Free Michael Vick

[KendallJ]

Just a quick excerpt from the ASPCA article, hopefully illustrating the behavioral modificaitons that are required.

It is important to understand that not just any dog can be trained to fight. Much like herding dogs, trailing dogs and other breeds selected for particular roles, fighting dogs are born ready for the training that will prepare them to succeed in the pit. Staged fights are not the same as the flare-ups seen in dog runs or sometimes among dogs in the same home. Much like the fights among their wolf ancestors, most fights among dogs end quickly, with one individual submitting to the other. The winner typically accepts the submission signal of rolling over, and ends the encounter with no further violence. Subsequent encounters between these two individuals frequently involve no more than a highly stylized ballet of positions and expressions that reconfirm their relationship.

To breed successful fighting dogs, this aspect of their behavior had to be eliminated. Fighting dogs will continue to attack, regardless of the submission signals of an opponent. Similarly, these dogs will continue to fight even though badly injured. Gameness—a dog's willingness or desire to fight—is the most admired trait in fighting dogs. Great attention is paid to sires and dams who are game, and more importantly, are able to pass this quality on to their progeny. In fact, the owner of a grand champion—a dog who has won five contests—can sell the dog's pups for at least $1,500 a piece. The serious dog fighter is as familiar with the bloodlines of dogs as any thoroughbred aficionado is of Triple Crown contenders.

Edited August 30, 2007 by KendallJ

[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.

I didn't mean to jump around in my arguments. It is hard to keep track when a half dozen people keep bringing up different things though.

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.

I see what you're saying, and you're right. So if we were to start from scratch, I guess the issue here is why dog fighting would be bad for a person's rational self-interest.

Thoughts?

[AisA]

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.

Moebius, you have repeatedly misrepresented my statements into a straw man argument.

1) I certainly did not offer my disbelief of the Samurai claim as proof of its falsehood, as you have repeatedly claimed even after KendallJ pointed out your error. Here is what I actually said:

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".

In the first place, it doesn't say, "I don't believe it, therefore it is false."

In the second place, the emphasis on the word"human", which was in my original post, makes the reason for my disbelief clear: the claim rests on the unsubstantiated assertion that one can learn about human virtues from the actions of non-human animals.

In the third place, I am entitled to reject all unsubstantiated claims, which is what this claim was since all that was offered at the time was "the Samurai believe it". The rejection of an unsubstantiated claim is not the equivalent of declaring it impossible.

In the fourth place, the burden of substantiating this claim rests with you. In particular, you must explain how it is possible to learn about human virtues by observing non-human behavior. Human virtues, as moral acts, are possible only when the individual faces choices. In an involuntarty dog fight between two animals there are no choices, except fight or die. I await an explanation of how moral knowledge can be gained by observing such a "life boat" type situation.

2) Nor did I ever say, as you put it:

"AisA claims that it's not possible to be inspired by animals."

Here is what I actually said:

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.

Clearly, I did not claim that it was impossible to be inspired by animals. (Nor did I ever state, as you claimed in another post, that man cannot learn anything from animals.) I expressed a strong belief that dog fight fans -- those who pursue it as a recreation, who take pleasure in viewing the fighting and who seek to view fight after fight -- are not in it to be "inspired" or educated. I base that on the fact that I see nothing inspirational or educational about watching two beings bred for maximum viciousness and possessing a perceptual-level-only consciousness try to rip each other to pieces with their teeth and claws -- at least, I see nothing rationally inspiring or educational about it.

Now, as for your claims about Roy Jones:

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.

1) The link you provided does not work for me.

2) I never said, "well since I don't believe him, it can't be true". Here is what I actually said:

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.

I will elaborate on what I though was obvious enough not to require elaboration. In a dog fight, the dogs try to kill each other with their teeth and their claws. In a cock fight, the cocks try to kill each other with their beakes and their claws, in some cases with, as I understand it, razor blades taped to their claws to enhance the ripping action. In both cases, the beings engaged in the fighting are perceptual level beings whose behavior is at least partly determined by their breeding.

Since man does not fight primarily with his teeth, claws or beak, and since man is a being of volitional consciousness with no in-bred behavior, it seems obvious that one can learn far more about human fighting by studying human fighting and being instructed by humans with fighting expertise. I can see no reason why one would expect to learn something useful about fighting humans by studying how dogs fight dogs or cocks fight cocks.

