The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights

[Phil153]

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?

[Silent A]

[ 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.

[ALawPoker]

[ 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.

[Chunwah]

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.

[govman6767]

[ 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 ?

[VarlosZ]

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).

[David Sklansky]

[ 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.

[MrBlah]

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.

[Chunwah]

[ 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?

[James Boston]

"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?