Bull fighting has been a long tradition of diversion in Spain since the middle ages. Today, many consider it an art, while others consider it an unrightfully massacre of animals. There is no public law in Spain which specifies that the act is illegal. But does this really mean that it is not morally wrong?
Many discuss that it is a positive duty of humans to give animals the freedom to life. Others consider this argument foolish since today, most of the world’s population (including animals themselves) feed of other animals and this is the cycle of life and these bulls live a great prairie life, in better conditions than most cattle around the world do. The problem here is that be bulls are not only killed, but put through high levels of stress at the moment of the show, and physical pain while the bull fighter sticks the swords in one by one. Not only this, but for the bull to reach the temperament with which he enters the ring, his testicles are pinched with needles. Is it morally right to put an animal through this suffering. This interferes with the rights to life
There are more spectators and workers in the bull industry than bulls being killed. So according to the Utilitarian principle it is good. So is it morally permissible for people in this industry to pursue their self interest (maximization of profits) at the cost of torturing bulls before their death. Also, many people have an emotional attachment to this long brought tradition, and consider they have a right to cultural preservation. So, as long as the government allows it, is it morally permissible?
s690159
4 comments:
I don't think Bull fighting is a morally right game. The Spanish government should ban the bloody and barbarous fighting game though it is a kind of traditional custom in Spain. It is not only about massacre of animals but also hurt human lives. Every year from the news there are several persons died during the Bull fighting, it is morally wrong. Humanity is the positive duty to everyone, the government should have duty and responsibility to maintain their residents life and safety.
499432
From a utilatarian standpoint it does make sense to let the bullfights continue, because you could state that the fights offer more value than that value is destroyed due to the sacrifices of the bulls.
However, from a rights based perspective with respect to the right of life, the bullfights is an immoral activity. furthermore, since we value life and equality, all living things should be treated with respect, and therefore the bullfiggts should end.
When you use the utilatarian standpoint of view, you measure the utilaty of human, not that of animal. So i do not really think, the utilatrarian based theory fit here. Of course, according to the utilatarain standpoint of view is allowed.
Leon mentioned the right of life. Animal has also the right of life too in our western socities. So the bulls deserve also at least a not so painfull end. So when value the feelings of the bull. It is imorral to kill the bulls in so painfull ways.
Animals cannot be considered as moral agents and therefor it is very difficult to give animals rights. However, humans do have a duty towards animals, in this case it is immoral to make an animal suffer. This makes the matador face a moral dilemma: should he abandon his culture or should he make an animal suffer. In many countries culture is not relevant in this discussion so they justly regard bullfighting as immoral, however, in spain and other countries this becomes a moral dilemma based on personal values (culture/animals). prohibiting bullfighting does not solve this moral dilemma, as long culture is morally more important.
ANR312510
Post a Comment