Is it possible that Roy Jones learned one of his moves by watching cockfighting? Perhaps, but his self-serving claim does not convince me that his motivation for watching cock fighting is a desire to learn how to box. Here is a LINK to an ESPN page. About half way down on the right is a link to an August 22nd, 2007 interview with Roy Jones. In that interview, he expresses a desire to move to the Dominican Republic so that he can resume watching cockfights, which are legal there. I find it highly unlikely that his motivation is to improve his boxing, since, as I understand it, he is into rap now. Perhaps he expects to learn some rap lyrics or themes from cock fights.

In any event, even if you succeed in establishing that someone has learned something valuable by observing dog fights, and even if you establish that such learning was their motivation in attending, I stand by my original point: I see no reason for a rational man to value, as an end in itself, staged animal struggles in which the participants attempt to rip each other to pieces. To value such a thing -- again, to value it as an end in itself, merely for the pleasure it gives you to watch it -- means that you value the suffering or the struggling or the frenzied effort or the viciousness or the aggression or whatever qualities might be exhibited by non-rational beings forced to fight for their lives. I can imagine that a sadist might value such things. I cannot imagine how a man who holds reason, purpose and self-esteem as his ruling values can value such things.

The fact that viewing such events gives one pleasure does not justify it, not unless one accepts the morality of hedonism. If you find pleasure in dog fighting, you need introspection to learn why you experience pleasure in watching such a thing. Then you can decide if it is a rational value, i.e. one appropriate to the needs of a rational being.

[Moebius]

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.

I'm not ignoring the reality of the context. What I actually said was that enjoyment of dog fighting may or may not be ethical, because it is context dependent. That's why, in the case of Michael Vick, I said that it is pretty clear the man has psychological problems. He is an abnormality among fight dog breeders, and engages in many acts of unnecessary cruelty outside of the realm of general dog fighting practices. And that is why I bring up counter examples of why dog fight breeders and spectators may have positive values that they seek from the dog fights.

The point I am making is that to say that dog fighting is in and of itself unethical across the board is wrong, because it is highly contextual. Do not misconstrue this to mean that immoral ways to view or conduct dog fights do not exist.

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.

Yes, there is a correlation between animal cruelty and social dysfunction. I am not denying that. But as you said, a correlation does not imply causality. Now, the question becomes whether the existence of some patrons that are socially dysfunctional transfer the moral responsibility onto the dog fighter and the other spectators? The same issue here would equally apply to for instance, fire arms dealers, alcohol proprietors, or medicinal marijuana growers. Does the fact that some of your customer may abuse your product or have questionable character mean that you should not be selling these things at all?

As to Michael Vick. Frankly I don't see the irony. The reason I said that you needs counseling is because the alternative in reality is jail time. What I am saying is that because he clearly has a psychological problem, what he needs is a psychologist rather than a cell. And the reason why it is so apparent that he has issues mentally is because, as I said, he engages in cruelties that goes far beyond what a normal fight dog breeder do. He is an abnormality rather than the rule.

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.

You don't need to stop me from taking a position that I have never taken. My position from the start has always been that dog fighting MAY or MAY NOT be ethical, depending on the context. Yeah some people may be in it for the suffering and the pain, etc etc, but someone else might be in it for entirely different and positive reasons. You would be mis-representing my argument if you claim that I am saying that because someone somewhere had gained a positive value from animals fighting, that it exempts every other dog fighter from moral examinations. The martial arts example was ONLY as a counter example to why dog fighting is not unethical across the board, regardless of context.

[Marc K.]

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

Would you mind elaborating? I'm not sure to what you are referring. Here is what I said:

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.

Do you agree with this in its entirety?

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?

If you spent time and effort to acquire something, that is, if you value something, then destroying it without the purpose of pursuing a greater value, would be contradictory, irrational and highly immoral. (Of course "value" here means "rational value" since there is no other kind.)

Clearly this is not what Michael Vick was doing. He knowingly sacrificed his career and freedom for the sake of dog fighting.

[Moebius]

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.

But aren't security or military dog also trained and bred to ignore deescalating signals unless the dog trainer gave it specific instructions to stop? Why is it not possible to train a fighting dog that will attack regardless of deescalation signals except when the human breeder orders it to?

I mean, conceivably you can train a police K9 to attack dogs the same way that it attacks humans, all else being the same. I don't understand why if it is possible to train dogs that would ignore the switch except when a human commands it, that it is necessary to breed it out of the dog entirely.

[Moebius]

Would you mind elaborating? I'm not sure to what you are referring. Here is what I said:

Do you agree with this in its entirety?

