by Lucius Trae

Created on: April 01, 2010

The practice of dog fighting is brutal and inhumane. The dogs are mistreated to train them for fighting, and the fighting itself is obviously brutal. The dogs often die as a result. Furthermore, it serves as an arena for violent individuals to meet together, socialize, and increase their adrenaline. It's a detriment to the humanity of an individual for them to be watching a sport that involves non-consenting animals being encouraged to brutalize one another.

The "two wrongs make a right fallacy" is commonplace in modern society. A child is punished for eating too many cookies and complains that "somebody else did it too so I shouldn't be punished."

The fact that other unacceptable behaviors occur is hardly a justification for doing nothing to stop dog fighting. The solution is to punish all the offenders. If we can't convict everyone who is guilty, we can't let all the criminals go now, can we?

Furthermore, issues involving humans fighting are slightly different. There are arguments on both sides of issues like war, ultimate fighting and boxing. It's a bit off-topic so I won't address my opinions on those issues.

However, the difference between humans and dogs is consent. We criticize child soldiers because for reasons such as their inability to comprehend the situation, their lack of capacity to perform the tasks, etc.

Dogs, similarly, lack the ability to consent. Obviously, the dogs we see today aren't naturally wild, but they certainly aren't intrinsically prone to killing one another. Pit Bulls are a bit more aggressive than other dogs, but they wouldn't sign up for dog fights if they understood what was occurring.

And by the way, the more dangerous human combat becomes the fewer volunteers you get. Soldiers and fighters take risks, but they are certainly well protected by rules, armor, and other circumstances.

When people think of animal rights, they think of PETA. There are hundreds of different animal rights groups, and there are groups far more radical than PETA. Animal rights activists are usually non-violent, but this is not true of all of them. When legal means of stopping harm to animals exist, these groups try to use them.

If the government actually decriminalized dog fighting, there will be social conflicts that will waste the resources of the police department. And quite frankly, I think people who don't consider themselves animal-rights activists would end up in legal trouble.

Ordinary citizens shouldn't have to incur legal repercussions because the government fails to criminalize immoral activities. Dog fighting is absolutely unacceptable. Even if someone believes, "it's a cultural difference," that doesn't excuse it. We're in "this" culture.

When people hear about the practice, it "deeply bothers them." If we went to another country and disrespected their customs, we would be criticized. Why are we being told to disrespect our own customs?

To summarize, I've presented a variety of arguments to try and convince both sides of the fence. If I'm fortunate enough to convince one person dog fighting is unacceptable, I'll be quite happy.

Personally, I think it's unethical because of what it does to the dogs rather than as a result of a cultural context. But given people have different perspectives, I think it's important to remember that dog fighting is undesirable from multiple points of view.

Learn more about this author, Lucius Trae.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.