The Argument Against Dog Fighting Is Ethical

On January 2015, a report came out saying that over the past three years, on average every year, there were one thousand nine hundred animal cruelty cases (Statistic Brain Research Institute). Of those reported cases, nine percent were from animal fighting. Dog fighting is a major moral issue across the nation. Dog fighting is the act of forcing dogs to fight to the death in a pit or box for the enjoyment of their owners and the public. The argument against dog fighting could be argued through the fact that dogs are moral agents, virtues ethics, utilitarianism and the doctrine of double effect because it is morally wrong to inflict a lifetime of pain onto a dog or any animal for the pursuit of pleasure or just for the sake of their own rights.
However, a virtue is the median between two vices, one vice being the high extreme, as in one who is always honest, and the lower extreme is a person who lies all the time. Virtues are associated with an individual’s character; the way a person perceives someone to be. When the owners or spectators of dog fighting partake in these malicious acts, they are hurting their virtues. Participation takes a toll on a person’s character over time. These people are or become greedy, they fight dogs or gamble on dog fights in order to pursue lower pleasures or hedonisms. The money or instant gratification one gets from a dog fight will deplete and they will have to find other pleasures or other dog fights. It is a constant cycle of pursuing lower pleasures because it gives them instant pleasure, but not long term. The individuals who take part in these actions, character and virtues will start to deplete as well. Intentionally harming dogs for malicious reasons for pleasure will take a toll on their mental status, personalities, thoughts, and actions. A person with good virtues will be a person of lower vices after partaking in these fights. The spectators may not be affected as much as the owners/trainers of these fighting dogs. The owners who care for and train these animals to be killing machines are affected on a huge scale because now it is a huge
The doctrine of good effect has conditions, the first being the action has to account with morals or the moral principle condition. The action of dog fighting is not justified by any moral principle. Second condition, the means to reach the end condition or the means by which a good effect happens are bad and are not equally as great as the good effect, then it does not work. Dog fighting is a lifetime of suffering for the dogs in this situation. Canines are usually bred or bought young into the life. As the weeks’ progress from birth, by at least six weeks some dogs are already on chains and in the spot they will live their life in. This usually means a patch of dirt in the middle of a field with a small wooden box and a chain keeping the dog from escaping. Dogs are kept a foot apart from one another, as a way to keep the dogs aggressive towards other dogs. The dogs only eat little amounts at a time with a little water, and their only human social interaction is when food or water comes. Their only other social interaction is being taken to train or to fight; thus these dogs have very little social skills, if any. When taken to train, the dogs are put in a small space usually a box or pin. Weaker, wounded, and older dogs are used as bait to train the new dogs to be fighters. These fighting dogs usually kill or harshly maim the weaker dogs during training. When there is a fight,