Yeah actually I do agree. I'm sorry. For some reason I was thinking about how wrong it is that Vick is threatened with jail time for violating "animal rights", when there is no such thing.

If you spent time and effort to acquire something, that is, if you value something, then destroying it without the purpose of pursuing a greater value, would be contradictory, irrational and highly immoral. (Of course "value" here means "rational value" since there is no other kind.)

Clearly this is not what Michael Vick was doing. He knowingly sacrificed his career and freedom for the sake of dog fighting.

Yes I agree with this too that for Vick to destroy his career over dog fighting is highly immoral, not to mention stupid. I was thinking in terms of how, assuming legality was not an issue, if someone trained his dog specifically to fight for money, that it would not necessarily be a pointless destruction of his property, since he can potentially acquire greater values through his trade.

Again, I apologize for misunderstanding you.

[KendallJ]

But aren't security or military dog also trained and bred to ignore deescalating signals unless the dog trainer gave it specific instructions to stop? Why is it not possible to train a fighting dog that will attack regardless of deescalation signals except when the human breeder orders it to?

I mean, conceivably you can train a police K9 to attack dogs the same way that it attacks humans, all else being the same. I don't understand why if it is possible to train dogs that would ignore the switch except when a human commands it, that it is necessary to breed it out of the dog entirely.

One could conceivably think about a senario where one trains dogs to ignore unless commanded to do otherwise. The problem is that you'd have to claim that this was the way to train winning dogs. Otherwise the actual training methodologies will gravitate away from those methods.

I think a dog trained like a Schutzhund dog (i.e. military or guard dog) will not win dog fights against a dog trained and bred for its gameness. The reason is that the schutzhund dog is processing the action at a different conscious level requiring more conscious work, while the game dog is fully automatized. The schutzhund dog must discriminate and recognize gestures, and the process the fact that he is under direction to ignore them. The game dog does not even recognize the gesture, and simply reacts automaticaly. In fights to the death milliseconds in reaction time count.

I think this is why today game dog training regimins are used wholly and schutzhund dog regimens are not. To offer up the idea that one could train fighting dogs this way, ignores the basic fact that both regimins have existed for decades, and that empirically they don't use schutzhund methodolgy to train game dogs. I would be absolutely stunned if someone somewhere hasn't fought a German Shepard trained in Schutzhund against a pit bull, in fact that this has not been tried a lot. As the article above might indicate, game dog breeders are sophisticated in their own right. If schutzhund really gave you better fighting dogs, you can bet someone would be doing it.

The out come of the match is the breeding selector, and this outcome is the objective that will drive hte breeding objectives, less effective options being naturally eliminated. THis is another reason why the claim that dog fighting is potentiall immoral gains grounds. This sport will naturally drive training toward gameness, which is not rational in my mind. Or at least it's circular (i.e. only for its own sake)

Edited August 30, 2007 by KendallJ

[KendallJ]

For some reason I was thinking about how wrong it is that Vick is threatened with jail time for violating "animal rights", when there is no such thing.

Now that I wholly agree with.

[Moebius]

Moebius, you have repeatedly misrepresented my statements into a straw man argument.

1) I certainly did not offer my disbelief of the Samurai claim as proof of its falsehood, as you have repeatedly claimed even after KendallJ pointed out your error. Here is what I actually said:

In the first place, it doesn't say, "I don't believe it, therefore it is false."

Fair enough. I did in fact build your statement into a straw man. I apologize for this too and will not do so again.

In the second place, the emphasis on the word"human", which was in my original post, makes the reason for my disbelief clear: the claim rests on the unsubstantiated assertion that one can learn about human virtues from the actions of non-human animals.

In the third place, I am entitled to reject all unsubstantiated claims, which is what this claim was since all that was offered at the time was "the Samurai believe it". The rejection of an unsubstantiated claim is not the equivalent of declaring it impossible.

In the fourth place, the burden of substantiating this claim rests with you. In particular, you must explain how it is possible to learn about human virtues by observing non-human behavior. Human virtues, as moral acts, are possible only when the individual faces choices. In an involuntarty dog fight between two animals there are no choices, except fight or die. I await an explanation of how moral knowledge can be gained by observing such a "life boat" type situation.

You know, I keep thinking about this. And to be honest, the only way that I would be able to substantiate that the samurai learned courage and tenacity from dog fights would be to find a couple of samurai, make them watch dog fights, then somehow objectively and empyrically quantify bravery. So you're right, you can reject the claim if you wish.

