Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Free Michael Vick

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This question is easier to answer if you put it in terms that concretize exactly what we are talking about here: Is it moral to value -- to take pleasure in -- a staged struggle in which two animals try to tear each other to pieces with their teeth and claws until one is either incapacitated or dead, purely as an end in itself, not because it accomplishes anything else, not because it tests human skill or advances human interests in some fashion, but purely for the sake of seing the destruction of life or the attempted destruction of life?

That's not really the question at all. As I have already said, the value derived from a dog fight does not come from the death itself, but from the fight. The fact that the dog may die only serves to heighten stakes of the actual fight. If indeed as you said the point is purely to watch the destruction of life, then there would be no difference in watching two dogs fight and watching a dog tied up and shot. I don't think people would in fact pay money to watch the dogs helplessly killed -- otherwise they can just go to the incinerators at the dog pounds and watch it for free. No, the point is to watch how an animal would defend or kill when faced with a mortal combat situation.

Now as I have said, it is pretty clear that many men are attracted to violence -- look at the movies that sells, look at the way boys play and the toys they play with, look at some sports, so on and so forth. Maybe it's cultural, maybe it's biological, and maybe it's a mix of both. But for most men, their rational mind exists such that they are able to distinguish between moral and immoral actions, and they refrain from doing the later. So as I have said, the question here is this: What is immoral about enjoying watching two dogs fight each other to the death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If indeed as you said the point is purely to watch the destruction of life, then there would be no difference in watching two dogs fight and watching a dog tied up and shot. I don't think people would in fact pay money to watch the dogs helplessly killed --

I disagree, the two situations are entirely different but still focus on the "destruction of life". They could still be watching the dog fight to see one of the dogs die, but not helplessly. The dynamic of tying a dog to a post and killing it and watching two dogs viciously tear each other apart until one of them dies is not at all the same. But that doesn't mean their interest lies strictly in just the fighting. I agree that watching the struggle may be part of it, but I also agree that watching one of the dogs die violently is an integral part of it. Besides, there's little to bet on when the dog is helplessly killed.

I think it's a mistake to try to necessarily separate the fight from the death as far as the "enjoyment" of the "sport". To my knowledge, the owners and organizers never do anything to make the fight safer for the dogs so that there is no chance that either of the dogs will die. They are not letting them fight strictly for the sake of seeing which dog is more aggressive or dominant. If the fight were the only interest, they could make it so the dogs were otherwise safe from death. A particular owner may stop a fight if he doesn't want his dog to die, but I'd be willing to bet that the average on-looker has the ol' gladiator thumbs up for the killing blow. Taken as a whole, I think the activity does represent a "destruction of life".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my first thought when I heard it yesterday. Now what's he going to do while he's in jail? I guess he can always watch cable TV or get a degree. :dough:

My guess is he's probably going to snitch a whole lot of names out and avoid jail time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, the two situations are entirely different but still focus on the "destruction of life". They could still be watching the dog fight to see one of the dogs die, but not helplessly. The dynamic of tying a dog to a post and killing it and watching two dogs viciously tear each other apart until one of them dies is not at all the same. But that doesn't mean their interest lies strictly in just the fighting. I agree that watching the struggle may be part of it, but I also agree that watching one of the dogs die violently is an integral part of it. Besides, there's little to bet on when the dog is helplessly killed.

I think it's a mistake to try to necessarily separate the fight from the death as far as the "enjoyment" of the "sport". To my knowledge, the owners and organizers never do anything to make the fight safer for the dogs so that there is no chance that either of the dogs will die. They are not letting them fight strictly for the sake of seeing which dog is more aggressive or dominant. If the fight were the only interest, they could make it so the dogs were otherwise safe from death. A particular owner may stop a fight if he doesn't want his dog to die, but I'd be willing to bet that the average on-looker has the ol' gladiator thumbs up for the killing blow. Taken as a whole, I think the activity does represent a "destruction of life".

You're right in that you cannot separate the death from the fight. Dog fighting is a blood sport, and as such death is a part of the show. So yes, it is "destruction of life" in that something dies. What I am contesting however is that the death is an end onto itself, as if it is irrelevant how the death came about.

So no, what I am trying to do is not separating the death from dog fights. The fact that the fights culminates in death serves to heighten the stakes of the fight, and as such is an integral part of the show. I am trying to point out however that the death is not in and of itself the goal of the dog fight. An analogy that easily illustrates this point is once again poker: even if you have the same players playing the same hand, there is clearly a difference when it's a Friday night game with $10 in the pot than when it's the World Series of Poker with $10,000,000 at stake. You cannot separate the stakes from the game, but obviously the enjoyment comes from watching the players get to the finish line as opposed to watching a fat check being handed to the winner.

And yeah, you're right, in this particular case it does not look like the fights could have ended any other way except in death. But as I have already mentioned twice in this thread, there are other forms of dog fights practiced elsewhere, for instance the Japanese dog fights, where the owner has the option of throwing in the towel, ending the fight right there and preserving his dog.

In addition to what I have already said about the values that can potentially be gleamed from a dog fight, here is something else I have found that further illustrates how some people can take away positive things from dog fights:

Dog fighting has been a popular spectator sport in Japan, as it has been in the rest of the world, although in a significantly different form. The tradition of dog fighting runs especially high in the Tosa district of Shikoku, with fighting seemingly dating back to the Hojo era, as was mentioned in the ancient document, the Tai-Heiki. Centuries ago the Japanese used dogs from the northern regions which were the predecessors of modern-day Akitas, as they were valued for their courage and tenacity. "So valued were these attributes that organized dog fights were used as training sessions for Samurai warriors in order that the Samurai might learn by observation the true meaning of courage." (Semencic, Carl. "Introducing the Tosa-Inu of Japan." Dog World, Sept. 1983.)

