args

Bullfighting is a form of art which ought to perdure

After a rather long-winded and morally indignant introduction my opponent condensed his position into what he generously describes as four arguments. Let us address these in full. before I go on to defend my own arguments. 1. "Ought to" means "should" Morality is about not causing harm and acting with compassion (...) to make a bull suffer in the name of sport, art or business is not moral by any standards. Ought does indeed imply moral preference, that is what I am arguing for. Well done. Now, what pro has done is to completely ignore the gauntlet I had thrown when I spoke of the difference between different animals, and how one cannot simply assume that what is moral behavior towards a human is moral behavior towards a bull any more than towards a turnip. This does not mean that there is no immoral behavior towards bulls, I can even think of behavior towards turnips that I would frown upon, but it does mean that Con must do more than simply assume his simplistic view without defending it. Bulls are not self-aware, by which I mean they have no concept of being alive, much less of death. The particular bull used in tauromachy, the toro de lidia about which we will speak more later on, does not have the same sensibilities or horror of pain and death that my opponent has and simply ascribes to them. If, instead of emotional appeals, we go to scientific literature on the fighting bull, we see this is not so great an objection as is made out. Dr. Juan Carlos Illera del Portal, veterinarian and professor at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid studied the effect of Bullfighting on over 300 different bulls.(1) His study showed that the animal suffered more from the stress of being confined in a truck and taken from the Dehesa to the plaza than during the fight. The threshold for pain in this species of bull is particularly high because it was bread specifically for its aggressiveness and pugnacity. It releases a greater amount of during fights and has, what Dr. Illera del Portal describes as "peculiar mechanisms for the regulation of stress and pain" when it is fighting (be it in the Dehesa defending its territory from another bull or in the plaza against the torero) which leads it to become more entrenched in the fight rather than suffer from the damage inflicted. Treating this animal ethically implies, not treating it as if it were a puppy or my opponent's second-aunt, but treating as what it is, a strong and noble beast whose impulses gear it towards fighting. 2. For whom ought it to "perjure?" It ought not to perdure for the cow, for no one should prolong their suffering. I don't recommend perjury to anyone, as it is often a crime and always a grave sin, and I would be loathe to have the destiny of their mortal souls endangered due to my advice. As to the suffering, it has already been addressed, except to stress that were tauromachy to end, the bos taurus ibericus would become extinct within a generation. For that species to perdure, bullfighting must do so as well. 3. Negative impact on society. Bullfighting gives a less than ideal message to society, for it dismisses the rights of those who may be considered "less" than ourselves, glorifies violence, endorses unfair fighting and is unenlightened. Here we get into the crux of our disagreement. Let us take his three contentions which lead him to calling bullfighting unenlightened individually. According to Con, bullfighting dismisses the rights of those who are considered "less". I disagree. It cannot dismiss nonexistent rights. To treat each being according to their traits and abilities is not problematic. What is problematic is the claim that the rights of a self-aware being with the capacity for abstract reason necessary to create art, culture, science as well as to even consider this ethical problem has the same rights and ought to be treated the same as the planarian flatworm. Con also believes bullfighting glorifies violence. One need only speak to those who attend bullfights or read the literature produced by the great minds who have been enthralled by it (Picasso's paintings, Lorca's poetry or García Marquez's literature are enough to show how foolish it is to say bullfighting can "diminish enlightenment and intellectuality") to see that what attracts people is not violence, but the aesthetics, the valor and the principles conveyed by tauromachy. 4. Argumentum ad idontlikeitum. It's not nice. Stop it. It is a tradition that has been passed down from an age of 'immaturity' and barbarism. It ought not to "perjure" in an enlightened age. Here we come to the true reason for opposition to bullfights: they are opposed to your cultural sensibilities. It is fine to have them, my own cultural sensibilities lead me to dislike the use of tattoos or body piercing. What one can't do is expect their sensibility to be considered an argument in any relevant sense. A defense of my own claims: Against my claim tauromachy is 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. If something is justified it cannot by definition be considered unethical. Captivation is perfectly fine in any case, as one can hardly find anything to object to "attracting and holding the attention of (someone) by being interesting, pretty, etc."(2) I fail to see the relevance. Against my claim tauromachy is not a bloodsport but a form of art which transmits cultural values: 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. We have already seen the answer to the bit about suffering, but I should clarify I was not complaining there was no blood (that would be odd) I was saying it was not a gladiatory bloodsport. Gladiators are two people engaging in a mortal competition, this is in no way the case, as there is no competition, but rather a highly refined and almost choreographed series of encounters. Against my comment about semi-domestication: You argue that because its been force bred its ethical. I don't understand why this makes any difference. I didn't argue that its breeding made it ethical, I argued that its breeding informs the type of treatment that is due to it. It is a semi-domesticated animal, and therefore must live freely apart from the specific purpose it has been bred for. It would be immoral, for instance, to attempt to put a fighting bull in a barn, as it is accustomed to living freely with hectares to his own and would suffer tremendous stress from that situation. It would also be immoral to run the species into extinction because of heightened sensibilities and a lack of respect for cultural diversity. Against the value of stewardship, civilization, and death expressed by tauromachy: Suffice to say my opponent does not share the values being transmitted or hopes the values could be transmitted another way. Personal preference in this, however, is irrelevant. If pro cannot show it is unethical, the neutral position is to allow for a cultural expression even if one disagrees with it. I don't particularly understand the type of society kabuki theater shows, and quite vehemently disapprove of the view of society set forth by Woody Allen movies. None of that constitutes an argument for the prohibition of a millennial cultural expression. I close with a reflection by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow on this type of globalist ethnocentrism: "We are prepared to dialogue with the West, but only as equals, because what is certain is that in our days we are allowed to say and preach anything on condition that we do not touch the fundamental basis of their philosophy. Their adepts have assumed the right to evaluate everything according with their scale of moral values, and wish to reduce to their model the variety of the world." Unless you are able to prove bullfighting is morally unacceptable with logical argument rather than raw indignation, your peculiar sociocultural sensibility alone is not enough reason to eliminate what is to you a foreign peculiarity, and to me an integral part of my nation's history and culture. Sources: (1) http://bit.ly... (2) http://bit.ly...