args

Bullfighting is a form of art which ought to perdure

You argue its an art. I agree, skills can be described as art, art has a very loose definition. I argue that it ought not to perjure, as its essentially the same as the Roman Amphitheatre. One is forced to suffer, in order to give pleasure to others more powerful. This isn't about the human impact, its about the bull. I ask you, would you play the part of the bull, if you could? If not, then doesn't that mean you agree with me: that's its wrong? I think you can sound as smart as you like, and waffle on about art and symbolic meanings to the sport. But at the end of the day, you just are not wise enough to appreciate the feelings of the bull. If it was a human you wouldn't agree, so why do you agree with a bull? You must believe that he suffers less, well he doesn't. So you are either ignorant to this fact, or you don't care about it. Which one is it? Can you tell me if you fit into any of these categories: 1st. You know the bull suffers, you don't care enough. 2nd. You don't think he suffers. 3rd. You know its wrong, and would be rid of it in a perfect world, but believe the benefit too society is so great it should perjure. Your argument is that it 'ought to perjure'. 'Ought' just means 'should'. You didnt say for whome it should. So maybe for the humans it 'should' continue, on the grounds that it offers some benifit. (I would argue that it doesn't benifit humans, but this argument is deep and difficult to grasp, so I will say no more at present). But for the cows, it should not continue, if they are to benifit. You did not say who it ought to perjure for, and so on them grounds your statement is false. My arguments are as follows. 1 - 'Ought' means 'should'. What we 'should' do is subjective, but that's the word used in the argument. I think if we are to search for a universal and all-encompassing understanding, of what 'ought' to be done, it would be the most morally justified act. Morality is about not causing harm and acting with compassion, rather than selfish gain. To make a bull suffer the name of 'sport', art or business, is not morall by any standards. So if its not the most morally correct path, then by most standards, we 'ought' not to ensure its continuation. 2 - You say 'ought to perjure', but you don't state for whom it 'ought' to perdure. So I argue that for the cow, it 'ought' not to perjure, for no one should prolong their suffering. So your statement isn't universally true. 3 - I argue that it ought not to perjure because it doesn't have a very positive impact on society. The event and sport might have a positive impact like football, but the fact that its a bull fighting with a man, is not essential for this impact to happen. It's the event, not the sport, that brings about a positive social impact. For bullfighting doesn't happen in other countries and all is just fine. But bullfighting, I think, gives a less than ideal message to society. For it dismisses the rights of those who may be considered 'less' than ourselves, it glorifies violence, it endorses unfair fighting (on the bulls behalf), and least of all it doesn't exactly educate or help us become more enlightened. Indeed, those things it does endorse, actually diminish enlightenment and intellectuality. 4 - Give the bulls a break. It's not nice. Stop it. That's what you would say to a child if they started tormenting an animal. It's just an immaturity, a tradition that has been passed down from an age of 'immaturity' and barbarism. It ought not to perjure in an enlightened age. Rebuttals. --First 'hinge' argument: "its an ethical form of expression" Since when is captivation, forced fighting and killing ethical? It's not 'ethical' whatever you say. 'Justified' maybe, but not 'ethical', unless we are living in topsy turvy land. --Your second 'hinge' argument: "it's not a bloodsport, it's a form of art transmitting value" No it is both. (Bloodsport-'sport in which blood is shed'). Bulls shed blood, it's a bloodsport. It might be art too, but that's not important compared to suffering. I'm sure there is an art to murder and there is certainly an art to torture. The 'art' argument has no place in ethics, for no amount of pleasure can match even the smallest amount of suffering. --You argue that because its been force bred its ethical. I don't understand why this makes any difference. --You argue we have stewardship. No we don't. We are just another animal, nature has got on fine for billions of years before we started to dominate. And even now, if we are a steward, we are a pretty lousy one. We should be ignored. Indeed, who gave you this right of stewardship? --You say it highlights a relationship between man and nature that is one of dominance. This is a bad approach to teach people about our relationship with nature. We should teach people to be humbled by nature and recognise its power over us and its majesty. Not our domination over it! That's what gets us into all this environmental damage we are in! --Teach us to face death? Maybe it does. But we can be taught in other, less exploiting ways. Other cultures do just fine without it. --You say it teaches us about civilisation over barbarism. I cannot thi"k of a better way to express your civil nature than by stabbing a bull to death in front of a jeering crowd. Seriously? --I am not going to argue with you about it being an art, for I believe this to be true. It's just irrelevant. Yes, we ignore the cultural dimension because its less important than suffering. But we acknowledge it, just we feel its not important compared to the conditions of the bulls. If we stick to our cultures of the last 2000 years, we will be in a right mess. It's time to move on, you DON'T need bullfighting to legitimise your identity, it's just a "sport". (I say 'sport' in inverted comers, because its not technically a sport. Sport is a game between two or more CONSENTING parties) Thank you, I look forward to your response. Thank you