Read the rest of the article if you want to see how these people run their dog fights. Note that this is just one version of the kind of dog fights they run in Japan. Tell me if you think a version like this is morally acceptable. And if your answer is yes, tell me your reasons. Specifically, how does the fact that the dog does not necessarily die change the positive values that a spectator can potentially take away from the fight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So no, what I am trying to do is not separating the death from dog fights. The fact that the fights culminates in death serves to heighten the stakes of the fight, and as such is an integral part of the show. I am trying to point out however that the death is not in and of itself the goal of the dog fight. An analogy that easily illustrates this point is once again poker: even if you have the same players playing the same hand, there is clearly a difference when it's a Friday night game with $10 in the pot than when it's the World Series of Poker with $10,000,000 at stake. You cannot separate the stakes from the game, but obviously the enjoyment comes from watching the players get to the finish line as opposed to watching a fat check being handed to the winner.

This paragraph is fascinating. I know the topic of the thread is dog fighting, but given that it's meandered into gambing a number of times, I just can't pass up this opportunity to exploit this weakness shown by one of my principle opponents. Besides, I suspect that the two issues are different species of the same psychological problem - especially given that Michael Vick was also gambling on his dog fights.

If you're going to say that the stakes and the game cannot be seperated, it would be advisable not to do so in the same sentence. Do you think that no one would benefit from participating in or watching a poker match if no money was being wagered? If, as you say and as I fully agree, the enjoyment of a competition is the pleasure of participating - expressing or refining your skills - or of spectating, why the endless defenses of the gambling involved? That value, while not material, is no less objective than a dollar bill and as such should be rewarded financially, regardless of the outcome, assuming that the level of play is at a level worth paying to participate in or observe. Gambling destroys any possibility of this happening. Instead of making the reward of good competition based on having performed good competition, wagering money makes the possiblility of any reward - to say nothing of loss - entirely subject to winning, not competing. Of course there's nothing wrong with wanting to be the best, but if someone is good enough at something to make it profitable to engage in it, it should make no difference whether or not he actually is.

You're right, among psychologically healthy individuals, the enjoyment of watching good poker - even if they're playing for popcorn kernels - comes from watching people skillfully and, if done commercially, monetarily improve themselves by interacting to improve one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now as I have said, it is pretty clear that many men are attracted to violence -- look at the movies that sells, look at the way boys play and the toys they play with, look at some sports, so on and so forth...

Quite so, however in my complex evaluation - perhaps too complex to fit into a simple post like this - this is a result of two things. Yes, there is an inherent manly interest in such matters. But like almost everything else in our modern world, this has long since been twisted into something brutish and stupid. The truly rational and masculine interest is nearly forgotten among so many - so diluted with irrationality - that it is often not even recognizable as anything but simple brutality.

Of course, there is always the factor of the opposite side of the dichotomy - the effete influence of feminism and other decadent postmodern influences - that is largely responsible for it. In essence, by destroying true manhood, the anti-masculinity crowd has reduced our culture to children and brutes. The result is the thoroughly modern child-brute that is ubiquitous these days. (I've also called this the "drunken frat-boy leitmotif")

(if you haven't already, check out the blog post I linked to earlier in the thread for my take on the influence of effete cultural decadence)

My only advise is to save what remnants of masculinity you can from the rubble - but tread lightly, because it is almost always buried within a heap of irrational brutality. Do not endorse or accept anything without caution, disclaimer, and thorough examination.

So in conclusion, there is a grain of truth to what you say. But you are also whitewashing some quite nasty business, philosophically speaking. While I can understand the essence of what you're trying to defend, the fact is that your opponents in this thread are basically correct as well.

I hope that helps, and isn't just a bunch of floating concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moebius wrote:

As I have already said, the value derived from a dog fight does not come from the death itself, but from the fight.............

I am trying to point out however that the death is not in and of itself the goal of the dog fight.

I agree that the goal of the dog fight is not simply a dog's death. The goal of the dog fight is to witness the process of death, i.e. to witness killing or, at a minimum, to witness a struggle to kill. That's why I said the participants value the destruction of life. And the fact that they do not want to witness a quick, painless, uncontested death simply means they value a specific mode of destruction: drawn out, painful and vicious.

I see nothing in this activity that a rational man should value. I don't believe the Samurai claim that a dog's behavior fighting for its life against another dog tells us something about the human virtues of "courage and tenacity". Nor do I believe that one can learn anything useful about how to fight by observing the fighting of dogs; a rational man that wants to learn how to fight takes martial arts or boxing lessons or watches the fights of other men, not dogs. In any event, I don't for a minute believe that dog fight fans are in it for educational purposes or to be "inspired" by the dog's efforts. Vick and his cohorts named their enterprise, "Bad Newz Kennels" for a reason. "Bad Newz" for the dogs was their goal and the source of their enjoyment -- and I see no way to defend that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the goal of the dog fight is not simply a dog's death. The goal of the dog fight is to witness the process of death, i.e. to witness killing or, at a minimum, to witness a struggle to kill. That's why I said the participants value the destruction of life. And the fact that they do not want to witness a quick, painless, uncontested death simply means they value a specific mode of destruction: drawn out, painful and vicious.

Read the link I posted about above. There are forms of dog fights that do not necessarily end in death, and they still draw many viewers. Like I said, dog fights are about the fight, not the actual death itself. The fact that it's a fight to the death only makes the fight more interesting, and not the death.

I mean, it seems like the only argument you have against dog fights is that it results in the death of the dogs (which for all intents and purposes are just property). Would you have a problem with a dog fight that did not end in death? Why should the fact that they die be relevant?

I see nothing in this activity that a rational man should value. I don't believe the Samurai claim that a dog's behavior fighting for its life against another dog tells us something about the human virtues of "courage and tenacity". Nor do I believe that one can learn anything useful about how to fight by observing the fighting of dogs; a rational man that wants to learn how to fight takes martial arts or boxing lessons or watches the fights of other men, not dogs. In any event, I don't for a minute believe that dog fight fans are in it for educational purposes or to be "inspired" by the dog's efforts. Vick and his cohorts named their enterprise, "Bad Newz Kennels" for a reason. "Bad Newz" for the dogs was their goal and the source of their enjoyment -- and I see no way to defend that.

Just because you do not believe does not make it untrue. It's not really a valid or logical argument to simply say that you do not believe -- that merely sums up to "well it isn't true because I say so". Humans can't be inspired by animals? They can't learn something from animals? Why not? When Roy Jones Jr., one of the best boxers in the past decade, says that he learned some of his moves and fighting style by watching cock fights, I should disbelieve him because you said so? Not to mention the huge number of martial arts that are actually inspired by animals or other natural forms.

And yeah, it really does seem like Michael Vick has problems. But frankly I'm more interested in seeing him get some psychological help than be punished for killing dogs. The whole incident should have been: Vick admits he has a problem, gets himself a psychiatrist, done. Frankly it really shouldn't matter how many dogs he killed, or how he killed them. If anything I think this whole national outcry over Vick is setting a terrible precedent that clearly seems to value the life of animals over those of a man. A man should never have to defend himself against the killing animals (his animal no less) no matter why or how or how many he executes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you do not believe does not make it untrue. It's not really a valid or logical argument to simply say that you do not believe -- that merely sums up to "well it isn't true because I say so". Humans can't be inspired by animals? They can't learn something from animals? Why not? When Roy Jones Jr., one of the best boxers in the past decade, says that he learned some of his moves and fighting style by watching cock fights, I should disbelieve him because you said so? Not to mention the huge number of martial arts that are actually inspired by animals or other natural forms.

If you'll go back and read what he said, you'll see that he did not say what you claim. First you skipped his "I think" to smash his "I believe", when commonly I take those as used interchangably in some contexts. Second, it did not say that men couldn't be inspired by animals, he specifically was talking about rational men.

Finally, you're "subjectivism" argument can be used in reverse. Doesn't your Roy Jones argument amount to you saying "will it is true because Roy Jones said it's true and I believe him...". I don't know Roy Jones, he could be raitonalizing his sick, twisted love of cock fighting as well.

Finally, you're martial arts argument doesn't hold water either. Most of these inspirational attributions apply to only one or 2 concepts in the art, and most of the rest of it is derivations of other martial arts forms. This can easily be demonstrated since the form has been developed already it's unnecessary to relearn the concept by watching the supposed original inspiration, but it is still quite necessary to learn it by watching other human beings practice it, whcih woudl lend credence to AisA's argument. Unless you're saying I can't learn Praying Mantis Kung Fu without watching praying mantis fights...

I dont necessarily disagree with your conclusion Moebius, but your defense of it seems pretty weak. Animals are property, and you can do anything you want with them. That's a political concept, pertaining to man's rights vs animal rights. However, that does not make anything you do with them intrinsically good, ethically.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yeah, it really does seem like Michael Vick has problems. But frankly I'm more interested in seeing him get some psychological help than be punished for killing dogs. The whole incident should have been: Vick admits he has a problem, gets himself a psychiatrist, done.

I don't think that's quite right. The biggest component is the moral component. To over come that aspect doesn't require a psychiatrist, it requires a will to improve yourself, i.e. correct your bad premises. You have to feel to your core that something is wrong (or right), I guess is the way I'd put it, then you will have fixed your moral error.

Frankly it really shouldn't matter how many dogs he killed, or how he killed them.

Sure it should matter. It does matter how you treat other higher life forms. There is a large degree of commonality between man and beast, especially between man and higher mammals. That commonality means that there will be affinity and kinship. If you treat something brutally in disregard for its pain and suffering, then it tells me a little bit about how much you value life as such.

Another interesting subject matter is bull fighting. That's very popular in Spain and South America, and it may be in the same category as dog fighting, though it doesn't bother me nearly as much.

If anything I think this whole national outcry over Vick is setting a terrible precedent that clearly seems to value the life of animals over those of a man. A man should never have to defend himself against the killing animals (his animal no less) no matter why or how or how many he executes.

It does seem over the top in terms of the amount of attention it's received. Rush Limbaugh made the same point. What he did was disgusting, but harming or murdering a human being is several orders of magnitude worse. (Rush made the point in terms of abortion, which is another matter altogether.)

One point about Samurai’s, IIRC, they used to test their swords on peasants, by which I mean they'd cut them down. The peasant was supposed to be honored by being chosen for this test. The value of the sword was determined by how effectively it cut down the human. The point is, Samurai traditions don't necessarily equate to moral traditions. Vicious and brutal cultures have been common place in mankind's history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the need to clarify some things in regards to dog fighting as I think there are quite a few uninformed assumptions being thrown around as fact.

First off I must say that I personally do not condone dog fighting and have no affiliation with the activity. I have a lot of affection for dogs and animals in general, it bothers me terrible when I see any animal mistreated.

