Dog Meat: Culture or Cruelty?

The Jinhua Hutou Dog Meat Festival has been called off due to protests from an online campaign staged by animal rights advocates. This local tradition has been honored for the past 600 years as part of an autumn festival. The origin goes back to a historical incident when all dogs in the village were ordered to be slaughtered and eaten. However, an online campaign started by animal rights advocates caused quite the stir on the Internet. It included explicit photos and content; photos of dog carcasses and information on how they were being slaughtered. Comments between dog-lovers and those for honoring old tradition were soon flying back and forth on the discussion board, and local officials decided at last moment to cancel the festival. One leader of the campaign stated, "I don't want to see dog-lover's feelings to be hurt." Another upset advocate appealed to emotion: "People slaughter dogs mercilessly, the blood of the dead dogs flows like a river, the horrible screams of dogs pierce the sky." But of course there are others, some who believe more strongly in honoring culture and tradition and who don't see the difference between eating dog or cow meat: "I personally think dog meat is like alcohol. They are both components of our ancient Chinese culture."

As the main conflict is between upholding cultural tradition and animal rights, History and Ethics are the Areas of Knowledge involved. While the idea of eating dog meat is a breach of morality for some, others view it as a historical or cultural practice that should be honored. Dog meat is common in some parts of Asia, just as rabbit, snake, or veal are particular to other regions. Dog meat has also been established in Chinese medicine to have warming properties and increase one's strength and therefore prescribed in the diets of some. In essence, how is slaughtering and eating dog any worse than the way we slaughter chickens or cows? Supporters of the Festival are perplexed that a centuries-old tradition has been called off because of only certain people. Being vegetarian or choosing to eat certain things is a personal choice. In their view, it's unfair for the beliefs of a few to obstruct a cultural belief that has stood for 600 years. However, some argue that in the face of changing times, culture and tradition must adjust, too. There are many traditions that fall out of practice because as a community, we change, and our values change. Maybe in the past, people didn't concern themselves with Ethics in the aspect of animal rights. Dog owners have increased considerably from the past. Now, there are those who are sickened by the cultural practice. It's always worth re-evaluating a long-established practice when tensions arise. Though dogs are no different from cows in the sense of food, we have treated them as pets, friends, companions, much more so than cows. This strengthens the Ethics argument: we are sacrificing thousands of these lives, not out of survival need but to uphold a tradition.

History is something that deserves our respect. Especially in modern day, when old languages are dying out and culture is being forgotten and washed over by modernization, it is understandable why people want to uphold old traditions, even if they are not practical to our survival or way of life anymore. But it is different when History is pitted against Ethics. History is important, but should it be more important than our moral values? Ethics would ask: Is tradition more important than sparing lives, and sparing the emotions of those who are disturbed by the tradition? People and situations change, and for us to want to maintain the same tradition across hundreds of years is admirable, but can also be unreasonable.

There are many cultural or personal tendencies that are questioned in the face of the public. It is a question of how much individual freedom should be given up for the collective group. We are asking whether it is right to ask some to sacrifice their freedom to eat or do what they desire, or ask some to tolerate these differences in others. We are more careful these days with respecting personal standards and preferences. We see this in the warnings and suggestions that are provided in public places: before explicit content is shown, whether an area is smoking or non-smoking. One can try to argue that an person's choice only affects themselves, but it is hardly so. It is more a choice of how much you recognize the effect of your choices on the lives of others, and in turn, how much you want to let that affect your choices in the first place.