However I do not think that it is unreasonable that a human can be inspired by observing non-human behavior. For instance, watching a lioness defend her cubs. Watching a wolf pack cooperate and strategically tackle a greater prey. Listening to a beautiful dolphin song. Watching Lassie save little Timmy from a well. So on and so forth. Inspiration does not require the animal to understand human virtues, only that their behavior reminds you of said virtue, causing you to pursue it. So yes, I cannot possibly prove that the samurai in fact learned courage, but I think it is reasonable to assume that they could.

As a side note, I think in a dog fight the dogs actually want to fight. It is only involuntary in so far as they are bred and trained that way. And they do not have to fight or die -- they can and do sometimes refuse to fight, tuck tail and run. Generally in such cases they lose the fight. In the one dog fight I actually witnessed, neither dog actually ended up dead. The winner was by decision and the loser was taken back to its cage.

Clearly, I did not claim that it was impossible to be inspired by animals. (Nor did I ever state, as you claimed in another post, that man cannot learn anything from animals.) I expressed a strong belief that dog fight fans -- those who pursue it as a recreation, who take pleasure in viewing the fighting and who seek to view fight after fight -- are not in it to be "inspired" or educated. I base that on the fact that I see nothing inspirational or educational about watching two beings bred for maximum viciousness and possessing a perceptual-level-only consciousness try to rip each other to pieces with their teeth and claws -- at least, I see nothing rationally inspiring or educational about it.

This is what I am kind of ambivalent about, and I talked about this in a previous post. So, yes, it's possible that these fans just likes to watch the dogs fight. Maybe they do just enjoy the violence. I don't think it's really a stretch to say that many men are simply drawn to violence. Why? I don't know. Is it bred into us? Or is it something we picked up along the way? Certainly for a long time the ability to cause violence when the need arises was essentially to human survival.

Now my question is, if a man is rationally capable of distinguishing right and wrong and act accordingly, is it wrong for him to enjoy violence? Especially if it is in a controlled environment or when it does not actually even involve humans? Does an average boxing fan or ultimate fighting fan watch it for the sportsmanship? I mean, many of them probably just wants to see two men that are highly skilled at violence beat the crap out of each other. Yet there is clearly a gap between men who enjoy violence and sadists with psychological problems (mainly based on the fact that the former knows the difference between when violence is necessary and when generally does not feel an urge to hurt people).

Is there nothing rational about enjoying violence? This is the question that I am kind of pondering right now, and I'd be interested to hear what you think.

[KendallJ]

I'm not ignoring the reality of the context. What I actually said was that enjoyment of dog fighting may or may not be ethical, because it is context dependent. That's why, in the case of Michael Vick, I said that it is pretty clear the man has psychological problems. He is an abnormality among fight dog breeders, and engages in many acts of unnecessary cruelty outside of the realm of general dog fighting practices. And that is why I bring up counter examples of why dog fight breeders and spectators may have positive values that they seek from the dog fights.

The point I am making is that to say that dog fighting is in and of itself unethical across the board is wrong, because it is highly contextual. Do not misconstrue this to mean that immoral ways to view or conduct dog fights do not exist.

Ok, I think we agree there about contextuality.

I'm unsure however if the stance of immorality requires causation. That is, whether dog fighting causes sociopathic behavior, or whether it attracts and exacerbates it may not matter as the immoratily of it. Certainly the argument is stronger if causation is a factor. But for instance, the moral stance of the proprietor is affected more by the fact that he can be assured of having social misfits in his establishment and what is his responsibilty in attracting them there if this correlation is known.

[Moebius]

One could conceivably think about a senario where one trains dogs to ignore unless commanded to do otherwise. The problem is that you'd have to claim that this was the way to train winning dogs. Otherwise the actual training methodologies will gravitate away from those methods.

I'm only wondering about this because I read on Wikipedia under dogfight:

Selection for performance, complemented by the breeding for suitable body forms, leads to the formation of breeds. The task of the fighting dog demanded specific basic anatomical traits and temperamental features. The anatomy of the fighting dog requires an imposing outward form to instill fear, with the foundation breed naturally large, low-slung, heavy, powerfully built, with a strongly developed head, powerful biting apparatus and a threatening voice. The goal is to breed a dog that will attack animals but is docile and affectionate toward humans. All breeds with a character suitable for protecting humans and fighting wild animals may be considered for dogfighting.

and

Unfortunately, through irresponsible breeding and a failure to distinguish between 'gameness' (a dog's unwillingness to back down, characteristic and standard in all terrier breeds) and aggression, many of these breeds have to be questioned before purchase.

