A Cogent Argument for Dog Meat

Dog meat restaurant
Joe trying dog meat for the first time in 2004

The Korean has translated and posted two columns by food writer Hwang Go-Ik about his love for dog meat. He addresses some of the controversies, and I think he humbly makes a decent rebuttal to the anti-dog meat dogma.

As I study Korea’s food culture, I feel that there is a certain attitude of cultural superiority within a certain class of our society. The people who consider themselves to be in a higher class has a tendency to eat different things, as if to show off, “You can’t eat this, can you?” But lately, this distinction has slowly eroded as restaurant industry developed. Food has been democratized, such that the dishes that were only available in five-star hotel restaurants are now cheaply available at any franchise restaurant. This trend hampers their strategy to distinguish themselves through food. I believe that the dog meat controversy is a part of the new strategy — to highlight their superiority by looking down upon what others eat.

The reason why I think the dog meat abolitionists are the same with Korean society’s cultural aristocracy is because of their rationale that dog meat is immoral. Food can be neither moral nor immoral, as much as a lettuce cannot be categorized as moral or immoral. But they seek to categorize moral humans and immoral ones on the basis of whether one eats or does not eat dog meat. This is how they reconfirm to themselves that they are on a morally superior position.

Read the whole translated pieces on The Korean’s site.

Sadly, he doesn’t address the issue of hanging and beating the animals for slaughter. But he does make a good point about the absurdity of deciding which species is moral and immoral to eat.

I personally draw the line on humans and endangered species. I’ve tried dog meat once, back in 2004, in both boshintang and as a steamed meat for bossam. The steamed meat was like a light pork. It wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t that spectacular either. I’d try it again, but obviously I’m not racing to the nearest boshintang joint. But just because I don’t eat it, I don’t feel it’s my right to tell whole food cultures that they shouldn’t.

The more I ponder the debate, the more I see how detached modern cultures are from the origins of their own foods.


Chicken Nuggets

Cocobang, San Francisco


4 thoughts on “A Cogent Argument for Dog Meat”

  1. Food is not moral or immoral but killing animals is a moral issue. In my opinion Hwang Go-Ik is a classic example of a little education, in this case the ability to read or write, but not to comprehend the range of moral and ethical issues around him as he demonstrates in this limited exercise in self-justification. He takes a classic Species-ist view devoid of any though beyond his own experience and sounds like onanism in print. Dogs are beings not food. they evolved from co predators through a social contract with humans. They were never intended to be eaten and are not a prey animal such as a deer or the ancestors of cows and sheep and goats. It is morally wrong to kill and consume all animals and doubly so to kill predator species. Korean Humane groups are to be commended as our brother in arms but have made limited progress in trying to save Korea from the shame of dog eating because of self-indulgent creeps like Hwang Go-Ik


Leave a (somewhat civilized) Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: