Legalize dog fighting.

I'm short on time at the moment - I am typing this at 9:40 P.M. in the night, and I still have homework left, so I apologize in advance if my arguments are poor. Governments pass laws when there is a government interest to do so. A government interest is formed when the end upholds the values of the society the government functions upon. The reason governments exist is to help civilization function as a whole, and to uphold social order. Social order is only upheld when what a society values is upheld. But since there is a lack of cultural homogeneity in multiple nations, they have to legislate as per universal values: maximizing positive mental states, and minimizing negative mental states. In nations with cultural homogeneity, it depends on the context, and I will argue that the context of certain nations does not permit dog fighting. I will first argue that in nations that lack cultural homogeneity, dog fighting undermines universal values, and should thus not be permitted. Pro agrees that dog fighting causes wanton suffering for dogs. It's a particularly brutal sport. It's easily among the most serious forms of animal abuse. It is a blood sport, and often results in serious injury and death to the dogs. Hanna Gibson explains, "After the fight, both dogs are critically wounded, often with massive bleeding, ruptured lungs, broken bones, and other life threatening injuries. Generally, the loser of a match dies or is killed, unless he has any salvage value to his owner. When dogs are killed after a match, it is not done by humane euthanasia methods, rather the animals are shot, beaten, or tortured." [1] Animals ought to gain ethical consideration for two reasons. First, needless abuse is unjust, because it goes against the purpose of justice. Christine Korsgaard explains, "When you pity a suffering animal, it is because you are perceiving a reason. An animal's cries express pain, and they mean that there is a reason, a reason to change its conditions. And you can no more hear the cries of an animal as mere noise than you can the words of a person. Another animal can obligate you in exactly the same way another person can . . . [s]o we have obligations to animals." [2] Essentially, if there is a reason to change the conditions of A and no reason not to, then not changing the conditions of A is unjust. The very reason human rights exist is for that. There are reasons to change conditions of suffering humans, regardless of rationality. Similarly, if there are reasons to change conditions of animals, and no reasons to not do so (i.e. the suffering being inflicted is needless), then there is a moral obligation to change the conditions of animals. As such, animals are due the right to not suffer without purpose. Pain is intrinsically undesirable. Animals have stress and trauma on experiencing pain, just like humans do, because pain is defined as an undesirable feeling. They - like humans - seek to avoid pain, and have an interest to do so. So, as Korsgaard says, there is a reason to change the conditions of animals - in this case, dogs. There's no reason not to outside of the satisfaction of very few people. Second, there are very few morally relevant differences between humans and animals. The only sound way to differentiate between humans and non-human animals morally is based on rationality. But there's no logical reason to believe that rationality is a criterion for rights. Currently, even those that are severely mentally enfeebled sufficient to be non-rational are granted some basic rights such as the right to life and right against torture. Similarly, animals " which are of similar mental states " should be granted such basic rights. Outside of rationality, humans and animals are essentially the same psychologically, since they are able to experience pain and pleasure - both of which are important in intuitive moral calculations. Pleasure is inherently valuable in itself, since humans and animals both seek to maximize this pleasure. The same way, suffering is inherently undesirable, and both humans and animals seek to avoid it. As explained above, granting a right against needless suffering is required by justice because there is a reason to bring change to conditions of suffering and no reason not to. Since humans and animals are psychologically the same outside of rationality (and rationality isn't a sound basis for recognizing morality, because there's no reason to do so, and even animals have such subtle, unique psychological differences, e.g. stronger senses), they should all be considered individuals worthy of moral consideration. Justice is, by definition, treatment without needless discrimination. Since any such discrimination is arbitrary and there are no morally relevant differences between humans and animals, it is unjust to deny animals basic rights. Pro raises concerns about factory farming. There are two responses I have. First, factory farming is out of the scope of the resolution. Merely because factory farming is allowed doesn't mean it "should" be allowed, and that is a debate for another day. Second, factory farming has more moral than dog fighting, on balance, because the outcomes of factory farming are significantly more positive than mere satisfaction of a few individuals - if factory farming were to be banned, it's possible that the rise in meat prices would cause significantly larger levels of food insecurity, which pales in comparison to any impact from banning dog fighting. -- Pro is wrong that there's no difference between dogs and other animals from the context of society. The difference is that people *value* dogs more - even if they incorrectly do so. Dogs have a special place in the society of places like the United States, and have been elevated into a status of "man's best friend." Regardless of the accuracy, people place more value on dogs than other animals, and feel emotionally incensed at cruelty toward dogs more than other animals. As such, we must analyze this issue based on the context of various different societies instead of declaring moral obligation immediately. Our legal, and social, status quo is speciesist whether we like it or not. Sources: 1. https://www.animallaw.info... 2. Christine Korsgaard, "The Sources of Normativity," p. 153