I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject as it interests me from a historical point of view in regards to the development of the fighting breeds (I recommend books by Richard Stratton for a historical look at fighting dogs). I own an American Pit Bull Terrier and realize that dog fighting was the driving factor behind of shaping of this incredible breed of dog.

In reading though this discussion I saw numerous statements making it sound like death was the usual, even desirable outcome of any dogfight. I think this is very misleading.

While there is no doubt that due to the underground nature of the activity there are surely plenty of dogfights that are carried out with death as the end result; however, that is not always the case, and I would imagine that these type of fights are mostly the less organized type of events.

Since the comparison to boxing has been used already I'll continue with that analogy. Think about the difference between a professional boxing match, maybe even a title fight, compared to an small underground boxing match. Would any professional manager let his fighter continue in a fight where he was getting destroyed and risk permanent injury knowing that the fighter has a long career ahead of him?

Also, it has been argued that there is no value in fighting a dog. Again, while I don't personally feel that dogs should be fought, I can see some merit in it as follows:

Fighting is the ultimate test of a dogs gameness, which is the name given to the traits that lead to the never-give-up will to continue in a given task. It is also one of, if not the best test of overall athleticism. (Same can be said of human fighting)

With that in mind, when deciding which dogs to use in a breeding program that strives to build the ultimate canine athlete/warrior, it is clear that fighting is the best method to determine whether or not a dog is a good candidate for breading.

One important thing to note is that a dog has to be alive (I suppose the exception would be males that have had sperm set aside for later use) in order to be used in a breeding program (Think Stud Fees $$$$)

Along with that thought it is also very important to note that just because a dog looses a fight does not mean that it is worthless and may as well die in the pit. That would be like saying Joe Frazier may as well have died when he lost to Ali the first time.

It is very possible (especially if the opponents were well matched) that the result is a fight in which both dogs performed incredibly well and have been proven to be near equals. Anyone who let one of those dogs die would be an idiot, whether viewed from a purely financial standpoint or simply from the viewpoint of wanting to continue to use the dog for breeding the next generations.

For some evidence to contradict the statements that make it sound like Death is the only possible outcome to a fight here is a link to what would be common rules during an organized match:

http://www.gamedogs.com/pitrules.htm - see if you can count the number of possible scenarios that would lead to end of a match with both dogs living.

Ultimately, as ugly as dog fighting is, it like any other activity that has been pushed into the underground crime world would be radically different if it were brought into the light.

Even though there would be a huge number of people opposed to legalized dog fighting (and understandably so), It would ultimately be better for the dogs. Especially if the events were televised as I'm sure this would drive towards conservative referee practices just as has happened with Boxing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fighting is the ultimate test of a dogs gameness, which is the name given to the traits that lead to the never-give-up will to continue in a given task. It is also one of, if not the best test of overall athleticism. (Same can be said of human fighting)

With that in mind, when deciding which dogs to use in a breeding program that strives to build the ultimate canine athlete/warrior, it is clear that fighting is the best method to determine whether or not a dog is a good candidate for breading.

This is an interesting argument because it seems to confer a degree of rationality on why someone would want to dog fight. Certainly breeding programs require a stressor indicator, that is you breed for a trait and you need to have a way to test that trait.

If the argument is that fighting is savage, but it is the best test to determine a particular trait in a rational breeding program, then one would have to ask under what cases does that breeding program confer and not confer the element of rationality upon the practice of fighting. There are two aspects to question then:

a. what is the end of the breeding program and it is a rational end?

b. is this really the best way to select for the desired traits?

If the end of the breeding program is nothing more than to perpetuate the savagery that is its trait selector, then it cannot be rational. That is, if you agree that fighting is savage, but breed for no other purpose than fighting you have not succeeded in making it a rational pursuit.

Second, I am unconvinced by your statement that this is the best way. Most notably becuase in your underlying justification you are less unequivocal about it, saying it is "one of, if not the best test of overall athleticism.", yet concluding that "to build the ultimate canine athlete/warrior, it is clear that fighting is the best method ". Which is it exactly? And you also slip in athlete/warrior, where you first used athlet[icism]. These are not parrallel constructions. If I start thinking about tests of athleticism or even tenaciousness, I come up wiht lots of other tests that can be used (endurance - dog sled pulling, agility - canine agility, tenaciousness - herding, etc...). I hardly think you've made the case that athletisicm and dog fighting must go hand in hand for a top notch breeding program.

What I can conclude form your statements is that to build the ultimate athlete, it is clear that fighting is one of the best method...". But if I want to build the ultimate warrior, then I again go back to issue number 1, of building a savage warrier for nothing else than the sake of building a savage warrior. If you agree the practice is savage and there are other ways to acheive the same end that are not so, then savagry for savagry's sake is irrational.

Also, if you take out genetics, one must also look at the training regemins for such dogs and ask if they lead to healthy or unhealthy behavioral profiles. Yes, dog breeds have history as being bred as fighting dogs, but of the breeds I am hard pressed to think of a breed that has benefited from being crossed with a fighting breed, and I've had experience with several, including the bull terriers, and the Japanese Akita.

My personal conclusion is that fighting dogs are bred for no other purpose than fighting, there are other options to select for the traits you speak of that are more humane, and the behavior profiles generated both genetically and via training are abnormal and of no use (and even dangerous) when bred into breeds that don't have them. The breeding of such is an irrational pursuit unless one can make the case that fighting, in and of itself, is a rational thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting argument because it seems to confer a degree of rationality on why someone would want to dog fight. Certainly breeding programs require a stressor indicator, that is you breed for a trait and you need to have a way to test that trait.

