Posts Tagged ‘Ethical Treatment Of Animals’

On Thursday, former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick signed a one-year contract worth $1.6 million with the Philadelphia Eagles with an option for a second year at reportedly $5.2 million.

Despite anecdotal accounts of mixed reactions from Philly fans, Vick not being able to participate in a regular season game until October 18, and the pull-no-punches reminder from the People Against the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) of what Vick did and condoned, this is still a good move for both Vick and the eagles and here’s why:

Quarterback Controversy: There is none. At least for now. Donovan McNabb doesn’t have to go to bed at night wondering if he will be the starting quarterback in the morning. Not too many quarterbacks around the league can say that.

Right now, this situation is like a large wound that has just begun to heal: it’s fresh, it’s open and you don’t want to mess with it much because it still hurts like hell. So you put a bandage on it, take your antibiotics and leave it alone. Or in this case, you take on Tony Dungy as your adviser, sign with the Eagles and your overwhelmingly supportive friend Donovan McNabb, keep your head down, and don’t do anything stupid.

But come next year if that option is picked up…

Philadelphia Fans: Known for their passion, rowdiness and boos. They booed McNabb when he was drafted, they booed Santa Claus for giving them coal so many years in a row, and they probably boo Mom when she makes a bad Philly cheese steak sandwich. But this is a good thing. Vick won’t feel alone when he’s booed (which will surely happen) because every player in the locker room has heard (and felt) the boos cascade down from the fickle fans.

Philadelphia, the city: The sixth-largest in America, and the seventh most valuable market in the NFL, according to Forbes. But Philadelphia is also the seventh most valuable MLB market (Phillies), the thirteenth most valuable NBA market (76ers), and the fifth most valuable NHL market (Flyers). What does that have to do with anything, you ask? Fans and sports writers won’t be twiddling their thumbs thinking up ways to bash Vick because they’ll be distracted with the other sports teams.

Actually, they probably will be doing just that, but you get the picture. Vick and the Eagles will take their lumps. But as long as he keeps his head down and stays out of trouble, he will find redemption.

Sports fans love a comeback story too much for that not to happen.

Issues on animal cruelty in the United States came to the forefront of American media when football superstar Michael Vick was indicted on charges of funding and operating an underground dog fighting ring in his spare time. He reportedly trained the dogs using harsh punishment techniques, even killing dogs that didn’t perform well enough. In the wake of such an emotionally supercharged topic, one must ask the question of how our animal cruelty laws are enforced, not to mention the ethical principles guiding legal valuations.

First, let us understand animal cruelty. Animal cruelty is characterized as applying unusually harsh forms of punishment imposed on animals for either no reason, or pure entertainment. The impetus for animal cruelty behavior among humans is highly debated. However, psychology has shown that high occurrences of animal cruelty during childhood are an indication of future psychopathic and sociopathic behavior.

Even more sensitive is the ethical valuations of different forms of animal cruelty. The debate is centered on whether or not animal have the same sense of being and also if their existence warrants a certain set of “unalienable” rights (if you will). Anthropomorphic sentiments are often attached to these debates, citing that one should protect these animals’ dignity and honor. Organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) go so far as to promote vegetarianism, expose bad meat-processing techniques, and prosecute other organizations that overstep what some consider to be inhumane killing processes.

The large issue of whether or not killing animals is okay will unfortunately never be resolved. Big money businesses have generated huge profits from killing animals in order to supply the ever-growing fresh meat market. And while killing these animals seems to be permissible, there is an undefined threshold at which the treatment of animals goes from being right to being wrong.

Because the line is not defined, translating this threshold into a legal structure becomes extremely difficult. Questions like ‘What exactly connotes cruelty?’ and ‘What is unnecessary?’ come to the forefront of the debate. Subjective valuations get thrown around until something is actually agreed upon by the majority, usually stemming from an emotional tolerance level which varies across any given population.

We may never know what actually is right or wrong in any given situation, partially because it isn’t a matter of fact; it’s a matter of feeling. And since these varying emotional sentiments that permeate into reality are far from static, our perception of reality is skewed with bias. Michael Vick was convicted on the grounds that his activities were illegal. Whether or not it was right or wrong, we may never decide.

Incoming search terms for the article:

“Even more sensitive is the ethical valuations of different forms of animal cruelty The debate is centered on whether or not animal have the same sense of being and also if their existence warrants a certain set of unalienable rights (if you will) Anthrop