The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

Its not that dogs might be sentient. Because many disagree. Its not that it is an indication that you might be a sociopath or a sadist. Because many disagree. And its not because it is illegal. Because it isn't illegal everywhere.

The reason you shouldn't do it is similar to the reason you shouldn't light cigars with hundred dollar bills. Which is that many people (perhaps the majority, perhaps not) are EXTREMELY upset with the practice, whearas you, (hopefully), are getting only the mildest of enjoyment from it.

I have no problem with people treating themselves and their immediate family much better than they treat others. But it seems to me there should be a limit. Even if it is not a legal one. For instance if someone in your poker game is known to be highly allergic to a certain favorite shirt of yours, I would think you would avoid wearing it even if he was only a mild acquantance. I would.

Now I don't know if the idea of eschewing mild amusement to keep others from having major distress is a trait that comes from DNA, God, chezlaw, pragmatism or whatever. But I do know that most people agree with this idea and might even change a behavior it they were shown that such behavior was contradicting it. That should include most dogfight fans.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

Social pressure/concern may apply. Whether it's THE reason is questionable, it seems a bit weak.

A better reason is the same one that explains why we don't beat mules with pitchforks. The less respect/concern we have for other life and it's quality, the less value our own ( our family, countryman, orb-sharers) has.

Cruelty for pleasure seems so last-year.

luckyme

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
Cruelty for pleasure seems so last-year.


[/ QUOTE ]
Except cruelty of the mocking kind towards the kind of people who hate being mocked. That's generally a good thing.

chez

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
Its not that dogs might be sentient


[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't much 'might' about it for experts on the subject. In fact, you have to be extremely biased to think dogs are not sentient.

Sure, you can object that we never can be 100% sure they are sentient. But I could make the same point about you.

The best reason not to put on dog fights is exactly the same as the best reason not to force human slaves into fighting.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not that dogs might be sentient


[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't much 'might' about it for experts on the subject. In fact, you have to be extremely biased to think dogs are not sentient.

Sure, you can object that we never can be 100% sure they are sentient. But I could make the same point about you.

The best reason not to put on dog fights is exactly the same as the best reason not to force human slaves into fighting.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how about [censored] fighting?

EDIT: LOL.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

Your reply is ambiguous. Taking it in one sense, we already have a thread covering that topic. Personally I find it distasteful.

In the sense of 'roosters,' from what I understand chickens are sentient, and actually pretty smart.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[censored] fighting, awesome.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your reply is ambiguous. Taking it in one sense, we already have a thread covering that topic. Personally I find it distasteful.

In the sense of 'roosters,' from what I understand chickens are sentient, and actually pretty smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're a hell of a lot smarter than humans. They'll run around without a head a lot longer than any human I know.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your reply is ambiguous. Taking it in one sense, we already have a thread covering that topic. Personally I find it distasteful.

In the sense of 'roosters,' from what I understand chickens are sentient, and actually pretty smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, nice one.

And no, they aren't very smart.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your reply is ambiguous. Taking it in one sense, we already have a thread covering that topic. Personally I find it distasteful.

In the sense of 'roosters,' from what I understand chickens are sentient, and actually pretty smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, nice one.

And no, they aren't very smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to retort

"Chickens can also grasp other complex mental concepts. For instance, according to Evans, chickens are able to understand that objects still exist even after they are hidden or removed from view. This level of cognition is actually beyond the capacity of small human children.9 Researchers also recently reported that chickens “can anticipate the future and demonstrate self-control, something previously attributed only to humans and other primates.”10 Scientists made this discovery after they observed that when given the option between pecking a button and receiving a small food reward instantly or holding out for 22 seconds in order to receive a larger food reward, chickens in the study demonstrated self-control by holding out for the larger reward over 90 percent of the time."

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your reply is ambiguous. Taking it in one sense, we already have a thread covering that topic. Personally I find it distasteful.

In the sense of 'roosters,' from what I understand chickens are sentient, and actually pretty smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, nice one.

And no, they aren't very smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to retort

"Chickens can also grasp other complex mental concepts. For instance, according to Evans, chickens are able to understand that objects still exist even after they are hidden or removed from view. This level of cognition is actually beyond the capacity of small human children.9 Researchers also recently reported that chickens “can anticipate the future and demonstrate self-control, something previously attributed only to humans and other primates.”10 Scientists made this discovery after they observed that when given the option between pecking a button and receiving a small food reward instantly or holding out for 22 seconds in order to receive a larger food reward, chickens in the study demonstrated self-control by holding out for the larger reward over 90 percent of the time."

