Animal rights are a matter of active debate in society nowadays since there are many related issues that, being unresolved, may endanger many creatures inhabiting the planet. Animals play a significant part in human lives, which is why humanity puts much effort into protecting them, creating various associations, organizing charity events, and educating children about the importance of different species. However, many people treat other living creatures as if they had no rights, which often leads to suffering, high mortality rates, and generally poor animal welfare. They should have legal rights since they significantly influence the economy, make people’s lives better, and do not significantly differ from humans in many senses.
First of all, animals significantly impact human lives since many species contribute to the world economy by producing fur, food, and other essential products. Blattner argues that animals are people’s co-workers, which is a common opinion among researchers and farmers (33). However, people do not always recognize the contributions to society made by animals. According to statistics, a single cow produces more than 5,000 liters of milk per year, which is probably enough for several people to consume at the same time (Blattner 33). Many cows have to suffer to achieve that production level as they are forcefully impregnated and separated from their families. In other words, people treat cows improperly to gain as much benefit as possible, and they do not even appreciate animals for their contribution to food production.
Furthermore, animals can help vulnerable groups such as autistic children or people with mental illnesses. Concerning humans, animals do not understand disabilities or ugliness, which is why these creatures can love others under no conditions (Baka et al. 11). Thus, domestic pets can provide a positive atmosphere of socialization for people who lack an opportunity or desire to socialize among humans. Baka et al. report that animals can also help little children develop empathy as they can learn to understand others’ needs by putting themselves into their pets’ places (11). Animals can make people’s lives better, which is a weighty reason for them to have the same rights as people do.
Finally, it is imperative to clarify that there is no actual reason to consider rights only as an element of human society. Humans and animals are living creatures that inhabit the same Earth, and all of them should have the same rights here. It is well-known that various animal species lived on this planet long before the first human was born. These facts make it unclear why the only species that should have legal rights are humans. Cesario argues that rights should not be “limited to members of a species that can petition for rights and respect the rights of others” (40). In many respects, humans are animals, which is why both groups should have the same, or at least similar, rights.
Overall, animals should have rights as they contribute to the world economy and improve people’s lives by providing favorable socializing conditions, and there is no reason to believe that animals are different from humans. Like any living creature, every animal is a part of this planet, and it should be outlawed to treat them as if they had no rights. Animals should not be subjected to torture and poor living conditions, and people should ensure their welfare by giving them the corresponding rights.
Works Cited
Baka, Alexandra, et al., “Animal rights.” Open Schools Journal for Open Science, vol. 3, no. 3, 2020, pp. 1-14.
Blattner, Charlotte. “Should Animals Have a Right to Work? Promises and Pitfalls.” Animal Studies Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, 2020, pp. 32-92.
Cesario, Anthony. “Reconciling the Irreconcilable: A Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Animal Rights Debate.” Studia Humana, vol. 10, no. 4, 2021, pp. 36-65.
The moral status of nonhuman animals is one of the questions that philosophers have found to be very difficult to answer. Animals are often considered to have a lower moral status than human beings simply because they belong to a different species (Huther, 2005). The principle of assigning moral status based on species is referred to as speciesism.
Although speciesists do not support cruelty to animals, they believe that using them for beneficial activities such as experimentation is justified. However, those who oppose speciesism believe that animals and human beings should be accorded equal moral status. This paper will analyze the arguments against speciesism.
Main Issues About Speciesism
One of the main issues surrounding speciesism is the difference between humans and animals that justifies the preferential treatment of the former. According to Huther (2005), speciesism cannot be justified because it is based on the principles of unethical practices such as racism and sexism. In particular, membership in a given species is not a relevant factor for determining moral treatment.
According to Steinbock (1978), human beings are entitled to preferential treatment in the moral community because of the unique capacities that they possess. The capacities include the following. First human beings can be held responsible for their actions, whereas nonhuman animals are not accountable for their behaviors. Second, human beings can reciprocate, whereas animals’ behaviors are hardly motivated by altruistic reasons (Steinbock, 1978).