If the argument is that fighting is savage, but it is the best test to determine a particular trait in a rational breeding program, then one would have to ask under what cases does that breeding program confer and not confer the element of rationality upon the practice of fighting. There are two aspects to question then:

a. what is the end of the breeding program and it is a rational end?

b. is this really the best way to select for the desired traits?

If the end of the breeding program is nothing more than to perpetuate the savagery that is its trait selector, then it cannot be rational. That is, if you agree that fighting is savage, but breed for no other purpose than fighting you have not succeeded in making it a rational pursuit.

Well, certainly someone who is involved in dog fighting would interested in breeding a better fighting dog for themselves, and also potentially earning money through stud fees, sale of pups etc. That is my main argument as to why it would be against a dog owner/breeder's interests to allow an animal to die in a fight.

Second, I am unconvinced by your statement that this is the best way. Most notably becuase in your underlying justification you are less unequivocal about it, saying it is "one of, if not the best test of overall athleticism.", yet concluding that "to build the ultimate canine athlete/warrior, it is clear that fighting is the best method ". Which is it exactly? And you also slip in athlete/warrior, where you first used athlet[icism]. These are not parrallel constructions. If I start thinking about tests of athleticism or even tenaciousness, I come up wiht lots of other tests that can be used (endurance - dog sled pulling, agility - canine agility, tenaciousness - herding, etc...). I hardly think you've made the case that athletisicm and dog fighting must go hand in hand for a top notch breeding program.

What I can conclude form your statements is that to build the ultimate athlete, it is clear that fighting is one of the best method...". But if I want to build the ultimate warrior, then I again go back to issue number 1, of building a savage warrier for nothing else than the sake of building a savage warrior. If you agree the practice is savage and there are other ways to acheive the same end that are not so, then savagry for savagry's sake is irrational.

This was poor word choice on my part.

Certainly testing by means of the fight is for obvious reasons the best test when making breeding selections with the end goal of a better fighting dog. This is only a true "value" if one were to have no moral objections to the dog fight.

It could be argued that the same traits that make a good fighting dog are the same traits that lead to exceptional ability in other forms of work.

This is difficult to argue as it inevitably ends up in a "which breed is best" type of debate. (I don't wish to enter into this debate BTW :dough: )

This also leads to the argument of how to best compare the abilities of two athletes in their overall athletic ability.

If fighting were the definitive way to determine the superior athlete, then this could be seen as value even if the end goal was not a dog that would be fought.

I don't know definitively that fighting is the best method for comparing overall athletic ability between two athletes; but it is viewed that way by many, hence their perceived value.

Also, if you take out genetics, one must also look at the training regemins for such dogs and ask if they lead to healthy or unhealthy behavioral profiles. Yes, dog breeds have history as being bred as fighting dogs, but of the breeds I am hard pressed to think of a breed that has benefited from being crossed with a fighting breed, and I've had experience with several, including the bull terriers, and the Japanese Akita.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, so I'm going to respond with the assumption that you're alluding to some of the common things mentioned in news articles regarding training of fighting dogs.

A game bred fighting dog does not need to be "trained"(by people) to fight and they don't have to be beaten and abused to "make them mean", or fed gunpowder to "make them crazy" like we commonly here about in the news. The stories in the news that speak of "Bait animals" etc are a combination of urban legend and idiots that actually attempt those types of "training" methods thinking that they work.

Generally the only "training" a dog would receive is what is called "rolling" when a more experienced fighter is used to give a novice dog experience. These would be short skirmishes that try not allow either dog to be injured but allow for the dog to basically learn through doing to develop his/her fighting skills.

As to the benefits of crossing a fighting breed with another breed, I'm not sure what you mean. Dog breeding is fairly complex and randomly breeding dogs rarely gets the desired results. Also the bull-terrier and Akita aren't really considered to be fighting dogs anymore as they haven't been game bred for quite some time and I can't imagine either would ever be considered for use in dog fighting today.

My personal conclusion is that fighting dogs are bred for no other purpose than fighting, there are other options to select for the traits you speak of that are more humane, and the behavior profiles generated both genetically and via training are abnormal and of no use (and even dangerous) when bred into breeds that don't have them. The breeding of such is an irrational pursuit unless one can make the case that fighting, in and of itself, is a rational thing.

I certainly agree that there are other methods of testing dogs. And again, I'm not personally positive what the best method is. However my main point was in showing how one could possibly come to see a value in fighting dogs.

That value relies on the answer to the questions you laid out:

a. what is the end of the breeding program and it is a rational end?

b. is this really the best way to select for the desired traits?

Someone asked earlier how could there possibly be value in fighting dogs. If someones answer to question b. is fighting, then that is how someone could value fighting dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'll go back and read what he said, you'll see that he did not say what you claim. First you skipped his "I think" to smash his "I believe", when commonly I take those as used interchangably in some contexts. Second, it did not say that men couldn't be inspired by animals, he specifically was talking about rational men.

Whether "I think" and "I believe" is interchangeable does not change what I said. He offered no reason at all what so ever on the why. He also offered no reason at all as to why men (rational or otherwise) could not be inspired by animals.

Finally, you're "subjectivism" argument can be used in reverse. Doesn't your Roy Jones argument amount to you saying "will it is true because Roy Jones said it's true and I believe him...". I don't know Roy Jones, he could be raitonalizing his sick, twisted love of cock fighting as well.

