The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

[evolvedForm]

[ 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.

[hexag1]

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

[RJT]

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

[chezlaw]

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

[Bill Haywood]

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.

[GoodCallYouWin]

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

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

[Silent A]

[ 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.

[Duke]

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

[David Sklansky]

[ 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.