Jan. 8 continuation – Mexico
Thank you for all of your comments and views on the cockfight. We thought we should write more about our feelings on the cockfight since the post was more about the event instead of our views on the event.
Surprisingly, neither of us felt disgusted by the cockfight. But before you judge that sentence, please finish reading this entry. Now, this event is not legal or common in the United States (for which I am glad), but it is common here. I personally don´t agree with the idea of raising animals just to watch them fight. I think it is cruel and a waste of animal life for sport, which I don’t agree with. But from our observations of this culture, they do not view animals in the same light as most of the people in the states. Animals like roosters, chickens, cows, donkeys, etc.. seem to be viewed only as resources for food and labor. I doubt that animal rights even cross their minds. Now I am sure that some people in these countries don´t agree with this, but overall, they don’t even flinch at cockfighting, due to their cultural upbringing.
We feel that experiencing an event is a big part of understanding the culture and the social life of a country. It is something we think is important, in order to get closer to the true identity of a people. Jesus was so excited to show us the roosters he has trained, and was excited that we were interested in going to an event that was such a big part of his life. It also gave us a setting in which we could get to know him on a more personal level. The fights are not gory, bloody, or by any means visually disturbing. I am not saying that that makes it okay, but this gives you a better idea of what we saw. They occur every Saturday and Sunday, going from 6.00pm until 1.00am. It is one of bigger activities that locals partake in, and as you can see, it is very time consuming. Watching the roosters fight was not the interesting part. The interactions between the people and the hierarchy involved was very interesting; from the main guy who is respected by everyone, to the guys who bring their girlfriends to show off, and to the socializing ~ they look at it as a way of gathering with friends and spending time together. It did bother me that they juiced up the roosters so that they would fight more aggressively, and that because of the coca they didn´t use the roosters for food (so we were told). I have to say, being at the fight was one of the most interesting parts of our trip so far.
Overall, since the fights were such a normal part of everyday life down there, it did not seem as bad as we thought it would, partly because there is so much more to the experience than just being there to see the birds fight. We were interested in observing our surroundings, and the deeper layers of this cultural phenomenon, than in just watching the fight itself.
Tags: 08 - Mexico, central america, mexico
admin
And yet, isn’t attended the cockfight implicitly condoning the event? By attending the cockfight, you’re indirectly supporting the cockfight; given that the birds feel pain in fighting, and, sometimes, dying, the net utility is lowered, is it not; hence, by attending the cockfight, you’re contributing to a lowering of the net utility. By this reasoning, then, are you not morally forbidden from attending a cockfight, regardless of your intent in doing so?
For instance, take the example of eating factory-farmed animal meat. The intent of the consumer of said meat may not be to support the factory-farming industry, and yet this does not change the simple fact that it does, indirectly, contribute the the industry of factory-farming. It is obviously ethically impermissible to eat factory-farmed meat, and so, by analogy, it is ethically impermissible to attend a cockfight.
“And yet, isn’t attended the cockfight implicitly condoning the event?”
Not really. If one goes to Pike Place and watches the fish mongers throw the salmon around, one is a not implicitly condoning the act of killing marine life. Attending the birthday party of a one year old, does not implicitly condone the over comsumption of primary colored plastic.
“given that the birds feel pain in fighting, and, sometimes, dying, the net utility is lowered, is it not; hence, by attending the cockfight, you’re contributing to a lowering of the net utility. By this reasoning, then, are you not morally forbidden from attending a cockfight, regardless of your intent in doing so?”
I can’t say that I’m a fan of moral utilitarianism but I’ll argue from that position anyway. If one is a fan of John Stuart Mill and subscribes to moral utilitarianism of happiness, acts such as cockfighting could potentially increase the net utility. If the number of people who enjoyed cockfighting was greater than those who are dismayed by it, the event itself would be contributing to more net utility.
It seems more probable that cockfighting is not in the greater good of humanity, but if it disappeared completely tomorrow, it is certainly not clear that anything about the world would be much different than today. On that examination, cockfighting would be ethically neutral, that is at least what a moral utilitarian could argue. But, as I said before, I’m not a fan of the view.
In fact, it is not even clear April and Jason contributed to the lowering of the net utility in this instance. This cockfight was not held in their honor, net utility was going to be lowered whether they were there or not. Now, if they come home and start their own cockfighting leagues then they are contributing to lower moral utility.
“… It is obviously ethically impermissible to eat factory-farmed meat, and so, by analogy, it is ethically impermissible to attend a cockfight.”
The permissability of eating factory farmed meat depends on ones moral philosophy. Considering the dramatic disagreements that continue even today in ethical philosophy, there is little that is obvious about its impermissability. For example, pragmatists, Christain theists, hedonists, moral relativists, moral nihilists and many other ethical systems would disagree with that statement.
Hi April and Jason!
You say that “Not really. If one goes to Pike Place and watches the fish mongers throw the salmon around, one is a not implicitly condoning the act of killing marine life. Attending the birthday party of a one year old, does not implicitly condone the over comsumption of primary colored plastic.” Well, yes, this is true. However, there is an attendance fee, in order to watch the cockfight, is there not? This attendance fee is directly responsible for supporting the cockfights; hence, I see no reason not to believe that attending the cockfight is implicitly condoning the event.