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
Its not that dogs might be sentient. Because many disagree. Its not that it is an indication that you might be a sociopath or a sadist. Because many disagree. And its not because it is illegal. Because it isn't illegal everywhere.

The reason you shouldn't do it is similar to the reason you shouldn't light cigars with hundred dollar bills. Which is that many people (perhaps the majority, perhaps not) are EXTREMELY upset with the practice, whearas you, (hopefully), are getting only the mildest of enjoyment from it.

I have no problem with people treating themselves and their immediate family much better than they treat others. But it seems to me there should be a limit. Even if it is not a legal one. For instance if someone in your poker game is known to be highly allergic to a certain favorite shirt of yours, I would think you would avoid wearing it even if he was only a mild acquantance. I would.

Now I don't know if the idea of eschewing mild amusement to keep others from having major distress is a trait that comes from DNA, God, chezlaw, pragmatism or whatever. But I do know that most people agree with this idea and might even change a behavior it they were shown that such behavior was contradicting it. That should include most dogfight fans.

[/ QUOTE ]

This line of thinking seems to propose a utilitarianism based on the ever-changing tastes of the multitude. If that is the case it cannot have any lasting value, as it is slave to caprice rather than its master.

The more I think about it, your post doesn't offer any justification for a morality, but it does present a fairly accurate portrayal of the way mores operate in society. People change their ways based on the way others perceive them, conforming to this or that ethical code.

It's not a justification for relativism, but it is an elucidation of it.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

i cant agree with you sklansky. by your logic i shouldnt bash religion, because it gets so many people extremely upset.
i think that you shouldnt put on dog fights because it is an exposition of some of the worst traits of human beings. Not that people who go to dog fights are sociopaths, but that their disregard for suffering in an animal must reflect in some way a disregard for suffering in another animal (humans).
You say that there is disagreement about whether or not a dog is sentient. This question overlaps with the question : can a dog experience suffering that is worthy of our moral concern? I wouldnt think for a second that a dogs suffering should be equal to that of a persons, or that a dog is capable of the extreme degrees of suffering that a person could experience (esp. the psychological torments that humans endure). Surely there must be some overlap between the two. After all, we are descended from the same mammalian ancestors, and our brains are made of the same stuff.

Also, i dont know if youve read Daniel Dennett's stuff on consciousness, but his short book 'kinds of minds' contains an excellent discussion of these questions. If you use bit--tor-rr-ents, you can download the audiobook at mininova.org

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn't teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn't interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem, "I'd rather you shot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you'll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird." That was the only time I ever hear Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it. "You're father's right," she said. "Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat up people's gardens, don't nest in corncribs, they don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."

Harper Lee

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

DS is confusing two different things. Not wearing a shirt because someone is allergic to it is nothing like growing a beard because the Taliban object to you shaving or not practising homosexuality because it upsets saint peter.

chez

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

Why I support cocck fighting:

Fighting birds lead far better lives than factory Tyson meat-in-a-cage.

Fighting birds are pampered, allowed to run around, groomed, given medical care. They have a cruel and bloody exit in their final few minutes, but they live longer and far better than food chickens.

Odd country where we ban animal fights, but napalm children.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

" are getting only the mildest of enjoyment from it."

Spoken like someone who's never been to a dog fight!

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
Its not that dogs might be sentient. Because many disagree ... The reason you shouldn't do it is ... that many people ... are EXTREMELY upset with the practice, whearas you, (hopefully), are getting only the mildest of enjoyment from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends what you mean by "best".

If you mean "most difficult to be weaseled out of" then yes, but if you mean "having the most moral weight" then no.

Your argument implies that the fight could be considered OK if it was kept sufficiently private.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

I'm never telling the truth again. It might hurt someone's feelings.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not that dogs might be sentient. Because many disagree ... The reason you shouldn't do it is ... that many people ... are EXTREMELY upset with the practice, whearas you, (hopefully), are getting only the mildest of enjoyment from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends what you mean by "best".

If you mean "most difficult to be weaseled out of" then yes, but if you mean "having the most moral weight" then no.

Your argument implies that the fight could be considered OK if it was kept sufficiently private.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. Any more than it is OK to cheat on your wife as long as she doesn't find out.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

What angle are you taking here?