Now I understand that Wikipedia isn't necessarily an authoritative source. But at least it seems to me that it is possible to breed dogs that are willing to fight other dogs, yet still remain docile with humans. And there might potentially be a difference between "gameness" (the unwillingness to back down) and all out aggression.

This also touches up on a couple of things you mentioned in the same post. Fighting dogs are anatomically different from military dogs, since they are asked to perform different tasks. So naturally a fighting dog would have a huge advantage over a military dog in a fight regardless of training.

Another thing is that a dog that is bred for gameness theoretically protects the owner against other wild animals, since they won't back down in the face of, say, a bear. On top of that the same anatomical traits that allows fight dogs to dominate other dogs will presumably also allow them to outperform other breeds when it comes to fighting wild animals. That I suppose is one rational reason why someone would want gameness as a trait for their dog.

[Moebius]

But for instance, the moral stance of the proprietor is affected more by the fact that he can be assured of having social misfits in his establishment and what is his responsibilty in attracting them there if this correlation is known.

I'm not sure what responsibilities, if any, the proprietor have for attracting social misfits in his establishment. I suppose it would be in his rational self-interest to weed out those types of customers if possible, if it is physically and financially feasible.

This kind of reminded me of a book I saw at an airport. I forgot the title since I only briefly flipped through it. It was written by a psychologist about how the high pressure environment of Wall Street naturally cause people with clinical psychopathic personalities towards it -- people that naturally lack empathy, morals, remorse, or guilt, generally with a superficial charm and above average intelligence, pathological liers, with an absence of delusions or other irrational thinking, and an absence of nervousness or other neurotic behaviors, so on and so forth.

[QKRTHNU]

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:

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.

Aspect b. is not quite correct. It is actually the propensity to not be the one to initiate descalation which is the desired trait.

If you read through the common rules that are used for pit fighting you will see that descalation behaviors end the fight. When those behaviors are exibited the dog that showed signs of wanting to stop is given the choice to stop or continue, if it does not wish to continue the fight is over and a winner declared.

Also, it’s very easy to verify that these intra-species communication skills have not been bred out of fighting dogs. For evidence see: http://www.cesarmillaninc.com/dpc/dpchistory.php

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.

You're correct, they are different breeding programs. The question is what are the end results of the differences?

As a side note (not necessarily a valid point for use in argument): I attend protection classes with my APBT and there is usually at least one GSD that will act aggressively towards people & other dogs unprovoked at some point during the session, And many of these are very expensive dogs from German breeding programs. There are quite a few APBTs that participate and I've never seen that type of behavior from any of them. Not that it couldn't happen, I've just never experienced it.

I definitely disagree with the idea that APBTs are not well suited for police/military protection work (or anything other than fighting).

Here is an example of why I disagree with this:

"Bandog Dread (Ch Bandog Dread, SchH3, IPO3, WH, WDS, CD, TD, U-CDX, S.D.-ducks/sheep) was an American Pit Bull Terrier, owned by Dianne Jessup, that obtained multiple titles in conformation, competition obedience, Schutzhund, weightpull and herding, the most titles obtained by any dog of any breed, ever." - The dog also had a Tracking title as well.

http://www.workingpitbull.com/New%20Site%202005/dread.htm

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.

Many APBTs are used for the sport of weight-pulling as they are by far the best pullers pound-for-pound.

http://doggpower.com/upf/results/pointstandings2.asp?wc=35

http://doggpower.com/upf/results/pointstandings2.asp?wc=45

http://doggpower.com/upf/results/pointstandings2.asp?wc=55

Dianne Jessup also runs an organization that trains and provides dogs (mostly APBTs) for detection work. While originally she worked mostly with rescues at first (a lot of which had been fighters) she is currently building her own breeding program using dogs from a well known line of game bred APBTs.

http://www.lawdogsusa.org/whypitbulls1.html

My dog is from the same breeder and I can personally attest to the fact that he is not "dangerous, plain and simple", but has an incredibly stable temperament. The idea that dogs bred to be fighters are inherently dangerous is pure urban myth.

From http://www.lawdogsusa.org/whypitbullspage2.html:"

Q: "But aren't pit bulls "inherently dangerous"?