You also say that “The permissability of eating factory farmed meat depends on ones moral philosophy. Considering the dramatic disagreements that continue even today in ethical philosophy, there is little that is obvious about its impermissability. For example, pragmatists, Christain theists, hedonists, moral relativists, moral nihilists and many other ethical systems would disagree with that statement.”
Firstly, Moral Relativism is widely accepted to be a heavily flawed moral philosophy. Christian Theism is as well; for instance, see the Socrates’ Euthyphro Objection.
At any rate, consider this argument, as first presented by bioethicist Peter Singer:
A. If two situations are morally indistinguishable, except that in the first, a greater amount of suffering is produced, then, if one is forced to decide between the two, it is morally imperative to choose the latter.
B. It is roughly as difficult and as expensive to buy factory-farmed meat as it is to either eat no meat or to buy humanely-raised meat.
C. Hence, it is morally imperative to either eat no meat or to eat purely humanely-raised meat.
I see no objection that could be raised against this, under any philosophy!
You also say that “If one is a fan of John Stuart Mill and subscribes to moral utilitarianism of happiness, acts such as cockfighting could potentially increase the net utility. If the number of people who enjoyed cockfighting was greater than those who are dismayed by it, the event itself would be contributing to more net utility.” I disagree. The options in this situation are not simply going to the cockfight or not going to the cockfight. Could the people not attend some other sort of social gathering? I believe that that would raise the net utility more than attending the cockfight would.
go enjoy and see all the culture that is available to you. We need to understand other people. The world will only be a better place if we learn to see it through eyes that are not only our own. If you can agree with others, great ,if not at least try to view it as they do. Enough narrow mindedness is enough. Lets get our heads back to where the light shines.
Great reply Anonymous, I never know what to expect when people talk about these issues.
“However, there is an attendance fee, in order to watch the cockfight, is there not?”
Actually, I was assuming there was no entrance fee since it wasn’t mentioned. I’ll grant you that if there was one, it constitutes implicitly condoning the event.
“…for instance, see the Socrates’ Euthyphro Objection.”
Euthyphro’s Dillemma is one of my personal favorites against theistic ethics and one I haven’t heard a satisfying response too. Let me know if you have.
Okay, two comments to Singer’s argument:
1) You have two buttons in front of you and must push one. Button #1 will annhilate the world instantly. No muss, no fuss, no suffering. Instant annhilation. Button #2 would annihilate all but 10 randomly selected people. These survivors would suffer greatly in the apocalyptic leftovers, likely to die, but it’s possible that they could survive and in some wild improbability maybe even find one another. However, with such a small gene pool long term repopulation is impossible. Both buttons will likely produce exactly the same results, however, #2 is clearly likely to produce more suffering. Which do you push? Button #2 is my choice, I think the few who would suffer would rather have the chance to survive even facing a bleak future. Singer appears committed to Button #1 because it avoids the suffering.
I know the dillemma is silly, but it underscores an issue with Singer’s moral imperative- that his emphasis on suffering can exclude the possibility that there is at least one worse situation than suffering, not existing at all.
2) In (B) of the argument you presented, the assessment of whether the two choices are comparable is very subjective. If I had to drive an additional 10 miles to go to a store that carries humanely raised chicken am I absolved from the moral imperative? What about 100 miles? Seems to me that something as important as a moral imperative shouldn’t rest on subjective notions of convenience and difficulty.
So to summarize, I don’t agree with premise (A) as a base moral philosophy because it doesn’t extend well to other moral decisions. In particular, it is too focused on the notion of suffering rather than other considerations.
In the end, I like Singer’s argument for vegetarianism. I just don’t think it is rooted in a statement (your premise A) that extends to a more general moral philosophy. I use a pragmatists version of Singer’s argument in defense of my own vegetarianism- it doesn’t involve a moral imperative so it makes a much weaker conclusion, but I find the weaker conclusion much more defensible than Singer’s moral imperative.
” Could the people not attend some other sort of social gathering? I believe that that would raise the net utility more than attending the cockfight would.”
And I probably would not disagree with you. However, my intention was to raise the point that under moral utilitarianism, cockfighting could possibly be “morally right” because it raises the net utility if enough people enjoy it. I inferred from your original post that cockfighting was clearly “morally wrong” under a utilitarian view.
It was a community event, there was no attendance fee. BTW we appreciate the discussion.
April – I met you at UT in August. I enjoy following your travels.
Go watch the cockfight. Experience bullfights in Spain. You’re traveling the world to experience new people and new cultures. If that’s the culture, by all means, learn as much as you can. Safe travels.
Don´t apologize for what you do or what you write about. Yes it´s cruel, but how the continuing phenomenon of cockfighting gets blamed on a couple of tourists passing through is beyond me. You´ll never go again, probably… so does that mean there will never be another fight? If your critics are so against cockfighting, let them go protest the fights themselves rather than boo-hooing on someone´s blog.