Thirdly, human beings have a desire for self-respect. Animals, on the other hand, lack the intelligence to desire and achieve self-respect. These three differences make human beings superior to animals. Thus, using animals for food or experimentation is justified, especially if it is the only way to save the human species.
Summary of Opposing Viewpoints
Singer (2009) criticizes speciesism by showing that the principle of equal value of human life is untenable. According to Singer (2009), speciesists believe that human beings should be treated equally irrespective of their physical or mental capacities. This means that normal human beings and those who are mentally retarded should enjoy equal rights.
Therefore, mentally retarded individuals are superior to nonhuman animals. Singer (2009) dismisses this claim by arguing that animals compare to human beings in several ways. For example, great apes such as gorillas have cognitive abilities that enable them to achieve high scores in human IQ tests.
Similarly, dogs and parrots can comprehend human language albeit at a low level. Undoubtedly, animals such as chimpanzees have better cognitive abilities than human beings who have severe mental disabilities (Singer, 2009). Thus, the interests of animals are as important as those of human beings.
Pluhar (1979) criticizes speciesism by arguing that the principle of thwarted potential personhood does not provide an adequate basis for assigning basic moral rights to members of a particular species. Speciesists believe that nonperson human beings should be treated as normal individuals because they lost their potential to be persons due to circumstances that were beyond their control.
However, an animal such as a dog cannot enjoy the rights that human beings possess because it has no potential to be a person. Pluhar (1979) rejects this perspective due to the difficulty in determining the level of moral weight that “should be assigned to potential personhood” (pp.83-93). Specifically, assigning full moral status to all human beings with the potential to be persons is implausible. For instance, it would grant a fertilized ovum all the moral rights enjoyed by normal persons.
Analysis of Opposing Viewpoints
Principle of equal value of human life
The main factor that should determine the moral status of human beings and animals is their ability to suffer or enjoy life. Undoubtedly, both human beings and animals can suffer if subjected to pain. In this context, the interests of nonhuman animals cannot be less significant than those of human beings (Singer, 2009).
This means that the principle of equal value of human life is ethically irrelevant since the interests of animals are also important. Specifically, animals should enjoy equal treatment irrespective of the fact that they lack advanced human capabilities such as the ability to reason or talk.
The decisions are taken by parents concerning the lives of children with severe mental disabilities also indicate that the principle of equal value of human life does not always hold. For instance, couples often opt to terminate a pregnancy if the unborn baby is expected to have a mental disability (Singer, 2009). Moreover, doctors often withdraw treatment if a premature baby has no chance of surviving. Since the principle does not always hold, it should not be used to justify the preferential treatment of human beings at the expense of animals.
Human rights activists often oppose institutionalization and physical confinement of children with severe mental disabilities because they believe that everyone’s life is important. In this context, subjecting animals to painful situations such as rearing pigs in factory farms cannot be justified because they have better cognitive abilities than the mentally retarded children.
Thwarted Potential Personhood
Assigning full moral status to potential persons at conception or gradually as an individual develops fail to support speciesism. Gradual ascription of moral status would justify unequal treatment of nonhuman animals that have no potential of being persons. This implies that the nonhuman animal should be sacrificed to save the human nonperson (Pluhar, 1979).
Moreover, human nonperson should be sacrificed to save a human person. This would be unethical since it undermines the value of human life. In particular, it contradicts speciesists’ belief that no one should be denied the right to life because of their medical or any other condition.
Another weakness of the argument is that it ignores the fact that human beings who have no potential of being persons are equal to nonhuman animals that cannot be persons (Pluhar, 1979). In this context, it is not possible to justify the claim that human nonpersons are more morally significant than animals that lack the capacity to be persons. Therefore, the interests of animals should not be ignored simply because they belong to species that are considered inferior to human beings.
Conclusion
Speciesism promotes infringement of animals’ right to life to benefit human beings in different ways such as developing new treatment methods. Speciesists believe that the interests of human beings should be prioritized because they have unique capabilities that animals cannot possess.
