Michael Vick should get no plea deal. There are some acts that are illegal but not immoral, ie. smoking marijuana. There are some acts that are not illegal but are immoral, ie. United States Government's use of torture. And then there are some acts that are both illegal and immoral. One example of this is "animal cruelty." People who carry out acts in the third category should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Why is what Michael Vick did immoral? I really don't want to get into a philosophical dissertation here, but in a nutshell - a dog is a sentient enough creature to understand pain and pleasure - under the confines of a certain moral school (which I believe) actions that lead to the increase of unwanted pain are immoral - dog fighting leads to an increase of unwanted pain - therefore dogfighting is immoral. That really is a watered down version, but it is the general gist of the argument.
Now to the legal aspect of Vick's actions. During his confession it is important to note what he was really saying. He told the public what he did was "immature" and that he "needed to grow up." What he did wasn't immature! Making farting noises at the dinner table is immature. Torturing animals is not immature its immoral. This displays Vick's lack of understanding regarding the true nature of his actions.
I also do not believe that Vick is truly sorry for what he did. He never actually apologized for hurting and killing animals. He just apologized for embarrassing his head coach, teammates, and the NFL. There is a huge distinction between apologizing for an action and apologizing for offending people due to the action. This shows that Vick is not upset over the regret of what he did - he is merely upset because he got caught and will have to face consequences. If I was Judge Henry E. Hudson, I would throw him behind bars for five years. I would also send him to counseling. I would also take his $171 million worth of contracts and donate them to charity. And if I was the NFL, I would permanently ban him from the game - the same thing the MLB did to Pete Rose. He shouldn't ask for forgiveness for offending people, he should ask for forgiveness for committing an act of animal cruelty.
I know some of the pictures are hard to look at, but only when people see them can they truly understand the magnitude of Vick's actions. Micheal Vick is a despicable human being and I hope his life is ruined by this incident.
-tg
11 comments:
We have already discussed this a little bit, but I would like to say one more time: Michael Vick is not a terrible human being and I do not believe he deserves either a lengthy jail sentence or a liftetime NFL ban.
We live in a society where we do not value the lives of animals, plain and simple. Every time you go into a grocery store or a restaurant or a fast food joint and buy meat or fish, you are contributing to the slaughter of millions of animals. Many people, including the Vice President of the United States, go hunting for fun (which can also lead to de facto torture--say the bullet hits the animal but doesn't kill it right away, subjecting the prey to several hours or days of excruciating pain and agony). People kill animals not for food or fur, but merely for enjoyment. When our society dictates that we can kill animals for pleasure, we have made a collective deicision that animals' lives have basically no value. Torture is illegal because it is a human rights violation. Torture of animals cannot be illegal as an animal rights violation, because animals have no rights. None whatsoever. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but that's the way it is.
Now, of course Michael Vick is a little bit more distrubed than most because not only does he tolerate the defilement of animals, but he seems to derive pleasure from watching it close up. But it is absurd to call him immoral. He is merely a product of a society that assigns no value to the lives of animals.
Ok, let’s start with your first comment. "We live in a society where we do not value the lives of animals, plain and simple." This is incorrect. As a society we certainly value the lives of animals, both legally and morally. Legally, Black Baer hunting in New Jersey is illegal, cock fighting is illegal, and using dog meat for food is also illegal in areas. Society also values the lives of animals morally. This is why there is such a loving attachment to pets, there are veterinary hospitals subsidized by the state, there are endangered species acts, there are animal shelters etc.
I find you are having trouble drawing a distinction between the life of a dog as opposed to other animals, like chickens, rabbits, and even insects. Let me first say that an animal being "cute and fuzzy" should not be a factor. This is used to pull heart strings, but should not have any legal or moral impact. As I've said, a dog has a brain capable of much more awareness and a relatively more acute conception of pain and pleasure, and happiness and sadness then other animals. A chicken, rabbit, or insect can not experience the wide array of emotions that dogs can. This is why Vick's actions are much worse then if he was involved in an "insect fighting" ring.
You also bring up the argument that society allows for the killing of animals for food. Again, dog meat is illegal. We are talking about "dog fighting" not "deer fighting." Personally I feel the other animals like deer, cows, and chickens should also have certain rights, but I will concede that society does not hold that same belief. Society does hold that belief, however, for domesticated animals such as dogs.
Let me also say that killing animals for fun is immoral. You are correct in saying that it is not illegal but it is certainly not moral (Once again my moral conception is based upon eudaimonian ethics). You can not justify the morality of an immoral act by using another immoral act. Legally you can use this approach because one is illegal and the other is not. It really is irrelevant, however, to talk about the legality of Vick's actions because it is undeniable that what he did was against the law. So we will continue to stick with morality.
You go on to say "Torture of animals cannot be illegal as an animal rights violation, because animals have no rights." This again is incorrect from a moral standpoint. Under the moral philosophy of J.S. Mill, every living thing has the right to not be tortured. These are not legal rights, but are certainly rationalist rights society as a whole believe dogs and other animals have.
Saying animals have no rights from a legal standpoint is also incorrect. Not only have courts ruled that acts of animal cruelty are considered malum in se, there are also laws giving animals certain rights.
In New Jersey, S84/A1583 was signed into law on June 29, 2005. This bill further amended N.J.S.A.4:22-17 clarifying that "cruelty to animals includes the use of an animal to injure another animal." S84; sec.C also states: "A person who shall inflict unnecessary cruelty upon a living animal or creature of which he has charge either as owner or otherwise, or unnecessarily fail to provide it with proper food, drink, shelter or protection from the weather, or leave it unattended in a vehicle under inhumane conditions adverse to the health or welfare of the living animal or creature shall be guilty of a disorderly persons offense"
How can you say that animals have no legal rights "whatsoever" when precedent from the judiciary as well as action from state legislature both agree that animals have basic rights to be treated humanely? This is just an example from New Jersey; however every state has some form of the same law.
I stand by what I said; Vick is a despicable and immoral human being. As I've shown, animals do have rights - conceptually and legally. To argue otherwise is contrary to the numerous supports I gave above. I hope that justice prevails and he is held accountable for his actions.
-tg
Certain kinds of animal abuse are illegal (in NJ, black bear hunting, cockfighting, etc...) as you said, but not all forms are. This is just another example of society being hypocritical. Furthermore, in Louisiana, cockfighting is legal. It was legal in New Mexico until a couple of months ago. Interestingly, presidential hopeful Bill Richardson was elected Governor of New Mexico on a campaign platform that included a promise to "protect the sport" of cockfighting. He has since broken this promise and signed a ban on cockfighting. How is this relevant? Society has no overriding values when it comes to the lives of animals. In some states, some animals have rights protected, while others don't have any rights. In different states, different animals have different rights. Trying to draw distinctions between animals like a dog and chicken is a pointless, and frankly sordid exercise. Do we honestly want to determine which animals can live or die based on our scientific guesses of how much brainpower we presume they have, or whether man can tame them or not? Legislators pass laws to appease the fickle public when they are outraged by the abuse of something "cute and furry", but they are not acting upon any moral and ethical principles. The vast majority of them are acting out of political expediency.
Killing animals for fun is immoral to you. It is immoral to me as well. But it is not immoral to society. If society felt that killing animals for fun violated our sense of morality, it would make that kind of hunting illegal. We are not talking about your morals or mine, we are talking about whether Vick's actions punished the moral standards of society, which has to judge him through our legal system and issue an appropriate punishment.
In the 21st century, there is no need whatsoever to kill animals. It is absolutely possible to live a fully healthy life while being a vegetarian, which I am. However, I am not saying I am a saint by any means. For example, I wear leather belts. That leather is obtained by the slaughter of animals. Sure, I probably do a little more than most to prevent the unnecessary death of animals, but overall, I'll be honest, I could care less about the whole issue. It may sound cold and cruel, but it's the truth. If killing an animal can give me some sort of material value (like leather belts), then I am fine with it. In that way, I am just like all the meat-eaters and everyone else in society who benefits from the killing of animals (pretty much everyone except PETA fanatics).
As a society, we have made a decision to not value the lives of animals. When something particularly repulses us, we outlaw it. But we have no moral, legal, or ethical consistency on the issue. Most people who proclaim to care about animals are nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites. We have to admit that and stop demonizing Michael Vick for simply displaying the values of our society in a way that we wish we didn't have to see.
Michael Vick is guilty. He has admitted to it. The Falcons are trying to obtain 22 million dollars back from him. They can't take money that he has already earned, but his time spent in prison will constitute a breach of contract and allow the Falcons to regain some money.
The issue here regarding Vick has little to do with whether or not he is moral or immoral. Michael Vick bankrolled an illegal gambling operation. Does he deserve to play football again?
Personally, I would love for Vick to never play again. I think he is the single biggest disappointment in NFL history and his actions utterly repulse me. He has pled guilty and while the maximum term is 5 years, it appears he is poised for 12-18 months.
Vick lied to Roger Goodell--the man who controls the decision regarding Vick's future in the NFL. The large sporting leagues have very, very strict rules about gambling of any kind. Rick Neuheisel was fired from the University of Washington for competing in an NCAA March Madness bracket. Neuheisel was the football coach so him betting in a friendly neighborhood pool in an unrelated sport was grounds for his dismissal.
Pete Rose, gambled on baseball, banned for life. The NBA is in crisis this summer because of the allegations of officials being tied to bookies after the points shaving debacle.
Vick bankrolled an illegal gambling enterprise. He did not bet on the NFL, but in this situation Vick probably should be banned for life.
Will Vick be banned for life? Honestly, I can't say. The kicker here is in the gambling.
Spiel, I think both Vick and Rick Neuheisel were treated unfairly. I thought it was absurd that Neuheisel was fired for being in a March Madness pool, something that millions of people do every year. In fact, if what Pete Rose said is true, that he only bet on the Reds and never against them, then I don't think he should have been punished either. As long as he wasn't betting against his own team, then he wasn't compromising the intergrity of the game. It is misleading to group these incidents with the NBA referee scandal involving Tim Donaghy. By betting on games in which he was in a position to influence, Donaghy completely violated the fair and unbiased position that referees are supposed to maintain.
Maybe my libertarian streak is showing, but if people want to gamble away their own money, why should we stop them? It's not a brain-altering addiction in the same way as alcohol, smoking, or drugs. Vick broke the law and will have to face the wrath of our legal system, but I don't think the NFL should care about what players do with their own money as long as it does not compromise the integrity of the league.
Parimal, I also believe Neuheisal was unfairly treated. He won a 4.5 million dollar settlement from the NCAA because of what happened to him.
My point was that commissioners are very strict about gambling because they don't want to compromise the integrity of the game in any way. If people are betting on themselves then it takes away the fun for the fans and the reason for them to show up.
After all, if Pete Rose was betting on himself he still had the ability to bet against himself and that terrifies commissioners and owners alike. You don't want to upset the fan base.
And I'm not relating these to the NBA scandal. I'm saying that the NBA scandal will create an even more uptight policy in regards to gambling because there can't be anything that comes close to compromising the game's integrity.
My point of course was that Goodell will probably be strict with Vick because of that. Honestly even if Vick were to return to the NFL who would sign him? No one wants that bad publicity.
And that's moot anyway because he's still a Falcon right now.
Let me first say that I agree with Spiel. The gambling ring will be the kicker in the case; it shouldn't, but legally it will be. Animal cruelty is a much greater crime then gambling in my opinion. I think he should be banned from the NFL for his actions directly relating to the torturing of the dogs. I know this will not happen. If he does get banned it will be for "embarrassing the NFL" or "gambling ring" etc.
To respond to Parimal's statement that society is "hypocritical" for allowing some animal's being treated differently then others, I agree. However, this is irrelevant. Clearly there is a problem with a society. It is agreed in all states; however, that dog fighting is illegal.
Another point made is that lawmakers should not "determine which animals can live or die based on our scientific guesses of how much brainpower we presume they have." First off these are not scientific guesses. There is real scientific evidence that a dog’s brain is more developed than a chicken or insect. The second point is that I never said "brainpower," I said “brain capable of much more awareness and a relatively more acute conception of pain and pleasure" which is a based on sentience and has absolutely nothing to do with brainpower. It’s not as much a dividing line but more like a wide grey area. I agree that the grey area is sometimes arbitrarily applied but there is psychological evidence backing most of the decisions.
You also say "Killing animals for fun is immoral to you. It is immoral to me as well. But it is not immoral to society." I never said society felt it was immoral. My first post was clearly what I thought of the situation. When I say Vick is despicable and immoral I am clearly speaking for myself and my own beliefs, not society. I do, however, believe that my beliefs and moral conviction should be held in higher regard then societies moral standard (I'm not saying yours or Spiel's). I say this because I am using a 200 year old ethical system to support my premises while most people in society do not use any form of logic at all to support anything.
You say in your second post "In some states, some animals have rights protected, while others don't have any rights." The second part of this statement is wrong. In every one of the fifty states there is atleast some sort of law, like New Jersey's, giving animals the most basic of rights. This is also drastically contrary to your first post which you state,"...animals have no rights. None whatsoever." I am glad that we both agree that society is fickle in using "cute and fuzzy" as some sort of argument against Vick or any other person in his situation.
And to Spiel: I know you are trying to take a pragmatic legal stance on this, but you can't be serious when you say "The issue here regarding Vick has little to do with whether or not he is moral or immoral." The laws which made Vick's action's illegal are based around certain basic rights assigned to animals by the Legislature. As you know "rights" have a direct correlation with ethics and morality. This is why it is a legal and moral issue. The gambling aspect is really another entirely seperate issue. They are really two completely different charges: 1. Dog fighting, and 2. Gambling ring. Either way I hope that justice is served.
-tg
Yes, we can all agree that gambling will be the main reason for Vick's punishment, both legally and professionally. And I certainly agree that animal cruelty is a far more heinous act than gambling, which I do not have a problem with at all under most circumstances.
All states do ban dogfighting. But I find it disingenuous to say the least when people start demonizing Vick for his participation in dogfighting, when most people are guilty of or tolerant of similar cruelty towards animals (hunting, eating meat, wearing leather, etc...). That is how society is hypocritical on this issue.
I also find it very hard to believe that we can assert with any type of scientific certainty that dogs can experience pain or pleasure more strongly than other animals, such as chickens. I may be wrong on this, but I would like to see some scientific literature first. Also, you can't honestly tell me that the dividing line on which animals' rights to protect is based on psychological scientific evidence. The vast majority of legislators know nothing about the science and psychology of animals' brains. They act to protect dogs because their constituents think they are cute and furry.
I don't know why you think that the statement "In some states, some animals have rights protected, while others don't have any rights" is incorrect. For example, what rights do chickens or turkeys have in any of the states? Certainly not the right to life. What rights do insects have?
When I said in my original post that "...animals have no rights. None whatsoever", I was using the term "rights" in an entirely different context. I was comparing animal rights to human rights. For example, there is a general, universal concept of human rights. It is spelled out in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions. Everyone has their own unique concept of human rights, but there is a good degree of commonality. Most rational people would agree that Saddam Hussein was a human rights abuser, or that Uzbekistan's policy of putting prisoners' limbs in boiling water violates human rights. There is no similar overarching notions of animal rights. There are no major international documents, and everyone has their own and very different ideas of what rights animals should have, both in America and throughout the world. I probably should have clarified that I wasn't using the word "rights" in the context of specific legal rights for animals, like bans on dogfighting or cockfighting.
And finally, when you say you are speaking for yourself and your beliefs on morality and ethics regarding Vick's situation, that is perfectly fine. The problem is that in your original post it seemed like you wanted Vick's legal punishment to be based on your individual notions by making claims such as "Michael Vick should get no plea deal" and "If I was Judge Henry E. Hudson, I would throw him behind bars for five years. I would also send him to counseling. I would also take his $171 million worth of contracts and donate them to charity." The legal system is based on our societal views and values, and Vick has to be legally punished based on our societal criteria, not the individual beliefs of you or me.
