Re: The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, well I certainly hope they don't agree with the rest of that, otherwise they're simply being sadistic. At least if they think it is morally permissible there is hope they can be educated.
As for begging the question, I am saying that putting on dog fights is wrong largely because dogs feels pain. Now, there may be circumstances where hurting a dog is morally permissible, as in a case of justified self-defense, for example. But putting on dog fights for entertainment value is not one of those circumstances. I think that putting on dog fights is morally wrong for the same reason that torturing babies for entertainment purposes is morally wrong.
I also think that Sklansky's comments about it being wrong because many people are extremely upset with the practice, which outweighs the entertainment value, completely whiffs on the moral issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right, but then I'd ask you to be a bit more rigid when you refer to 'circumstances.' Human enjoyment is apparently right out, how about human convenience? Human palate?
|