That most people would find dog fights abhorrent, hence there must be something morally wrong with it? Or that you shouldn't do stuff which most people are disturbed by, since it makes the world a lesser place in the eyes of those people?

Or some other obscure Sklansky-ism?

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't. Any more than it is OK to cheat on your wife as long as she doesn't find out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you maintain that the only reason not to cheat on your wife is to keep her from being extremely upset.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
What angle are you taking here?

That most people would find dog fights abhorrent, hence there must be something morally wrong with it? Or that you shouldn't do stuff which most people are disturbed by, since it makes the world a lesser place in the eyes of those people?

Or some other obscure Sklansky-ism?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's just saying that unsettling other humans is a bad thing in its own right. So it doesn't really matter why exactly they get upset about the dog fighting.

I'm surprised so many people dislike this OP, and I'm sort of surprised Sklansky even feels this way. DS, if it's good to refrain from a behavior when it bothers other people, even if what bothers them seems to be of no objective significance, why then do you claim to hold no regard for arbitrary fashion trends?

I understand that the dog fighting will be to a higher degree. The way people dress isn't that important to anyone. But it seems to be basically the exact same thing, just to much different degrees.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

My uncle told me to read you so I've been doing that. But I don't really get what you are posting. Can't you factor in that if a lot of people think its wrong to have dog fights, then maybe you are wrong about it? So make changes.

The thing about the shirt is a totally different thing.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your reply is ambiguous. Taking it in one sense, we already have a thread covering that topic. Personally I find it distasteful.

In the sense of 'roosters,' from what I understand chickens are sentient, and actually pretty smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pull that off a George Carlin CD ?

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

I don't know if that's the most important reason but, other than that, of course DS is correct here. Our actions don't exist in a moral vacuum so, on balance, we should tend not to do things which cause psychological distress (harm) to others. There may be other factors in a given instance which outweigh that interest, of course, just as you have to consider the likelihood and severity of the distress you may cause.

Interestingly, this means that it's more important for Mike Vick to avoid dog fights than for some regular person, since it's likely to cause so much more distress if he gets caught than it normally would (literally a million times more, say).

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What angle are you taking here?

That most people would find dog fights abhorrent, hence there must be something morally wrong with it? Or that you shouldn't do stuff which most people are disturbed by, since it makes the world a lesser place in the eyes of those people?

Or some other obscure Sklansky-ism?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's just saying that unsettling other humans is a bad thing in its own right. So it doesn't really matter why exactly they get upset about the dog fighting.

I'm surprised so many people dislike this OP, and I'm sort of surprised Sklansky even feels this way. DS, if it's good to refrain from a behavior when it bothers other people, even if what bothers them seems to be of no objective significance, why then do you claim to hold no regard for arbitrary fashion trends?

I understand that the dog fighting will be to a higher degree. The way people dress isn't that important to anyone. But it seems to be basically the exact same thing, just to much different degrees.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the degree matters. Some of the replies seemed to have missed that. I'm talking only about mild sacrifices to avoid other's major distress.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

All things equal, not flashing your [censored] while on natioal television, being refused marriage, or being asked to sit 2 meters further down the bus isle usually would cause very little distress to most people, while the opposite would or did cause an outrage. Things just stop being equal as soon as you consider the underlying moral issues.

It's obvious that you always have to take the underlying moral issues into account, not just the amount of utility gained vs. distress caused. Some people have very weird views and if people keep being considerate towards them things will never change for the better.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the degree matters. Some of the replies seemed to have missed that. I'm talking only about mild sacrifices to avoid other's major distress.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why not stand up and be counted instead of this weak sauce? Lack of courage or conviction?

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

"eschewing mild amusement to keep others from having major distress"

Does this apply to strip clubs, pot smoking, or other recreational activites where there's a significant moral opposition?

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

I am very upset about people who impose their morals onto others. They should quit causing me distress like this. That applies to the use of a $100 bill to light your cigar. It is none of anyone else's business.

A dogfight is a completely different story. I don't know if I think dogfights should be illegal, but I certainly don't like them. It seems silly to argue that the dogs aren't sentient.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am very upset about people who impose their morals onto others. They should quit causing me distress like this. That applies to the use of a $100 bill to light your cigar. It is none of anyone else's business.