Parimal, I am in full agreement that society is disingenuous and the same people sickened by Vick think nothing of the McDonald's they're going to consume later tonight. I do not know why this keeps being brought up since I have already agreed that the public is fickle and "cute and furry" is not a logical reason of support. Once again, "I" think Vick is despicable, "I" would give him the maximum punishment, and "I" think his actions were immoral. Again, I hold my moral conception in higher regard then the public's because unlike most people I use Utilitarian Ethics to support my claim.
The scientific evidence to support the notion that dogs are more sentient then chickens comes from a 2005 study by Dr. J.C. Phillips and Dr. C. McCulloch published in the "Journal of Biological Education vol. 40 pgs. 17-24." The study found that among animal psychologists and veterinarians who study animals, monkey's have the highest sentience followed in descending order by dogs, newborn babies, foxes, pigs, chickens, rats, and lastly fish. This study does lack anatomical or physiological evidence but does rest on psychology. An abstract from the study can found here: http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/299082/clive-phillips.pdf.
In reference to your statement "In some states, some animals have rights protected, while others don't have any rights," I was under the impression that "others" was referring to states not animals. You have to be careful about the way you word things, especially a word like "rights". You can't feel it unjust for me to accuse you of contradicting yourself when you say two opposite things about rights while leaving it up to the reader to interpret which "rights" you are referring to. I am, however, glad you clarified your point.
Your claim citing me saying "you wanted Vick's legal punishment to be based on your individual notions," is completely true. I don't see how this is a problem. Perpetrators in this case can get anywhere between 6 months to 5 years jail time. As long as the sentence is within the law, which 5 years is, I don't see a problem. You know as well as I do that judges always base sentences on their "individual notions." Just look at the Supreme Court. A judges job is to interpret the law, and the interruption allows for a maximum of 5 years in the slammer. That would be my sentence if "I" was the judge in the case.
It seems like we agree on all the legal aspects of this case. The only way to truly debate the morality of dog fighting would be for me to fully explain my moral philosophy. Via internet is certainly not the appropriate forum for that kind of a discussion. After discussing this so vigorly I'm really interested to see what Judge Hudson decides.
You or Spiel have the final word if you so choose...
-tg
Yeah, I'm not really going to dispute anything you said in your last post because I actually agree with a lot of it and now we're just beating a horse that's been dead for a very long time.
There is clearly some scientific evidence that dogs may be more sentient than chickens or other poultry but I'm still not sure how positive of this we can be.
I guess it's fair to say that if you were the judge, you would reject the plea deal and sentence Vick to 5 years in prison and counseling. I would just caution you that it is very rare for judges to reject plea deals and some would argue that when judges became too heavily involved in the morality of the alleged crimes, they lose their ability to be dispassionate arbitraitors of the law. The judge also does not have the power to void Vick's contract, let alone donate the $171 million to charity. The most he can do is levy a $250,000 fine on Vick. It is up to the Falcons to recover some of the money by proving that Vick violated the terms of the contract through his actions. The Falcons probably will end up not paying Vick's salary from this point forward and may be able to recover up to $20 million of the $37 million in bonuses he has already received, but that remains to be seen.
The discussion has been beast. My ethics professor just said that we may discuss the Vick dogfighting case later in the semester, so I know that if we do, I'll definitely be more prepared than anyone else in the class!
I refuse to debate morality in this case. Michael Vick is guilty, legally, and will be punished by the Federal Government and the NFL based on what he did, not whether or not his acts were heinous in nature.
And I reiterate that I do believe what he did to be immoral, but that should have absolutely zero bearing on his punishment. He broke the law, he flirted with gambling, and now he's going to have to pay the price (literally and figuratively).
Personally I think public backlash will be big if he gets reinstated. However, I do believe that once Vick serves his time he should have the opportunity to realistically appeal for reinstatement.
Post a Comment