Should he eat the dog - The poor little boy

The poor little boy was inspired by learning how to clean candle holders. If I weren't shown, then I wouldn't have known that can just pour hot water to melt the candle wax.

Did the poor little boy eat the dog? What do you think?

*

That is the question posed by the story is should the poor little boy bring the dead dog home to his mother to eat?

Yes, because the dog is dead and now there is no more dog, and there is only meat.
Yes, because his mother is hungry and the boy is filial.
No, because a filial son should not bring home the moral dilemma to test his mother.

No, because what if they become addicted to the taste of sweet meat and then will go dog hunting one day?
No, because the boy killed the dog, and one should not eat anything whose killing was done by one's own hands - like a tiger in the zoo should not be fed live prey - it'd awaken the animal instinct.

Yes, because if the boy was resilient, the animal instinct wouldn't be easily awakened or at least, it won't be perpetuated.

Yes, because the killing was unintentional, and now a dead dog is just a dead dog.

No, because the dead dog was meant for insects to eat, and everything has its own place in the world. Dead dog feeds maggots. and humans don't eat dogs?

Yes, because humans used to eat dogs prevalently. and the story was set in once upon a time.

No, because nowadays, it's inhumane to eat dogs.
Yes, because it's a dog, it's not a human. It's inhumane to eat pigs and cows too. And grasshoppers and cockroaches.

No, because a dog is closer to humans than to the animals reared for food.

Yes, because that's by today's standards? Ethics evolve across time.

*

The above is my dilemma as writer of the story. I quite often write and think of the consistency of the characters in this manner, but in the case of the poor boy, I couldn't resolve it for myself, and think it is better to invite the reader to decide... so I left the ending open.