However, this argument fails to justify speciesism because both human beings and animals can experience pain. Moreover, it is unethical to give animals a lower moral status than mentally retarded human beings who have no potential of being persons. Therefore, animals should not be subjected to inhumane conditions because of their species.
References
Huther, M. (2005). Can speciesism be defended? A discussion of the traditional approach to the moral status of animals. Munich: Ludwig Maximilians University Munich.
Pluhar, E. (1979). Speciesism: A form of bigotry or a justified view. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania State University.
Singer, P. (2009). Speciesism and moral status. Metaphilosophy, 40(4), 567-581.
Steinbock, B. (1978). Speciesism and the Idea of Equality. Philosophy, 53(204), 247-256.
Singer starts his argument by making clear that prejudice is often latent and many never realize their prejudicial attitudes until they are highlighted. For example, it was an assumed fact that blacks were second rate citizens who did not deserve equal treatment with the white folk. Until the black liberation movements highlighted class and racial discrimination, it was assumed that the blacks deserved the treatment they received.
Having learned from the black liberation movements, other groups were able to reflect on their circumstances. In short, the black liberation activities were like an opener to a Pandora’s Box. Minority groups found a voice and have successfully agitated for the recognition of their rights. According to Singer (254), the women emancipation efforts were considered as a fight against ‘the last remaining form of discrimination.’
The notion of ‘last remaining form of discrimination’ is misleading because prejudice, the stereotype is always latent i.e. we engage in prejudicial or stereotypical behavior unknowingly. It is not easy for the perpetrator of prejudicial attitudes or behaviors to notice that they are such unless they are ‘forcefully pointed out’ (Singer 254).
Through a switch in thinking or disposition, especially about ‘we’ vs. ‘they’, Singer (254) envisages an opportunity for individuals to appreciate how unwittingly prejudicial mankind can be. A little scrutiny into our thinking and attitudes towards ‘other’ should help individuals realize that we all think in favor of our in-group. For example, the whites definitely think they are inherently better than the blacks and the same is true of the blacks. This latent feeling and thinking predispose individuals towards prejudicial behavior with regard to the ‘other’.
Singer (254) urges individuals to consider their attitudes towards non-human animals. A mention of “animal rights” sounds or is logically absurd for many people across the world. The objection to the idea of ‘animal rights’ arises from the thinking that animals and human beings are different and thus cannot have ‘rights’ in the same sense as applied to people.
The basis for women rights is their similarity to men thus meriting equal treatment as men. However, Singer (255) questions the idea that non-human animals are totally different from human beings and thus do not have entitlements like humans (Singer 255).
Singer argues that if the difference is the determining factor on how to behave towards beings or things, then even equality among men has to be qualified (Singer 255). He points out that people are genetically, physically, emotionally and psychologically different. However, these differences manifest at the individual level i.e. when individuals are compared and cannot be generalized on a race or sex.
The difference does not necessarily mean inequality. If one should argue that animals have no moral entitlements just on the basis of difference, such an argument does not hold much water. Singer (255) concludes that if we cling to the idea that all men are equal, despite obvious differences, then we should accommodate the idea that in some way we are equal to the other animals.
The “essential basis for moral equality” in Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian formulations is “Each to count for one and none for more than one” (Singer 255). Basically, Jeremy meant that each being’s interests have to be considered as equally important. Therefore, if we acknowledge a certain level of fundamental similarity with other animals, to that extent, animals’ entitlements should equal our entitlements.
Applying himself to the question of suffering capacity, Singer (261) points out that animals suffer as much as humans do when subjected to harsh conditions. The only reason why we rationalize animal suffering is prejudice. Therefore, the idea of distinctive human dignity, Singer (267) argues, is only but prejudicial against other animals.
Objection to this view from the perspective of Bonnie Steinbock
Steinbock objects to Singer’s idea that we need to treat members of other species as we would comfortably treat members of our own species. According to Singer, we treat members of other species with cold indifference as a result of “speciesist attitudes’ i.e. prejudicial thinking in favor of our own species (Steinbock 247).