The difference is I actually linked a video where Roy Jones Jr. specifically explained what he has learned from cock fighting, and I have personally watched many of his fights. In 2002 when Jones defended his title against Glen Kelly, he dropped his hands and was clearly seen imitating a game cock while dodging Kelly's shots, before unleashing a right hook that knocked Kelly out. So no, it's not exactly subjective at all, because I have actually seen him fight like a game cock, listen to him talk about fighting like a game cock, before I made my evaluation. I didn't just come out and with no back up at all proclaim that "well since I don't believe him, it can't be true". Frankly his belief is really irrelevant without an explanation.

Finally, you're martial arts argument doesn't hold water either. Most of these inspirational attributions apply to only one or 2 concepts in the art, and most of the rest of it is derivations of other martial arts forms. This can easily be demonstrated since the form has been developed already it's unnecessary to relearn the concept by watching the supposed original inspiration, but it is still quite necessary to learn it by watching other human beings practice it, whcih woudl lend credence to AisA's argument. Unless you're saying I can't learn Praying Mantis Kung Fu without watching praying mantis fights...

Why doesn't the martial arts argument hold water? AisA claims that it's not possible to be inspired by animals. I said, "Look! Here are these martial arts that imitate animal forms!" What does the fact that they were based on previously developed forms matter? Did I say that you need to fight like the actual animal? Or that you have to learn the form from the animal? No.

Yeah, you can learn the praying mantis kung fu from a human being. But the bottom line is that, at some point in time, some guy looked at a praying mantis fight, and was inspired enough to develop a martial art based on that animal. It's sort of like how you can be inspired to discover gravity because an apple dropped on your head, but you don't need to learn gravity from apples or even need to have an apple dropped on you to discover gravity. The bottom line is that AisA claims that man can not be inspired by animals, and I offered evidence that you can be.

I dont necessarily disagree with your conclusion Moebius, but your defense of it seems pretty weak. Animals are property, and you can do anything you want with them. That's a political concept, pertaining to man's rights vs animal rights. However, that does not make anything you do with them intrinsically good, ethically.

To be honest I think you are misunderstanding what I am defending in the first place based on your previous couple of paragraphs. And another thing that I disagree with is this: animals having no rights is not a political issue. It is fundamentally a philosophical issue. Just as man's rights is derived from his ability to reason and achieve volition, you cannot possibly have rights, on principle, if you lack faculties of reason. So regardless of what you do to them, it is morally irrelevant (at least in and of the act itself). The only real issue here is whether enjoying dog fights serve as circumstantial evidence that you have immoral values -- which as I have been arguing all thread is context dependent. To put it succinctly, it is not what you did to the animals that is a moral issue, but the why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's quite right. The biggest component is the moral component. To over come that aspect doesn't require a psychiatrist, it requires a will to improve yourself, i.e. correct your bad premises. You have to feel to your core that something is wrong (or right), I guess is the way I'd put it, then you will have fixed your moral error.

I was assuming that by publically acknowledging his problems and seeking professional help would satisfy the criteria you mentioned. I mean I suppose he could fake it.

Sure it should matter. It does matter how you treat other higher life forms. There is a large degree of commonality between man and beast, especially between man and higher mammals. That commonality means that there will be affinity and kinship. If you treat something brutally in disregard for its pain and suffering, then it tells me a little bit about how much you value life as such.

This is one of the thing that I was wondering about. Is there any reason for us to treat one animal better than another based on their relative evolutionary hierarchy? Or should it be based on their relative intelligence? To be honest I think an animal is either capable of reason or it isn't, if we're talking in terms of principle. Any affinity you may or may not feel is simply emotional and empathic, and not necessarily logical or rational.

Another interesting subject matter is bull fighting. That's very popular in Spain and South America, and it may be in the same category as dog fighting, though it doesn't bother me nearly as much.

I thought about bull fighting as well during the course of this thread. To be honest it really doesn't bother me at all that the bull is killed. Like I said the kinship you may feel towards a particular animal is very much arbitrary and is probably largely based on cultural and environmental factors.

One point about Samurai’s, IIRC, they used to test their swords on peasants, by which I mean they'd cut them down. The peasant was supposed to be honored by being chosen for this test. The value of the sword was determined by how effectively it cut down the human. The point is, Samurai traditions don't necessarily equate to moral traditions. Vicious and brutal cultures have been common place in mankind's history.

I do not doubt that peasants have died in the hands of some particularly cruel samurai. But it is not as a rule that they test their weapons on peasants. In generally when a katana is newly forged, it is tested on corpses or criminals that have been sentenced to death.

And no, Samurai tradition does not equate moral tradition. As far as I know there are no culture that can honestly say that their traditions are entirely moral (especially warrior traditions). But certainly there are many, many elements that are virtuous -- for instance, the emphasis on courage and tenacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another thing that I disagree with is this: animals having no rights is not a political issue. It is fundamentally a philosophical issue. Just as man's rights is derived from his ability to reason and achieve volition, you cannot possibly have rights, on principle, if you lack faculties of reason.

I think the argument would be that the reason why 'rights' are essentially a political issue is not from how they are derived, but from what makes them necessary in the first place. Without the reality of having to interact with other people (politics), there is no need for rights. Now I agree that the formation of why animals should or shouldn't have rights needs to be philosophically established, what makes it a political issue in this context is that not everyone agrees with the philosophy that determines animals don't have rights so they use the law to establish that they (animals) do have "rights". Regardless of how things should be, that is how things are and they have to be dealt with in the political realm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the argument would be that the reason why 'rights' are essentially a political issue is not from how they are derived, but from what makes them necessary in the first place. Without the reality of having to interact with other people (politics), there is no need for rights. Now I agree that the formation of why animals should or shouldn't have rights needs to be philosophically established, what makes it a political issue in this context is that not everyone agrees with the philosophy that determines animals don't have rights so they use the law to establish that they (animals) do have "rights". Regardless of how things should be, that is how things are and they have to be dealt with in the political realm.

