Max Kellerman and Dog Fighting

So in recent weeks, Max Kellerman of ESPN radio has been belaboring the following point. His view is that dog fighting is "bad" but it is hypocritical for people to claim it is "morally reprehensible" and also support the pork industry. His view - pigs are a higher life-form than dogs and therefore it is hypocritical for humans to support the torture and slaughter of pigs while maintaining that dog fighting is immoral. I called in this morning to offer a rebuttal and what follows is a more exhaustive follow-up . . . ..


Max

I’d like to expand upon the point I made this morning . . . .First, I find dog fighting to be morally reprehensible. Second, I also eat plenty of pork. Third, I don’t find these positions at odds and I certainly don’t think I am being hypocritical. And this is the crux of my argument

The relationship between man and dog goes back at least 4000 years when man brought the wolf in from the wild and domesticated it. As such, there is now a “social contract” between man and dog. We brought dogs into our lives to hunt, to protect, to herd, to retrieve, to aid in transport, and most importantly, to be our companions. And over the years, man and dog have developed a special relationship that is built on trust and loyalty and love. In exchange, we have a duty, in fact an obligation, to protect these animals. It’s basically an iron-clad contract that reveals itself in both western ethics and the law of this land. Period. You know why we don’t have laws against pig fighting or seal fighting or hawk fighting? It’s because man doesn’t have a contract with those groups. That is not the case with dogs who have a long-lasting and contractually-protected bond with humans.

So on to your argument. You claim that it is hypocritical for me to claim dog fighting is a moral outrage yet also passively support the pork industry. And why is this? Well, according to you, it’s because pigs are smarter than dogs and therefore they deserve at least the same protections. Well, I obviously disagree. First of all, I don’t necessarily agree that pigs are smarter but that is neither here nor there. Second, I define morality differently than you. In this instance, I find dog fighting to be immoral because it breaks the social contract that man has with dog. In my book, it is immoral to break a contract, regardless of whether it is a social contract like the one before us or a commercial contract. As such, I have no problem finding it immoral to torture dogs yet permissible to slaughter pigs. Show me the contract that pigs have with man and I might sing a different tune.

So on to Vick. Number seven’s crime is not necessarily immoral. I personally think his actions are immoral but that is neither here nor there as it’s not for me to export my morals into this discussion. What is important here is that Vick’s actions are clearly in conflict with western ethical standards and the laws that flow from those standards. Western ethics, as they pertain to dogs, flow from the long history man has with canine and the social contract I discussed above. There is no ambiguity here. Simply stated – westerners have long held that it is UNETHICAL to mistreat dogs. If there wasn’t a super-majority of people who agreed with me, than perhaps we might have a debate. But that is not the case. Our ethics come from our popular and cultural beliefs and in this case, the citizenry overwhelmingly feels that dog fighting is wrong. Moreover, there is no room for cultural relativism in this debate. I don’t care where Vick was raised and what standards apply in that zip code. It simply doesn’t matter. Western ethics trump any local ordinance and claims to the contrary are simply misplaced and smack of apologism.