A: If you think so, then consider the facts: In 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 according to the American Temperament Test Society breed statistics, the "pit bull" (American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire and Staffordshire bull) out performed the golden retriever, a breed noted for its gentle temperament. The truth? This is a breed that loves people. "

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.

Aggressive dogs are much more often than not acting out of fear, anyone breeding specifically for aggression in any dog is going to end up with a dog that isn't worth much from a working (including fighting) standpoint.

Edited August 30, 2007 by QKRTHNU

[Marc K.]

Yes I agree with this too that for Vick to destroy his career over dog fighting is highly immoral, not to mention stupid. I was thinking in terms of how, assuming legality was not an issue, if someone trained his dog specifically to fight for money, that it would not necessarily be a pointless destruction of his property, since he can potentially acquire greater values through his trade.

So this should solve the dilemma then. For even if legality isn't an issue acting immorally can still cause you to destroy your career. The NFL has a right not to associate themselves with immoral behavior.

Money is not always a value. It depends on how you got it. Trade involves trading value for value to mutual benefit. In general do you think that both sides benefit when gambling on dog fighting?

[AisA]

Is there nothing rational about enjoying violence? This is the question that I am kind of pondering right now, and I'd be interested to hear what you think.

I certainly think it is rational to enjoy displays of violence in proper self-defense. Roark's dynamiting of Cortland Homes -- a housing project for the poor!! -- was sweet to contemplate. Danneskjold's blasting of every mill that tried to make Reardan Metal, so as to terrorize the looters into leaving the Metal alone, was equally wonderful. And how about Francisco's destruction of D'Anconia Copper, followed by his message to the world displayed above New York City: "Brothers, you asked for it!"

However, the violence of terrorists flying passenger jets into office buildings is completely repulsive – and one can make a good case that anyone who experiences pleasure at such a sight is immoral.

But watching animal on animal violence? I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would enjoy that; it seems so utterly pointless and unrelated to man's existence. I don’t see how violence – just plain violence detached from any impact on man – can be a rational value.

[KendallJ]

Aspect b. is not quite correct. It is actually the propensity to not be the one to initiate descalation which is the desired trait.

If you read through the common rules that are used for pit fighting you will see that descalation behaviors end the fight. When those behaviors are exibited the dog that showed signs of wanting to stop is given the choice to stop or continue, if it does not wish to continue the fight is over and a winner declared.

Just a couple of tests of this revised criteria for b.

a. So you mean to say if my pit bull simply stands in the ring not "being the one to initiate descalation" that he wins?

b. who ends the fight? the dog? The dog responds by saying "oh, my opponent has deescalated, I'll stop now?"

c. only specific descalation behaviors, those chosen by the people who set the rules, the humans, end the fight. Or do you mean to say if an opponent licks his lips, which is a descalation behavior, that the other dog will stop of his own accord?

The fact that dogs still exhibit these behaivors doesn't in anyway minimize the fact that they are selected for their abilty to repress that desire in the face of an opponent, and to skip whole series of behaviors that normal dogs would use. Whether the process is complete or not is irrelevant. The dogs created by the process are more dangerous and less social. How can a dog who is trained to not initiate deescalation, effectively negotiate his way out of a fight, if he can't do the thing that will negotiate him out of the fight?

Second, this whole issue of breeds and generalizations by breed kills me. It is not an issue of every dog of x breed is good or every dog of x breed is bad. Within the breed's gene pool it is very much an issue of degrees and probabilities. However, the directed outcome of a successful fighting program (which is a smaller gene pool) will have such increased tendencies, and it is a causal result of the breeding program and its objectives. To suggest otherwise is really evading the facts.

I definitely disagree with the idea that APBTs are not well suited for police/military protection work (or anything other than fighting)..

Well, I never said this. I said that the objectives of a fighting breeding program are incompatible with schutzund work. I in no way am trying to specifically insult any breed of dog, as most breeds have historical tendencies but are rarely bred for only one purpose any more. So the issue of probabilities still applies in their genetic history, but there are lots of good dogs and bad ones in all breeds. The comments from Ceasar Milan (who I have mixed feelings about) are made in this vein. APBT's are fine dogs in general.

Aggressive dogs are much more often than not acting out of fear, anyone breeding specifically for aggression in any dog is going to end up with a dog that isn't worth much from a working (including fighting) standpoint.

I agree that some aggression is of this kind. Gameness is a different form of agression. To say that it is not agression however would be to deny its nature.

[Fort]

This is my first post here.