I was under the impression that what we were talking about, at least for the last two pages of this thread, was the morality of dog fighting. Besides which, if you re-read Kendall's post, what he actually said was that the fact that "animals are property and you can do what you want with them" is a political concept, when in fact it is a philosophical concept (since he was obviously talking about animal rights vs human rights as an abstraction). And following that he ended with a statement regarding ethics, which again, can only be solved philosophically. Besides that fact, while not everybody agrees with the philosophy that determines animals don't have rights, is it not reasonable to assume that everybody on this forum agrees (to some degree or another) on the basic premise that animals cannot have rights? That is, unless we are suddenly changing the line of conversation into "how to deals with people that think that animals have rights" -- which I doubt, since he was responding to my earlier post.

Now maybe I am missing something somewhere. Correct me if I misinterpreted you or Kendall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides which, if you re-read Kendall's post,.

I re-read it and I don't think I misunderstood anything. However, if Kendall chooses to clarify in some way that what I said is not pertinent to what he said, I would be happy for that to be clarified.

What I take his statement in that part to mean is that the status between man's rights and animal's rights is a political issue for the very reason I stated, philosophically animal rights don't exist, but legally (politically) they do exist to some extent (i.e. laws against animal cruelty). However, regardless of the political status, there are ethical implications to how one treats animals.

I don't think anyone here supports the idea that animals have rights in the philosophical sense, but they clearly have some legal (political) rights in the US. So to say "animals don't have rights" is not entirely accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate on what you're saying here? Particularly the part about morality as it relates to rights.

Rights are moral principles. Politics are derived from ethics. You must know what is good before you can know what is right. All rights protect ethical action, however, not all unethical action violates rights.

Sure, given that the state's only real purpose is to ensure people do not use force on one another, sure, lying should not generally be punished by the state. Now, if this is a morality issue, then yes, deception is immoral (per your examples). How does that relate to dog fighting exactly?

I'm not accusing but this formulation sounds too libertarian to me. The state's only purpose is to protect individual rights. I just want to make sure you are not leaving fraud out as a violation of rights.

Can you tell me how destruction of your own property results in a contradiction to the requirement of life?

Shelter, food and warm clothing are requirements of life. If you destroyed your own shelter, food or clothes you would be acting contrary to the requirements of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I take his statement in that part to mean is that the status between man's rights and animal's rights is a political issue for the very reason I stated, philosophically animal rights don't exist, but legally (politically) they do exist to some extent (i.e. laws against animal cruelty). However, regardless of the political status, there are ethical implications to how one treats animals.

I don't think anyone here supports the idea that animals have rights in the philosophical sense, but they clearly have some legal (political) rights in the US. So to say "animals don't have rights" is not entirely accurate.

If the law contradicts the philosophical principle, then there is probably something wrong with the law. But again, since here we're talking about ethics, I'm not sure where the legal status comes into play (assuming that we all agree here that animal killing should not be punishable by the government).

Let Kendall clarify what the point he is making I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights are moral principles. Politics are derived from ethics. You must know what is good before you can know what is right. All rights protect ethical action, however, not all unethical action violates rights.

Clearly in this case there is a gap between Objectivist principles and the actual United States law.

I'm not accusing but this formulation sounds too libertarian to me. The state's only purpose is to protect individual rights. I just want to make sure you are not leaving fraud out as a violation of rights.

You are quoting me out of context. Refer to the specific cases that I was responding to. But yes, fraud is a violation of rights.

Shelter, food and warm clothing are requirements of life. If you destroyed your own shelter, food or clothes you would be acting contrary to the requirements of life.

Again, refer to the specific context I was talking to Dinah about. Yes I agree that destroying something that you directly require to maintain life would be a contradiction. What about burning a book you own? Or killing your pet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that the people who enjoy dog fights place very little value on canine life. But there is a gap in logical to say that he therefore does not care about human lives -- essentially the only life that matters, given that a dog has no rights and is essentially a property.

Moebius,

Let me clarify. Last time I checked, politics is a branch of philosophy. The branch that in Objectivist development starts with the concept of rights. I made the reference I made because I recalled you early on bringing this idea into the discussion and it was in post #17. Your argumentation seems to jump around and one of the planks you fall back to is this idea that animals have no rights.

As Mark K. and yourself said, we are discussing ethics, which in philosophical development comes before politics, and is more general. So political arguments are a weak place to start when making moral evaluations. Just because something is true with respect to the rights of an animal does not make it ethically justified. THis is a very "libertarian" position, where rights are the primary and anything that man has a right to do (i.e. smoke pot) is somehow the good.

For example your argument above does just that. That is, you jump to a political principle to break the connection on a moral issue. It isn't a break in logic, because you are assuming that the person breaks the moral distinction between animal and human life, because he already has a clear understanding of rights. This is really improper development of the idea. It is out of order.

I realize I didn't address this specific point in my resopnse, but I wanted to get the principle out there because you have jumped around in your thinking several times over the course of the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize you're frustrated that people dont' seem to be providing you evidence of the linkages; however, that does not make your arguments still sound.

First let me preface by saying that to me the morality of the issue is highly contextual. That from a political point of view, I don't have a problem that dog fighting exists. However, I am struggling to see the moral case for it. That said, I find that Moebius is using the contextuality to ignore the reality of the situation in many contexts. Here are some ideas for thought.