According to Singer, basing moral consideration on given accidentals or differences is basing moral consideration on irrelevancy (Steinbock 247). For example, basing unequal treatment of individuals on race or sex is wrong because race or sex is irrelevant when it comes to moral treatment. What is relevant when it comes to equal treatment of men is the fact that they are all men despite their manifest differences (Steinbock 248).
Steinbock (250) is in agreement with Singer; however, based on the argument by Hart, he is of the mind that other animals do not have rights because they do not have the awareness or capacity to conceptualize rights; the animals “lack certain minimal conceptual capabilities for having rights”. According to Steinbock, the fact that other animals are not rational and are not morally accountable denies them ‘rights’ as applied to human beings.
For Steinbock (251), the issue of cruelty toward animals is not of philosophical interest. A certain level of cruelty i.e. inflicting pain on animals is necessary and good for human survival. He challenges Singer’s argument that animals suffer in equal measure as humans when subjected to pain. For Singer, given the capacity to suffer is equal for all animals (including people), when it comes to suffering, it is morally necessary that equal consideration is applied (Singer 261).
For Steinbock (252), the equal capacity to suffer does not warrant equal moral treatment as prescribed by Singer. Appealing to common sense, Steinbock (252) asserts that it would be counter-intuitive to favor animals against humans. He agrees with the singer that human dignity does not annul the dignity of animal life. However, people favor fellow humans over non-humans because humans are capable of rational actions and moral responsibility; unlike non-humans. It is rationality and awareness of such abstract concepts like the freedom that make it imperative not to enslave a fellow man (Steinbock 253).
How the singer could respond to the objection
In answer to Steinbock, Singer would first reiterate the importance of thinking differently to gain a new perspective. The idea that killing animals for food is out of necessity seems to be self-evident. However, if one posed to think, it appears the necessity is only in thinking. Animals are not the only source of human food. Therefore, the idea of necessary killing results from prejudicial thinking or, basically, speciesist attitudes. Eating vegetables and fruits is a sure way to good health. If people chose, they could eat only vegetables and fruits and no animal would have to die in the hands of man.
The argument for treating animals humanely, as people would treat fellow human beings, due to equal capacity for suffering, holds water. According to Steinbock, such an argument would lead to counter-intuitive results. However, Singer would point out that although Steinbock’s argument makes a lot of sense, it only applies in extreme cases. For example, Steinbock uses a situation in which one has to feed either his dogs or his children. If such like an extreme situation were to occur, for a majority, children come first.
However, there are cases where both the dogs and children would be fed in equal measure with the understanding that they both need nourishment and would undergo much suffering if not fed. If the food is not enough for the dogs and children, definitely it should not last the children long. Singer’s argument is not about preferential treatment of animals but equal treatment and appreciation that their pain is as much as what a human would feel if subjected to the same conditions.
Finally, Steinbock appeals to rationality to argue for preferential treatment of human beings over animals. Relying on common sense, Steinbock offers a valid argument. However, Singer would again point out that common sense is the bedrock of all prejudices. It is only through thinking beyond what people consider as common sense that new perspectives are established. Secondly, although rationality accords human beings a higher standing than animals, to the extent that they are equal, equality in treatment should apply.
Human beings are rational and can thus not be subjected to say enslavement; given they have conceptual capabilities that help them recognize such injustice. However, when it comes to suffering, animals feel just like human beings. Therefore, it is only proper that they are treated with as much consideration as it would be the case for fellow human beings. If considerations are not taken just because they are non-humans, then truly that is prejudiced and unjust.
Compelling account
Both Singer and Steinbock present very compelling accounts. However, a synthesis between the two accounts would provide a more acceptable position or account. Singer’s assertions are right and acceptable. However, there is a need to define to what extent humans are equal to non-human animals or what rights are sharable between animals and humans.