This is a really fascinating issue and it is what led me here. I was interested in what other Objectivists thought of dog fighting considering animals don't have rights but yet most of us are found of them.

My repulsion and belief that dog fighting is immoral stems from those who endorse it have a general lack of respect for life. They prove this by demonstrating that the instant gratification from gambling and entertainment is more important than life. I do not see how somewhat intelligent life could ever be of lesser value than gambling.

[QKRTHNU]

Just a couple of tests of this revised criteria for b.

a. So you mean to say if my pit bull simply stands in the ring not "being the one to initiate descalation" that he wins?

Obviously not, that is a bit of a silly question though. In this imaginary fight I would think that the fight would be cut short with the other dog winning.

b. who ends the fight? the dog? The dog responds by saying "oh, my opponent has deescalated, I'll stop now?"

The humans are obviously ultimately in control and are the ones interpreting the actions of the dogs.

c. only specific descalation behaviors, those chosen by the people who set the rules, the humans, end the fight. Or do you mean to say if an opponent licks his lips, which is a descalation behavior, that the other dog will stop of his own accord?

Yes the rules only deal with specific behaviors. Generalized rules don't work out too well in competitive events. I’m sure there are many problems in the rules, this is a bit of a straw-man argument, I was originally trying to counter the idea that the desired trait was a dog that wants to continue to attack another dog that did not want to continue to fight; when that is a trait which would not be necessary, and in fact would lead to an unstable dog.

The fact that dogs still exhibit these behaivors doesn't in anyway minimize the fact that they are selected for their abilty to repress that desire in the face of an opponent, and to skip whole series of behaviors that normal dogs would use. Whether the process is complete or not is irrelevant. The dogs created by the process are more dangerous and less social. How can a dog who is trained to not initiate deescalation, effectively negotiate his way out of a fight, if he can't do the thing that will negotiate him out of the fight?

I still don't agree that dogs bred for fighting are deficient in this regard. I'm not sure why you take that as fact. If that were the case then dogs bred for fighting couldn't possibly be kept in a pack environment. Keep in mind that these dogs are encouraged to fight and do so in a large part to please their owners.

These dogs if left to their own would be perfectly capable of negotiating their way out of a fight at some point or another, it just may take a bit longer than "normal dogs" for one to decide it wants to stop if both were strong willed. That isn’t much different from what would be expected if two alpha Wolves were to be placed in close quarters, one would eventually submit, but it would certainly be more explosive and longer in duration than an alpha omega meeting.

Second, this whole issue of breeds and generalizations by breed kills me. It is not an issue of every dog of x breed is good or every dog of x breed is bad. Within the breed's gene pool it is very much an issue of degrees and probabilities.

I agree with that completely.

However, the directed outcome of a successful fighting program (which is a smaller gene pool) will have such increased tendencies, and it is a causal result of the breeding program and its objectives. To suggest otherwise is really evading the facts.

I really think that the result is more accurately described as potential rather than tendencies (unless you believe that humans are born tabula rasa while dogs are not?). Drive & Gameness can be present without those qualities ever being encouraged to be used along with aggression towards other dogs or people. Otherwise it would be extremely difficult to socialize a game bred dog, which is not really the case. From my personal experience I've had a MUCH easier time socializing my game bred APBT than I did with either of my Siberian Huskies.

I said that the objectives of a fighting breeding program are incompatible with schutzund work.

How so? Where is the incompatibility?

I in no way am trying to specifically insult any breed of dog, as most breeds have historical tendencies but are rarely bred for only one purpose any more.

This is why so many dogs today are worthless from a working standpoint.

So the issue of probabilities still applies in their genetic history, but there are lots of good dogs and bad ones in all breeds.

I agree.

Gameness is a different form of agression. To say that it is not agression however would be to deny its nature.

I would say that Gameness is separate from aggression. All dogs have the capacity for displaying and acting with aggression, but not all would be considered game. Also Gameness can be displayed in non-aggressive activities to some extent (you mentioned sled pulling as one). Fighting (which obviously is aggressive) is considered by many to be the ultimate test for Gameness as it’s about as stressful and strenuous (mentally & physically) a test there is.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_(dog) for a fairly good definition of the quality.

[KendallJ]

Is there nothing rational about enjoying violence? This is the question that I am kind of pondering right now, and I'd be interested to hear what you think.

This is the fundamental question, isn't it?

