Animal cruelty is a daily occurrence that is being fought against more and more. Non profit organizations, like the ASPCA, are at the fore front of the fight for animal rights. But it's not just one type of cruelty that they fight their daily battle with, it is many. Abandonment, beating, neglect and the list goes on. There is one kind of animal cruelty that has been particularly difficult to battle against, the underground world of dog fighting. There is an entire community built around keeping dog fighting hidden from the world, and trying to infiltrate this world is not an easily accomplished task. ASPCA agents will go undercover for months in order to get the information needed to bring down a dog fighting ring.
Many human beings feel that dog fighting is wrong, but not all can say exactly why they feel that way. At this point, one can turn to some of the theories in ethics to help clarify why dog fighting is wrong. Specifically, I will be using the ethical theory of utilitarianism and also the ethics involved in Buddhism. Dog fighting will be viewed through these ethical theories in order to obtain a better understanding of the ethical implications involved with dog fighting.
I think alot of people involved in this dont truly believe that it is wrong. I have a good friend that was from South Carolina. After Michael Vick got caught being involved with this it was a hot topic, and we were discussing it. While he said he never participated, with the culture he grew up in it was accepted. Its odd that so many people can see the people involved in this as the low of the low, while others dont even acknowledge that its wrong.
ReplyDeleteFor the record...I think Vick has gone a long way to try and make amends for what he did.
ReplyDeleteDog fighting is a worldwide problem that causes the death and harm to thousands of animals each year. It is horrible to think that a human can subject an animal to this kind of cruelity. The Michael Vick case brought in a wide range animal rights supporters and brought more national attention to dog fighting. Today, dog fighting is considered one of the worst forms of animal cruelty if you ask any random person off the street. its a major problem and has huge moral implications
ReplyDeleteIs it just dog fighting that you are going to analyze? Or will you be analyzing the other forms of animal cruelty? Do you have a strong understanding of these ethical theories? enough to use them to analyze dog fighting?
ReplyDeletegood topic, people need to see what they are doing to these animals.People that are reading your paper are going to either like it or dislike it because of the fact that some people agree and some disagree.Your going to do lots of research on this, getting reasons why people are holding dog fights. This is very sad it's not like an animal can just get up and walk away or tell you they don't want to do this.There needs to be something done.
ReplyDelete@StangDriver: Yes, no, yes and yes. In that order to your questions.
ReplyDelete@ Victoria: i know there are going to be those that disagree with what I say. But that's true with almost everything. Just got to take it in stride.
ReplyDelete@Davies: yes, but is that Vick feeling bad for what he did, or his agents trying to fix his image?
ReplyDelete1. Are you going to be discussing why dog fighting is wrong? Or basically setting up some capacity of measurement to see if it is right or wrong in the end?
ReplyDelete2. I'm not sure how utilitarianism ties into this at all. Seeing as utilitarianism mainly deals with society, and links to a social contract. "The greatest good for the greatest number." How's that relate?
3. Utilitarianism is also closely linked to consequentialism, so are you arguing that a person active in a dog fighting circle is happy so it's a moral action?
4. I'm a bit confused overall about what your specific question is and how you're going to use a vague ethical principle and a religion as basis for your arguments.
1. Sort of a combination of those two. Using the second to look more closely at the first. Basically, I am looking at dog fighting through the lens of two different ethical theories.
ReplyDelete2. That is the reason I am writing on this so I can show how it is able to link into the topic of dog fighting. Also, John Stuart Mill (big person in utilitarianism) believed highly that the happiness of all creatures should be taken into account. Utilitarianism also deals with the idea that pleasure is valuable and that pain is something that is undesirable.
3. That is part of what I am looking at and comparing the quality of their life with the amount of happiness received.
4. I am not using them as my basis but merely as tools through which I can analyze and think through why or why not dog fighting is wrong. Also, Buddhism is not just a religion. It has a very interesting ethical aspect and the theory that it expresses is what is going to be used. Buddhism, in this case, is being used as an ethical theory, not as a religion.
TragedyHoax has a point, it seems the ethical theories have been arbitrarily chosen and I can see one or both of them occupying a strawperson position. On the other hand, utilitarianism could offer a way to think through any ethical act and it is important to note that while greatest good for greatest number is one its ethical principles, it is not the only ethical principle--there is more to Bentham's moral calculus than that. Still the question could be fine-tuned--to focus on Vick is something that should take up your intro and not become a fixture of your paper--you will run the risk of exploring one relation at the expense of many others.
ReplyDeleteI am not even going to talk about Vick in my paper. At all. He has enough publicity as it is and I don't feel like using him in my paper. Almost everyone knows about Vick and it is obviously the first thing on everyone's mind when they hear about the topic of dog fighting. I feel it would be too stereotypical and boring to use Vick as an example as it has been done before multiple times.
ReplyDeleteOn a second note, how is my choice in ethical theories arbitrary? I did not just throw darts at a wall and randomly choose. I actually thought about the various ethical theories and what conclusions they would come to. I then choose which ones I felt provided the most interesting ideas and which ones the ideas could be expanded upon.
Also, I agree that there is much more to Utilitarianism as you have stated. It's not as vague as some believe it to be.
Sorry if my responses seem a bit snarky today. I just have a lot on my plate right now.