1. There is a linkage between animal cruelty and social disfunction. Google this, it's pretty apparant. Now we can debate whether this is true in all cases, and if certain forms of dog fighting are actually animal cruelty (which is a fallacious argument in itself), and what themorality is of a proprietor of such sport knowing that some of his patrons will be socially disfunctional. I think it is ironic that defenders of the ethical issues, like Moebius, give Micheal Vick a pass by saying that he needs psychological help, without looking at the causal aspects of why someone who needs psychological help is attending dog fights in the first place. It does not prove a connection, in and of itself, but it certainly ought to be addressed in light of the fact that there is a demonstrated connection.

2. The fact that someone, somewhere learns from the way that a dog fights, does not in any way confer moral acceptability on the practice or sport of dog fighting for everyone, in all instances. That is another way of saying that the fact that animals fight in the wild does not at all justify making it into a sport. I realize Moebius that you were using this as a counter to someone who claimed there was NO way an animal fight could be educational or inspirational, but I don't think that a martial art that took its inspriration from the way an animal fights, even in the wild (i.e. from a natural behavior of the animal) is in any way linked to the sport of fighting that animial. I'm heading you off at the pass a bit there;o I hope not to see it used later as any sort of justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, so I'm going to respond with the assumption that you're alluding to some of the common things mentioned in news articles regarding training of fighting dogs.

A game bred fighting dog does not need to be "trained"(by people) to fight and they don't have to be beaten and abused to "make them mean", or fed gunpowder to "make them crazy" like we commonly here about in the news. The stories in the news that speak of "Bait animals" etc are a combination of urban legend and idiots that actually attempt those types of "training" methods thinking that they work.

Generally the only "training" a dog would receive is what is called "rolling" when a more experienced fighter is used to give a novice dog experience. These would be short skirmishes that try not allow either dog to be injured but allow for the dog to basically learn through doing to develop his/her fighting skills..

No, this is not what I'm alluding to. There are 2 aspects of raising dog fighters: genetic/behavioral and psychological, and I believe that raising fighting dog necessarily is about making them sociopathic regardless of which method is used. Now, let's leave aside the sick training methods you mention above which are all psychological, and involved basically destroying a healthy psychology. I woudl submit that even if you use rational behavior/genetic methods to develop a fighting dog that one still makes a dog that is only good for fighting.

Here's why. The "warrior" qualities you mention are about more than tentacity and athleticism. If you think of behvioral / genetic selection traits it involves 2 behavioral aspects:

a. drive, that is the continued drive toward a goal in the face of signficant effort or obstacles

b. propensity to escalate violence even in the face of descalation behaviors on the part of the opponent.

a is a viable valid behavioral trait that is seen in many different aspects of behavior. It is this same behavior that causes a husky to keep pulling dog sleds over hours and hours and mile and miled.

b however, is a destructive behavioral modification that i have not seen used in any other field of dog behavior other than fighting. So let me explain it:

In the wild, fighting as such is a costly behavior. It is risky, and carries with it possiblity of death. Certainly animals must learn to do so as a mechanism to survive (say when defending against a foreign animal's threat), but given the option between resolving conflict by fighting and through other methods, it is in an animals interest to use less risky methods if they are developed. Because dogs are of the same species, they have developed behavioral, and genetically selected methods to resolve intra-species conflict that do not involve fighting. That is, actually engaging in fighting behavior is an option of last resort. There is actually a very sophisticated negotiation protocol amonst dogs and wolves to escalate and deescalate perceived threats. This basically results in a sort of series of levels of escalation (say DEFCON 1-4). Most interactions between dogs that involve some sort of perceived threat are actually negotiated down without having to resort to a fight.

Here's the issue. In order to train the absolute best fighting dog, you have to destroy this communcation capability in a dog. That is, you must create a dog that will IGNORE deescalation signals from its opponent, and keep fighting in spite of those signals. You don't want dogs that are supposed to be fighting in a ring to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the conflict when you're there to see a fight. You do this behaviorally, and then select for those animals who are better at it over several generaitons and so develop it as a genetic trait. The destruction of this behavior makes the dog anti-social. You effectively create a dog that is ready to fight, and cannot get along with humans or other dogs. This is because the dog is bred to recognize threats with no way to turn off that switch.

Just to be clear, if someone thinks that developing a "warrior" dog is the same sort of training/breeding regimen that is used in developing security or military dogs, they are wholly different. A fighting dog makes a terrible security or military dog. There is no other use for this particular breeding regimen than for fighting, and the dogs that are bred for this sport are dangerous, plain and simple.

As to the benefits of crossing a fighting breed with another breed, I'm not sure what you mean. Dog breeding is fairly complex and randomly breeding dogs rarely gets the desired results. Also the bull-terrier and Akita aren't really considered to be fighting dogs anymore as they haven't been game bred for quite some time and I can't imagine either would ever be considered for use in dog fighting today.

Hopefully the discussion above would indicate why cross breeding of fighting dogs with other breeds yields more dangerous, less predicable dogs. It is complex, but not as random as you would think. My experience is through my trainer who specificlaly deals with agressive dogs, and through my own experience with an Akita that I had to put down. IF you train for trait b above, you will introduce that trait into a cross breed at some point, and there is no value in doing so. The reason that breeds with fighting histories have what lovers of those breeds cal a "much maligned" reputation is not that all dogs of that breed are dangerous, but that certainly it's fighting pedigree does introduce a higher level of risk that a dog of that breed might have some of the genetic trait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...