Singer points out that it is prejudicial to assert that ‘animal rights’ is an absurd concept. If to any extent humans are similar to non-human animals, there should be some rights in which they all share as animals. There should be some rights we are entitled to because we have ‘animal’ characteristics.
Steinbock implied that animals have no rights because they lack the conceptual capabilities to identify their rights. However, not all rational animals have the conceptual capability to identify their rights. For example, there are many mentally retarded individuals in the world. It is kind of universally agreed that it is not morally right to experiment on such people.
Moreover, it is morally unacceptable to experiment on the terminally ill. The fact that we cannot experiment on the terminally sick but eagerly test on healthy nonhuman animals only points to Speciesist attitudes.
Based on the two accounts, it is, in my opinion, that debate should not be on whether animals have rights or not. What the two-point to need to focus more on what the possible ‘animal rights’ are. The rights of animals, it follows, are not dependent on conceptual capability but sentient qualities in which we share as animals.
If humans go beyond speciesist attitudes, then considerations such as ‘do animals have a right to life’ become relevant as opposed to absurd. However, in line with Steinbock, considerations into killing animals as ‘a necessary evil’ are worth looking into.
Works Cited
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York: New York Review Book, 1975.
Steinbock, Bonnie. “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”. Philosophy 53. 204 (April 1978): 247 – 256.
Animals live in a moral world hence are morally upright towards other animals. It is the human beings who constantly try to infringe morals on animals. Human beings more often than not abuse the rights of animals, whether domestic or the wild animals, the rights are being abused in several ways.
They use animals for anything that causes pain and suffering such as medical experimentation ,imprisonment in circuses and zoos, fur production amongst many other ways man have found animals useful.
Animal rights are a movement with intention to protect all animals from being abused or exploited by humans. The argument here is simple, animals just like human beings experience pleasure , they have sense of pain and frustrations, they have sensory capacity and as Charles Darwin put it, Animals too have a mind that differs from human beings “in degree and not in kind”.
Tom Regan in this article has clearly demonstrated how human beings have infringed on the rights of animals in the modern day. He narrates the sad story of the whale ,the rabbit and the higher, how workers on board the mother ship of a whaling fleet are disassembling the carcass of a whale, that although the species is protected by the agreement of the member nations of the International Commission.
The three stories illustrated here are very painful and shows how cruel man has treated the animal species. The whale, the higher and the rabbit are stories that reveal the degree of how man disregard animals, a total abuse of the animals rights.
The Use of Ethos, Logos and Pathos in Arguments in Description of Matters
Ethos are used by writers to convince the audience on their character and integrity and in these stories Tom has clearly demonstrated this in his literature by the use of appropriate language to bring clearly the well researched work of literature on the true stories. I find these examples factual. There is also perfect use of grammar to bring the points home.
Tom demonstrates how the animals are being mishandled. He says that “For the calf to produce good meat and attract a large profit, it is left to roam in the most unnatural conditions”.
This is not fare at all as these conditions could even attract diseases. An example of good treatment is when dairy cows are left to listen to music such as country music to be able to produce milk. They should also be grazed in clean conditions unlike the issue of bobby the calf which is so unethical.
Pathos is used by writers to persuade an audience by appealing to their emotions, in this text pathos has been employed by the writer to give evidence for wrong animal treatment. Tom is trying to persuade people to agree with him that these ways are not right at all.
For example, when he says “ The gun roars, the harpoon hurls through the air and the whale line follow, there is a momentary silence, and then the muffled explosion as the time fuse functions…there is now a fight between the mammal and the crew, a fight to death,….For what? To what end? Why is this being done to the last remaining member of an irreplaceable species?”
The writer appeals to the emotion of the audience and creates a sense of sympathy, the tone in the other stories is emotion evoking and you truly sympathize with the animals.