My first thought is that there might be aspects of dog fighting that one could value. However, what I'm struggling with is whether or not the violence or brutality is a neutral or a negative, ethically speaking. That is, if it is negative morally, then to enjoy any other aspect of dog fighting one has to evade or overcome that aspect to enjoy something else. If neutral then less problematic.

Some observations on other issue that might help. These are personal reflections only though.

1. I have no problem with boxing or full contact martial arts. I especially enjoy Muay Thai and have seen some bloody bouts in Bankok and loved them. Differences however are that boxers voluntarily enter into the sport, and that one can view the fight as a culmination of a man's effort to acheive a long term goal, that is, one can admire the fight as a reflection of man's rationality.

2. I have no problem with slaughtering animals for food. However, I think it shoudl be a humane act and not unnecessarily violent.

3. When I watch dogs compete in say agility or conformation, I get some fo the same feelings as in #1 re long term goal acheivement; however, not toward the animal but toward it's trainer or handler. That is I don't anthropomorphize the admiration for human traits onto the animal as such. I can be impressed with the athleticism or intelligence of the dog, but admiration is really only reserved for the human being's role in the animals development. IN all of these sports however, one can see that properly trained dogs are having fun. Even the so called working breeds, for them, working is not working per se, but really purposeful fun.

I guess the crux of the issue for me is that of an animial involuntarily trained for viciousness and brutality, and in the process made anti-social. Even if 1-3 are possible I'm not sure that this crux is morally neutral and so can't use the others to "outweigh" this issue.

[RationalBiker]

I guess the crux of the issue for me is that of an animial involuntarily trained for viciousness and brutality, and in the process made anti-social. Even if 1-3 are possible I'm not sure that this crux is morally neutral and so can't use the others to "outweigh" this issue.

Just to throw this out there; when can an animal voluntarily engage in anything? 'Voluntarily' implies decision-making and choice. For instance, is the training voluntary when a show poodle is being taught to jump through hoops?

[KendallJ]

Just to throw this out there; when can an animal voluntarily engage in anything? 'Voluntarily' implies decision-making and choice. For instance, is the training voluntary when a show poodle is being taught to jump through hoops?

Good point. Maybe poor choice of words.

[Moebius]

I guess the crux of the issue for me is that of an animial involuntarily trained for viciousness and brutality, and in the process made anti-social. Even if 1-3 are possible I'm not sure that this crux is morally neutral and so can't use the others to "outweigh" this issue.

This is the part that I sort of have a problem. It really seem like a dog that is bred and trained to fight actually likes to fight. Their training really isn't any more involuntary than training a dog to sniff out drugs, jump over hurdles, herd sheep, or any other ways you can conceivably train an animal.

(and I just saw that rational rider has already made this point...)

1. I have no problem with boxing or full contact martial arts. I especially enjoy Muay Thai and have seen some bloody bouts in Bankok and loved them. Differences however are that boxers voluntarily enter into the sport, and that one can view the fight as a culmination of a man's effort to acheive a long term goal, that is, one can admire the fight as a reflection of man's rationality.

I guess the question is do you think people in general go to see Muay Thai to celebrate man's rationality?

[QKRTHNU]

Just to throw this out there; when can an animal voluntarily engage in anything? 'Voluntarily' implies decision-making and choice. For instance, is the training voluntary when a show poodle is being taught to jump through hoops?

I think choice is involved when talking about the animal. Talk to any animal trainer, animals are certainly capable of refusing to perform a task in which they have the knowledge and capacity to perform.

Rewards are a key component in animal training. If the animal is not interested in the reward (they don't value it) then it is likely that they will refuse to work (note that in many cases praise/approval from the trainer is viewed as a reward).

From my personal experience I can attest to the fact that there are certain tricks that my dog will perform with a much more willing attitude than others. He doesn't like to "roll over" and often times will attempt to perform some other trick that he enjoys (or is less physical work) thinking that he will still be rewarded. Eventually he will roll over, but he emits verbalizations that clearly express his begrudging compliance; this is especially the case when there is no potential reward visible. Occasionally he will perform the same trick without reservation if he happens to be really interested in the reward. Even then after several repetitions of the same command he will again verbalize his frustration and resentment for my continued demands.

[RationalBiker]

I think choice is involved when talking about the animal. Talk to any animal trainer, animals are certainly capable of refusing to perform a task in which they have the knowledge and capacity to perform.

I'm familiar with the actions / reactions of an animal as you describe, but I'm not sure that that actually means they have volition and are making "choices".

Edited August 31, 2007 by RationalBiker