[/ QUOTE ] There are less clear cut examples. E.g. people opposing gay marriage would argue, that people that are pro-gay marriage are imposing their morals on them. Which is wrong, but it's usually hard to explain this to them.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
A dogfight is a completely different story. I don't know if I think dogfights should be illegal, but I certainly don't like them. It seems silly to argue that the dogs aren't sentient.

[/ QUOTE ]
What matters is that poeple believe dogs are sentient. the vast majority of people opposed to dogfights wouldn't be if they believed dogs weren't sentient.

The only opposition left would be from those nutters who oppose Tom and Jerry. Then DS's point breaks down (itchy and scratchy can explain why)

chez

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]


The reason you shouldn't do it is similar to the reason you shouldn't light cigars with hundred dollar bills. Which is that many people (perhaps the majority, perhaps not) are EXTREMELY upset with the practice, whearas you, (hopefully), are getting only the mildest of enjoyment from it.



[/ QUOTE ]

The best reason not to put on dog fights is that dogs feel pain and putting on dog fights is unnecessary in the sense that there is no other, overriding reason that would permit it.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The reason you shouldn't do it is similar to the reason you shouldn't light cigars with hundred dollar bills. Which is that many people (perhaps the majority, perhaps not) are EXTREMELY upset with the practice, whearas you, (hopefully), are getting only the mildest of enjoyment from it.



[/ QUOTE ]

The best reason not to put on dog fights is that dogs feel pain and putting on dog fights is unnecessary in the sense that there is no other, overriding reason that would permit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thats sort of begging the question. I don't think anyone who advocates dog fighting would agree with any of this.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The reason you shouldn't do it is similar to the reason you shouldn't light cigars with hundred dollar bills. Which is that many people (perhaps the majority, perhaps not) are EXTREMELY upset with the practice, whearas you, (hopefully), are getting only the mildest of enjoyment from it.



[/ QUOTE ]

The best reason not to put on dog fights is that dogs feel pain and putting on dog fights is unnecessary in the sense that there is no other, overriding reason that would permit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thats sort of begging the question. I don't think anyone who advocates dog fighting would agree with any of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

People who put on dog fights don't think that dogs feel pain?

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

But what if their distress is completely ridiculous in that they are distressed over something that has no effect whatsoever on them and thus shouldn't concern them? In the case of the sweater/allergy, there's a bonafide physical reaction. There are a lot of people who are terribly upset if I read pornography in the privacy of my home, or commit some particular sexual act that only gives me slightly greater pleasure, or maybe not even as much pleasure, as another act of which they approve, or if I read certain political writings, or do the things that James Boston cited in his post.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
But what if their distress is completely ridiculous in that they are distressed over something that has no effect whatsoever on them and thus shouldn't concern them? In the case of the sweater/allergy, there's a bonafide physical reaction. There are a lot of people who are terribly upset if I read pornography in the privacy of my home, or commit some particular sexual act that only gives me slightly greater pleasure, or maybe not even as much pleasure, as another act of which they approve, or if I read certain political writings, or do the things that James Boston cited in his post.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't come up in real life. There aren't A LOT of people who are TERRIBLY upset over things that are CLEARLY ridiculous.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The reason you shouldn't do it is similar to the reason you shouldn't light cigars with hundred dollar bills. Which is that many people (perhaps the majority, perhaps not) are EXTREMELY upset with the practice, whearas you, (hopefully), are getting only the mildest of enjoyment from it.



[/ QUOTE ]

The best reason not to put on dog fights is that dogs feel pain and putting on dog fights is unnecessary in the sense that there is no other, overriding reason that would permit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thats sort of begging the question. I don't think anyone who advocates dog fighting would agree with any of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

People who put on dog fights don't think that dogs feel pain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they might not, but I suppose you got me. They don't agree with the REST of that.

Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
 

[ QUOTE ]

The reason you shouldn't do it is similar to the reason you shouldn't light cigars with hundred dollar bills. Which is that many people (perhaps the majority, perhaps not) are EXTREMELY upset with the practice, whearas you, (hopefully), are getting only the mildest of enjoyment from it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am delighted with people literally burning money. They burn it, the government reprints it and the effect is just that they paid 100% tax on the money (less reprinting costs which must be lower than the costs of collecting other taxes).

A British band burnt a significant amount of money - £100,000 or £1,000,000 I can't remember - as a protest against capitalism or something. Now thats the sort of protest I applaud!

This dog question has certainly made me think... as so ever my snap judgement may not be right

noskills