That because the rabbits do not have tear duct therefore, a Draize test is used and a routinely concentrated solution of a substance are left to drip into one of the eyes and the other eyes is used as control. The swelling, redness and destruction of the iris or cornea loss of vision are measured the substance eye irritancy is established,
Logos is used in actions where there is need to convince the audience on a matter being discussed. It is used in citing statistics, facts, literal analogies and historical happenings. It can also be used in the citation of particular authorities on a subject. It is the act by which the thoughts are expressed.
People do have inward thoughts that are better expressed in this manner. At times some people involved in activities that they believe are right. It is only others who could be having a right perspective of what other people are doing that are not right.
In Tom Regan’s article, there is the use of Logos in justifying that what human beings are doing by inflicting pain on the animals is not right. For example, in the issue of the rabbit being used in the research in the science. Though this will help out in knowing the effects on the final users, it is not being done in the right way. By subjecting the rabbits to too much pain is not ethical at all.
These animals should be handled in humility and with care to cater for their existence. Even if they are to die at least some sort of good handling methods should be accorded to them. Reagan says that “The animals are harmed without restriction, they are also made to endure pain even to death and therefore, their welfare is not checked.”
“Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, and he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals”. ~George Orwell, Animal Farm.
Works Cited
Regan, Tom. Human Wrongs Animal Rights: Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
Despite heavy criticism concerning animal rights activists as well as other groups, corrida, the Spanish name for bullfighting, is still one of the symbols of Spain, but will we and our children watch mouth-opened the skilled matador defeating the courageous and dangerous bull?
Analysis
When tourists, as well as Spanish people, name things they associate with Spain, bullfighting is among the first three things. This is often referred to as art, tradition, love, passion, risk, and something larger than life. At the same time, some people argue that bullfighting is the torture and slaughter, barbarism and archaism or even national disgrace. There is no consensus on the matter, but people agree that it is a complex issue that may differently affect people’s lives.
“This is barbaric torture of innocent animals that are bred to be killed slowly and painfully just for fun!” claims Anna, 24, an animal rights activist. She has been to bullfighting once in her life, and that changed her life. She says, “I was shocked to see the suffering of the poor bull that was slowly dying.” Anna is not alone in her attitude towards tradition. Badcock (2015) notes that the Spanish society will be divided for a long time as there is no simple solution to the issue, and animal rights fighters will oppose bullfighting.
At the same time, animal rights activism is only one facet of the problem. The issue has a political and economic background, and it is also associated with the issues of cultural identity. Frayer (2011) notes that the decision of Catalonia to ban bullfighting has a historical as well as political context. During the times of Franco’s dictatorship, Catalan’s culture and language were severely repressed, and the bullfighting issue is now seen as a way to resolve some national and cultural problems. People of Catalonia want to stress the difference between them and the rest of Spain. The ban on bullfighting is one of many things Catalan people do in this respect. Of course, people in Madrid dislike such attitudes, and think that Barcelona is the “capital of traitors” as Yolanda, 34, a matador’s wife puts it.
“This is our tradition, our history, our passion, and this is what we are,” says Yolanda. The woman is very emotional when asked about the controversy of bullfighting. In fact, she does not see any controversy, but insists on the importance of this kind of art, as she refers to bullfighting. “Those who do not like corrida have no idea about the history of Spain and our culture, and they are national traitors!” Yolanda exclaims. The woman expresses her outrage without choosing words and notes that she is sick and tired of the debate on the matter. She believes that those who do not like bullfighting should keep away from bullrings, and everybody will be happy.
The renowned anthropologist Brandes (2009, p. 783) claims that bullfighting is “Spain’s distinctive identity” and thousands of people associate it with Spain. Landborn (2015) states that Spaniards associate corrida with such concepts as courage, passion, skill, life, and death as well as the eternal conflict between nature (bull) and the human (matador). More so, bullfighting is often associated with another iconic peculiarity of the Spanish. Thus, Landborn (2015) compares flamenco with corrida, and it is clear that those are two dances of passion, life, love, and death. In bullfighting, people watch the matador “dancing” with the bull and defending the symbol of wild and dangerous nature.
