It's both a matter of taste and a cultural thing. The first time I was in Seoul, a friend of mine took me to a place where they served "live octopus" with raw meat + raw egg yolk. It was extremely delicious, the raw octopus legs where still moving and twisting (just like in this example it was just nervous endings activated by chemicals in the food), they even wrapped around the chopsticks. The octoups + the yolk + raw meat provided an incredible mix of flavours and textures. I'm not Asian (actually I'm from South America), but my friend told me I already ate most than what even a typical S.Korean eats. I guess I was just more used to experience "weird" food because my family is from the country side in Chile and I also I really like to eat/try all kinds of sea food.

Going back to your comment: it's not just about making the animal "perform", I see it more as a proof of freshness. In the end is all about the textures and flavours.

So much talking about food, now I'm hungry :)

Can any moral issue be ignored by calling it a "cultural thing"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence

I mean if you eat chickens...You're supporting the practice of throwing male chicks into the blender.

Yes, and that's not even the tip of the iceberg.

I do still eat chicken, but I recognize it as a personal moral failing and point of shame. The fact that I come from a culture where it is normalized explains my behaviour, but doesn't absolve my responsibility.

Making a show of torturing the animal in front of the customer is particularly abhorrent.

I am not sure why this is a show of torture. The squid is quite dead before it reaches the table. It's basically being used as a marionette by chemical signals, but still quite dead---hence calling it a "zombie".

> I see it more as a proof of freshness

seems like the most practical reason, though the practice does make me very uncomfortable

Why would they not? Clearly at least some people (the consumers in Japan) think this is ok, so why would the bbc choose your point of view over theres? This is called objective journalism.

I see it as edifying - a creative and insightful display of biological and chemical reactions. No different from the pyrotechnical demos or frog dissections used to spark curiosity in children.