogs then?
Dookieman

Pro

Thank you Bryson for starting this debate.

Introduction
The resolution of this debate is centered on the question of whether we ought to ban dog meat. More specifically, we are focused on whether it is wrong to raise dogs on farms so we can later kill them for their meat. Given the way this debate is worded, I think we are debating the ethics or morality of farming dogs rather than the legality of it. My opponent has assumed the position of Con in this debate, which means he will argue for the claim that farming dogs for meat is morally permissible, and therefore should not be banned. My position in this debate, on the other hand, will be Pro. This means that I will argue for the claim that farming dogs is morally impermissible, and therefore ought to be banned.

Here is how I will set out my argument. First, I present an argument with two premises followed by a conclusion for the claim that farming dogs is wrong. Secondly, I will defend each premise of the argument, and show how acceptance of each premise logically entails the conclusion of the argument. I will then conclude with my closing statement of the first round. With that said, I will now put forth the argument.

The Argument Against Dog Farming
The argument for the immorality of dog farming is formulated as follows:

P1) It is morally wrong to inflict pain on dogs for the benefit of taste pleasure.
P2) The farming of dogs inflicts pain on them for the benefit of taste pleasure.
C) Therefore, dog farming is morally wrong.
P3) A practice that wrongly inflicts pain on others for pleasure should be banned.
P4) Dog farming wrongly inflicts pain on others for pleasure.
C2) Therefore, dog farming should be banned.

Defense of The Premises
Now that I have presented the argument against dog farming, I am going to give good reasons for why each premise should be accepted.

Defense of Premise 1
Let us start with premise one. This premise claims that it is morally wrong to inflict pain on dogs for the benefit of taste pleasure. In order to justify this premise, I am going to present an analogy developed by philosopher Alastair Norcross. The point of the analogy is to demonstrate that inflicting pain on dogs for taste pleasure is wrong. He does this by imagining a case that is relevantly similar to dog farming where our moral judgement supports the claim that this practice is wrong. With that said, I will now present the analogy:

Fred: Fred gets in a car wreck. The car wreck damages a hormone in his brain that produces cocoamone, a chemical responsible for allowing him to enjoy the taste of chocolate. Since this chemical was damaged, Fred can no longer enjoy the taste of chocolate. However, Fred finds out puppies produce the cocoamone chemical when tortured. Fred knows that if he tortures puppies, he will be able to extract the chemical from their brains to enjoy the taste of chocolate again. As a result, Fred tortures puppies so he can enjoy the taste of chocolate. [1]

Fred's Behavior and Dog Farming
In this section I am going to explain what our judgments are with the case of Fred, and its relevance to dog farming. When presented with this scenario, virtually everyone shares the judgement that Fred acted wrong. This is because he inflicted pain on dogs merely for the benefit of taste pleasure. If virtually everyone agrees with this judgement, this provides a good reason to believe that Fred, indeed, acted wrongly. But notice how Fred’s conduct is relevantly similar to dog farming. In both cases, dogs have pain inflicted on them. In both cases, the pain inflicted on the dogs is merely done for taste pleasure. Hence, if we hold the judgment that Fred acts wrong when he tortures puppies merely for the pleasure of eating chocolate, then we should also believe that people act wrongly when they torture dogs for the pleasure of eating meat. Otherwise, we are being inconsistent with our moral beliefs.

Defense of Premise 2
We are now going to go through premise 2. Premise 2 claims that the farming of dogs inflicts pain on them for the benefit of taste pleasure. Unlike the first premise which is a moral claim, the second premise is an empirical one. It will be justified only if I can demonstrate that dogs do have pain inflicted upon them in the process of farming them. Thus, I will now look at the various welfare problems associated with dog farming that cause dogs pain. AnimalsAustralia.org describes some of the pain these animals have to endure as follows:

"Forced to travel long distances and crammed into crowded wire cages, the dogs languish without food or water as they await their fate. They watch on as those before them have their throats slit." [2]

According to AnimalRightsAction.com, some people in Asian countries believe that the more the animal is tortured or caused to suffer prior to slaughter, the better the meat from the animal will taste. This has led some people working in slaughterhouses to boil or skin animals alive. [3]

Direct Action Everywhere, an animal rights organization, has documented just some of the ways in which these animals are subjected to extreme amounts of pain in China's dog meat trade:
https://www.youtube.com...

I have now explained the ways in which dogs are caused to suffer at the hands of humans who want to eat their meat. On the plausible assumption that dogs can feel pain, and the fact that those who eat dogs could simply eat something else for their health, it is clear that farming dogs inflicts pain on them for merely taste pleasure. Consequently, the empirical claim made in premise two that the farming of dogs inflicts pain on them for the benefit of taste pleasure is justified.

Accepting the First Conclusion
If we accept premise one and two, the conclusion of the argument logically follows from the premises. Since I have given good reasons for why each premise should be accepted, we should accept the argument’s conclusion that dog farming is morally wrong.

Defense of Premise 3
Premise four of the argument against dog farming claims that a practice that wrongly inflicts pain on others for pleasure should be banned. This premise strikes me as obvious. But in case others do not share this view, consider the following scenario in support of premise three:

Torture Television: You have been kidnapped in your sleep. You wake up to discover that you are now part of a television show for sadists. Everyday you will be subjected to horrific suffering on television for the pleasure of sadists watching the show.

It is uncontroversial to claim that virtually everyone will agree that it would be wrong for this television show to take place. Indeed, many people will also agree with the further claim that such a television show should be banned. The reason for this judgment is grounded in the fact that a practice that wrongly inflicts pain on others for pleasure should be banned. But if we agree that a practice that wrongly inflicts pain on others for mere pleasure should be banned, then we will be required to accept premise three of the argument against dog farming.

Defense of Premise 4
Premise 4 claims dog farming wrongly inflicts pain on others for pleasure. This premise was already justified earlier with my discussion of premise two of the welfare issues associated with dog farming. Since this claim has already be defended, I will not repeat myself here.

Accepting the Second Conclusion
If we accept premise three and four, the conclusion of the argument logically follows from the premises. Since I have given good reasons for why each premise should be accepted, we should accept the argument's conclusion that dog meat should be banned.

Sources:

[1] http://spot.colorado.edu...

[2] http://www.animalsaustralia.org...

[3] http://www.animal-rights-action.com...;

Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.