Essay, Pages 2 (394 words)
Moral implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong or the basic moral values of a community. Ethical may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness or equity. While legal is sanctioned by law or in conformity with the law especially as it is written or administered by the courts. (Merriam-Webster) Relating the results of the gathered data of the study about the dog eating practice in Baguio City and La Trinidad to morality and the legal aspect of which, the researchers were able to come up with conclusions and recommendations.
Regarding the moral aspect of the practice of dog eating, the study revealed that it is accepted to consume dog meat. The prevalent reasons are that dogs are basically meat for food and dogs are used in the cultural and ritual practice. Dogs are made as offerings and were eaten for health reasons. Law enforcers admitted that dog meat consumption is a right as guaranteed by our constitution.
They too believed that consumption of dog meat will continue. However, trading dog meat is prohibited with the advent of the Anti Rabies Act and the Animal Welfare Act.
In legal parlance, as stated above that dog eating is presumed to be legal for the the act of trading dog meat is prohibited. Even the constitution entitles everyone to our basic needs which include food, shelter and clothing. Eating dog meat is then legal for the fact that it is considered as food.
But with special laws being passed which condemned the trading of dogs for consumption purposes made the eating practice seemingly illegal as well. Knowing now that the trading and not the eating practice is illegal, the researchers recommend a deeper investigation on the source of dog meat supplied in the city and the capital town.
Our law enforcers like the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police should coordinate to be able to put to an end the trade of dogs. Cases filed against trading of dog meat in courts were dismissed due to the open interpretation of the law. The researchers would therefore recommend for our lawmakers to revisit the Anti Rabies Act and the Animal Welfare Act. For our lawmakers to clearly define animal cruelty and other silent parts of the law which are open for individual interpretations.