Of bullfightings

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Syzygys, Jun 17, 2008.

  1. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Actually I think consent can be ascertained for a wide variety of activities with animals. If it can't I think we can assume it wasn't given. For me human noblity would include a more profound respect for animals than is shown in bullfighting and even in the breeding.

    There are plenty of risky situations out there where one can help people, for example, and not end up torturing and killing something.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Simon Anders:

    Animals only have a place in human society to serve human ends. If they didn't do so, we'd basically have no reason to have them. You might have a few pets, but even pets are basically a modern conception. Dogs were often used for hunting and cats for keeping vermin at bay.

    As such, I think the spetacle and bravery of the bull fight is worth it.

    Where "one" means an animal? Your sentence was unclear.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    I think consent played a strong role in the domestication of these species. and we tend to frown on torturing them to death no matter how snazzy the outfit.


    Sorry. Neither. I meant humans can find risky situations where they can act nobly, with grace and skill, and take risks, for example helping other humans. All without torturing anything to death.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Simon Anders:

    Most people didn't much care about their animals, so long as they did their job that they were wanted for. Furthermore, few people probably thought of "consent", considering slavery of human beings was acceptable when domestication occurred.

    They cannot do so as a spectacle, however. There aren't cameras or a crowd around burning buildings.
     
  8. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Their lack of care is beside the point. Certainly humans have done terrible things to other humans and also animals. Also beside the point.


    Technology is up to the task. I am sure I could set someone up with digital equipment for the price of a bullfighting outfit, the bull's room and board, the sword the cape, the pay of the guys who run out and help, and so on. Record and put it on the internet. Or have your friend collegues record and pump it out in real time.

    Benevolent daring Spectacle is quite accessible for many citizens in the countries with bullfighting. Much more accessible in fact. And the true 'artists' would be more popular.

    And further, their is great nobility in private bravery. Some would argue that there is more.
     
  9. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Simon Anders:

    If care about consent was not part of the process, one cannot then discuss consent to domestication was at play.

    It's a good business venture, I suppose. But it needn't replace bull fighting, which is also rooted heavily in tradition.

    I do not know: Bull fights are lionized as great champions and heroes amongst men. They also get tons of women.

    Even so, I think there is something to be said for general heroics.

    Fame is also a grand thing.
     
  10. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Sure you can. I am not focused on the internal processes of the humans involved. I am talking about the animals' experience. Cats and dogs both found tremendous advantages in their relationships with humans and their 'work' meshed very well with what they loved to do.

    So was slavery, which you mentioned earlier. I don't give a shit about tradition.

    I know some people think this way. I am critical of that.

    Even so, I think there is something to be said for general heroics.

    I truly think it is a very, very mixed bag, but that is a whole other can of worms.

    Why aren't you famous?
     
  11. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Simon Anders:

    Bulls are naturally aggressive. I am sure they quite enjoy attacking humans, as it is in their nature to gore and to fight. As any rancher of bulls will testify.

    Slavery and bull fighting can hardly be compared to one another. Human beings are not enslaved to participate in bull fighting.

    Few arguments can be made against tradition. Tradition holds equal sway, at the very least, to feeling bad about bulls.

    Yes, I agree there is something to be said about general heroics.

    I'm not a bull fighter.
     
  12. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Yes, but we have to judge whether the things we let them do can be morally justified. Bullfighting can't be morally justified.
    Only people that close their eyes to the suffering can.

    Which is just another sick example of humanity.
    Would this be allowed with humans ?
     
  13. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    It is not in their nature to want to be tortured to death. The cat or dog you mentioned earlier has a job that fits its desires. Part of the bulls job is to die and be pierced and harrassed.

    I need no tradition to respond negatively to bullfighting.

    Pretty limited response. You admire risk taking. You think it is romantic and noble. Fame appeals to you. Why are you merely defending the actions of bullfighters and their audiance? Why aren't you out there getting famous through some romantic, risk-taking activity? What is preventing this? (and there is a point to this line of questioning)
     

Share This Page