Dog fighting (See initial argument)

Sorry for the delayed response; I worked a 36 hour shift this weekend. Gotta love contract work. "My view is that there are objectively sound moral values. I think we can all agree on at least two fronts as to what is moral: we should value life, and we should value the quality of that life." --I do agree, however, this is still a personal evaluation. Some people have varying definitions on what constitutes life, while yet others consider certain races or other species to be of lesser value. We can only evaluate the morality of any given issue as it pertains to what is socially acceptable. In some countries, women are still betrothed by their parents under a dowry system. American women would find this highly oppressive, though research has shown that arranged marriages have significantly lower divorce rates. A majority might agree on one issue or another, but it is still a judgement and not an absolute, and subject to change with time. "The relative value of life that some people attributed to slaves in the past doesn't change the moral importance of that life in any time frame based off of these two principles. They chose to ignore the importance of life and its quality, but that doesn't make it less objective." --Very true. But there is a difference between the gladiator arena and a boxing ring. One is considered immoral (now), the other is highly regulated in the interest of minimizing negative effects such as injuries and death. From the standpoint of wanting to protect the lives of these dogs, they would be more protected if they were housed, sheltered, trained, and monitored by professionals. Furthermore, from an evolutionary perspective, morality is completely relative. Animals kill each other all the time in nature, we call it "survival of the fittest". Some people think it is immoral to eat meat, while others think it is immoral to cut down trees-- these are entirely rooted in social factors not absolute morality. "Sports aimed at injury that lack appropriate protective measures for those involved should also be banned, since they are also blood sport. Hence, boxing is a blood sport. Football is not." --I am glad that you recognize the correlation between certain professional sports and animal fighting-- a major point I was trying to make. It isn't so much about the hypocrisy as it is setting a bar. If we are evaluating the morality of a particular activity (and somewhat agree that morality is relative), then our only criteria for evaluation is the examination of similar activities which have already been regulated. However, since you stated that you are actually against those similar activities, I understand that you are not being hypocritical in maintaining that dog-fighting is immoral. However, the general majority of consumers in America either find these sports enjoyable or are indifferent towards them. As social perceptions on morality are generally rooted in popular and mass culture, it is impossible to debate morality without using such a comparison. Many people argue for weed legalization because alcohol and cigarettes are much worse. Are they all bad for you? Yes, but prohibition has never helped. It made the black market for bootlegging, drugs, and prostitution much more violent, and the same is true of dogfighting. This is a bit of a tangent, but while football is not a "blood sport", it is actually much harsher on the body than boxing, and injuries are much more diverse and unpredictable. "One, stray or feral is still better than in a ring fighting with other dogs without consent. At least in these situations, the dogs in question have a measure of autonomy to their lives." --Yes, in a perfect world we would all be nomads and live off the land. In todays world, it means the feral dog is likely to get picked up and put in doggy jail, eventually to be euthanized. Feral dogs also carry diseases such as rabies, they endanger children, damage properties, and kill domesticated animals or livestock. "Being thrown into a ring to fight other dogs is no such thing. Two, putting a dog down is still better than being thrown into a ring. At least in these cases, they don't suffer through grievous injuries and multiple fights" --I think you may have have only the worse images of dogfighting in your head (the ones that are commonly shown in media). Yes, there are injuries, and sometimes death (which again, would be reduced by regulation). However, to say they are being forced into grievous combat an evaluation of perception. Some people hate to fight, and some people love it. My dogs play fight all the time, and often they bite each other's necks and roll around on the ground like that...doesn't bother them at all. And as I stated earlier, many of these animals if they were to meet as ferals would fight to the death out of instinct. "I would argue that this continuous loss of quality of life, with almost certain early death included, is worse." -- Worse than being adopted into a loving home? Debatable, but I agree. Unfortunately, adoption rates don't even cover the animals in our nation's shelters let alone the ferals. If I had to choose between jail (and likely euthanization) or mixed martial arts, I would have to go with MMA. "Three, I can be against all of these things at once. I can be against the system that utilizes puppy mills to make purebred dogs for sale, which is a large part of the reason why so many people don't adopt. I can be against euthanizing so many dogs and advocate for more money to the Humane Society and other related organizations. I can also be against the way people treat feral dogs, which leads them to being aggressive." --Yes you can, but this is an extension of your personal argument and doesn't change the facts. We have too many strays and ferals as it is, many of them get put down, and some of them are very dangerous or destructive. As an individual, you can probably make an excellent argument against all 3 of these. But again, in evaluating the general "morality" of an activity, we must do so in relation to reality not the ideal. "Realize that Pro is arguing that it's fine to breed and train dogs for violent behaviors, but leaving some of them to acquire those natures in the wild is harmful. The only situation in which a dog is certain to become violent and aggressive is when they're trained to do so." We breed animals all the time for industrial use or sheer entertainment (sea-world, ringing brothers). There is nothing we can do about the feral population; I was simply pointing out that dogs like many other animals are territorial and often aggressive towards each other or humans they don't know. Also, a dog that is trained to fight is going to stand a much better chance than a dog not trained to fight. If you manage a boxer you make sure they train. If you own a pitt for fighting, you make sure they train. I also think you confuse dog fighters with (for lack of a better term) low-intelligence pit-owners who train their dogs to be aggressive to EVERYONE for the purpose of "home defense". These dogs have accounted for the majority of pit-bull associated deaths, not fighting-dogs. "I've already stated on the first point that legalized blood sport isn't moral. Blood sport is blood sport...and it should be spurned." --The first sentence is absolutely correct; legality does not often coincide with what society considers right. But it isn't just about the legality, but also the fact that there are massive fan bases for these "blood-sports" and violent sports. Again, it isn't about the hypocrisy, its about using a standard comparison The second statement is an opinion. As an amateur MMA participant, I can tell you that there is a lot of blood sweat and tears, hard work, determination, self-sacrifice, and motivation that goes into professional athleticism. Contrast this with WWE, which while entirely choreographed to be less dangerous, is completely crude and watched by millions of adults. I would rather my son watch a dog-fight than that crap. "There are two main problems with the transition from illegal to legal. The first major problem is that it invites more people into dog fighting?...Beyond that... society as a whole needs to take a stand against blood sport like this." --The first point is often used in arguments against drug legalization, and suffers a fatal flaw. You assume that the number of people participating in the activity would go up if it were syndicated, but the truth is it would be the same amount of people doing it openly, and within the confines of a much safer structure. The natural human reaction to prohibition is subterfuge, not abstinence. Laws can't prevent behaviors; they can only punish them or regulate them. I think we need to solve the issue of absolute versus relative morality, as well as standards for evaluating what is moral. My fault for not stating this at the beginning. We can discuss this in the comments to save space if you like.