However, it is also clear that younger generations are less concerned with the issue. Yolanda sighs and notes, “Young people are becoming more disinterested in Spanish traditions.” The woman has noticed the trend that is becoming more and more apparent. “I simply don’t care,” says Jose, 18. “I mean bullfighting is a tradition, but we have to move on as times have changed. I do not see the beauty in this activity.” This teenager expresses the opinion of his entire generation. “I think corrida will be banned sooner or later as it is not in line with European values,” says Laura, 17. Those born in the 2000s are more integrated into the common European culture, and they tend to share common European values. They see bullfighting as something archaic and irrelevant. However, this attitude is somewhat undermined by the fact that matadors are still icons of style for many young people in Spain (Frayer, 2011). Hence, the concepts of courage and masculinity are still incorporated into bullfighting, and young people still share these values though the practice is becoming less popular.
“Perhaps, we are also partially guilty in that,” contemplates Javier, 33, a matador, Yolanda’s husband. “I mean modern bullfighting is becoming more and more corrupted and less and less professional.” Many people agree that the practice is becoming rather corrupted, and many are trying to make money instead of following the tradition (Frayer, 2011). More so, bull breeders often provide weak bulls while some matadors are less skilled. For instance, in 2014, the bullfighting was called off after three matadors were badly injured (Govan, 2014). In 2015, Jimenez Fortes was gored and had serious injuries (Willgress, 2015). “Young matadors are less focused, they make many mistakes, they are not skillful enough” states Jose, “and this makes bullfighting look like the massacre of either the matador or the bull.”
Of course, the economic element of the issue is also very important. Bullfighting is the reason why many tourists come to Spain while it is also an important symbol of Spain for any tourist. “I have come to see the fight of the matador and the bull,” says Mark, 32, a Canadian tourist, “and I will participate in the run. I expect it will be one of the brightest experiences in my life.” The country’s bullrings are often full, which means significant funds for local budgets.
“I also think that it may be cruel, but this is a beautiful Spanish tradition,” notes Ada, 27, a tourist from Germany. “I think this is spectacular… I mean sand and blood, there may be something in it. I also think that attending the bullfighting will help me understand Spanish culture better.” These people are ready to come to Spain, which means they will spend their money in this country. Admittedly, the Spanish economy will benefit from every dollar or euro brought. Tourism is an important segment of the country’s economy, and any event or place attracting people has particular significance and value (Brandes, 2009).
At that, there is another side to the issue. Financial constraints have a negative impact on the development of bullfighting in Spain. Fewer people go to see bullfighting as they simply cannot afford it or prefer spending their money elsewhere (Brandes, 2009). However, negative publicity causes more damage to the practice. Javier notes, “Of course, bullfighting is not the most important segment of our economy, but it is a well-developed industry that employs many people. What will come of us if bullfighting is banned? I am a matador, and this is all I can do. I have some concern about my and my family’s future.” Javier as well as thousands of people involved in bullfighting risk becoming unemployed if the practice is banned in the country. Of course, officials should also take this into account when considering banning or leaving bullfighting.
Conclusion
Clearly, there are many things to consider when thinking about bullfighting. There are political and economic factors to take into account. There are cultural issues as well. It is clear that bullfighting is still deeply incorporated into the Spanish identity, and even though younger generations seem to be disinterested, the tradition is still alive and well. Spanish people, as well as tourists from all over the world, are eager to see the battle between the courageous and skilled matador, the symbol of the civilization, and dangerous and graceful bull, the symbol of nature. Some claim that it is an ancient tradition, and modern people have no right to make it disappear. Whereas, others stress that it is high time to ban this cruel and barbaric practice. There is still no consensus, and only time will show which opinion will win. For now, you still have an opportunity to see one of the most controversial practices of our days.
Brandes, S. (2009). Torophiles and torophobes: The politics of bulls and bullfighting in contemporary Spain. Anthropological Quarterly, 82(3), 779–794.
Frayer, L. (2011). Bullfighting in Spain stays alive despite regional ban. NPR. Web.