[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with Sklansky that dogs aren't sentient; if anything, 'self-awareness' or 'sentience' likely isn't some discrete quality, but exists on some kind of spectrum. So if dogs are feeling pain -- and it's almost undeniable this is the case -- we should weigh that accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this completely, but why is it relevant? If it's alright to eat a cow, which probably slightly less sentient that a dog, or a pig, which is probably more sentient that a dog, why should dogs be given special treatment?

[ QUOTE ]
Given that we should all concede dogs feel pain, but obviously can't consent to fighting, I doubt causing such pain for a non-consenting entity for mere entertainment value qualifies as acceptably ethical.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice run around, cows and pigs can't consent to being eaten, so this point seems irrelevant. Moreover, if you truly believe that certain dogs don't want to fight, you're purposefully wearing blinders. When I lived in Northern Virginia, the shelters were immediately putting down certain dogs instead of adopting them because they were bred for fighting and were too aggresssive.

[ QUOTE ]
Pointing out people's hypocrisies when it comes to meat eating ("but isn't a really good steak just a form of entertainment?") could just be pointing out some other form of cruelty, and doesn't legitimize dog fighting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? You are just stating a conclusion. If it's alright to slaughter animals for food, its because animals are not humans and are not accorded the same right to life as humans are. So, there can be no logical reason for dog fighting to be illegal, because dogs are animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're confused;

GCYW asked for "reasons against dog fighting", not "reasons why dog fighting should be legal".

Again, as I said, assuming meat eating is morally acceptable because many people do it, then concluding dog fighting must be acceptable too (because people are just hypocrites for accepting one behavior but rejecting the other) is fallacious.

For one, I think it's an open question as to whether or not meat eating is morally acceptable; so pointing out a behavior which many engage in but could legitimately be called repulsive (meat eating) doesn't lead us to conclude dog fighting is moral. Those who eat meat but frown upon dog fighting may actually just be engaging in an equally reprehensible behavior. Noting lots of people eat meat and condemn dog fighting literally says nothing about the morality of either behavior.

Second, as others have noted here, we could probably draw an important distinction here between "causing pain in animals to provide nourishment" and "causing pain in animals for mere entertainment value".

There are probably lots of meat eaters out there who feel some measure of guilt for the pain and suffering caused to livestock by the meat industry, while running a dog fighting ring is likely symbolic of a perverse sadism. Maybe we could call your average meat eater as callous or cavalier, but I doubt your average guy who enjoys dog fighting is anything short of sadistic. I doubt if your average burger eater gets jollies from thinking about how the cow was slaughtered. I don't think we can say the same about your average dog fight attendee.

Lastly, I'm not sure what the moral implications are here, but there's probably something to be said of Vick gathering pleasure from an activity that causes harm to animals, when he could likely afford any form of entertainment available to humans. Not that it's excusable when poor schlubs engage in dog fighting, but it seems worse when a multi-millionaire does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arguing, using logic, that a practice that most people do not find repulsive is, in fact, wrong does not demonstrate that some other practice, which people mostly DO find repulsive, is, in fact, not wrong.

It just demonstrates that initial or common impressions often fail as good measures of the wrongness of an action.