« Can you judge a book by its cover? | Main | I guess it must be healthy then »
Overcoming Bias
After attending dogfights it's rumored that on some nights Michael Vick would continue his bloody activities by dining on cow's flesh. No word yet on whether prosecutors will be seeking additional prison time.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on August 27, 2007 at 07:03 AM in Food and Drink | Permalink
Comments
I don't buy the analogy. I make a distinction between eating animal flesh and the imposition of unnecessary pain and suffering on animals through fighting.
But there is some analogy, I believe, between animal fighting and certain methods of factory farming that are unnecessarily cruel, only to deliver less expensive meat.
There is a case to be made that those of us with a certain level of income have a moral obligation, if we eat meat, to go cruelty-free.
Posted by: Keith at Aug 27, 2007 7:09:10 AM
And imagine training beasts to attack and injure one another for the entertainment of fans. Where could a football player have gotten such an idea?
Posted by: Arnold Kling at Aug 27, 2007 7:25:04 AM
Football players volunteer to attack and injure one another for the entertainment of fans. The dogs are coerced into doing so. One would hope a libertarian economist could tell the difference between coercion and voluntary transactions.
Posted by: Hei Lun Chan at Aug 27, 2007 7:42:48 AM
Also, most people view the torture of people as worse than the killing of people. It isn't strange or biased to have the same view of animals.
Posted by: Hei Lun Chan at Aug 27, 2007 7:46:04 AM
@Keith
"A certain level of income?"
How would you compute that? What is the amount of premium for "cruelty-free" meat that I should be required to pay if I make $60,000 a year? What if I have 7 kids to feed as well?
How about differing prices for different levels of cruelty?
(By now, any of you who are still taking me literally, please go read the PETA blogs or something)
My point is, how can you monetize the amount of suffering imposed on another species for the benefit of ours? I throw this one to Tyler.
Posted by: David at Aug 27, 2007 8:03:28 AM
Lol Alex, by the end of the day this topic will be 30 or 40 comments long with posters telling us how torturing dogs is an absolute crime and killing cows is o.k so long as it is for consumption.
Posted by: John Pertz at Aug 27, 2007 8:33:10 AM
Regardless of whether it can be defended or not, the legal system has drawn a line between dogfighting and eating cow. Basically, our society has told Vick that we get very upset by that sort of thing, but he went and did it anyway, so I don't think he deserves much sympathy.
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen at Aug 27, 2007 8:41:35 AM
I'm curious ... Given the 'Overcoming Bias' angle, is it therefore proper to treat my future children with no more love and affection than I treat a distant stranger? After all, the only relevant difference is the emotional attachment. Wouldn't this suggestion that the ultimate lifestyle is indeed something like the priesthood, where you love "all" but none in particular? Does this jive with the way human beings are wired? Is that emotional affection or attachment be it to a son or daughter or a dog more important than logical consistency? Would it be better if everyone had to choose between treating every living with with the love and tenderness of a family member or with the indifference of a fly? Or is affection and love so important that it should be nourished and protected even if man is only capable of limited breadth? In my opinion, clearly we should strive for "unconditional love," but I don't think we are capable of it and I don't think we are capable of treating every fly like it's Lassie. Big deal.
I don't care about eating cows. I wouldn't eat a dog. (Shrug) That is a perfectly rationale decision based on my kinships (of sorts) with dogs over the years, and my lack of conmeasurate experience with cows.
Anyone want to let their wife be killed in place of a stranger somewhere? Why not, right?
Posted by: Christopher at Aug 27, 2007 8:47:13 AM
The whole thing is about personality. Dogs have personality, cows don't.
VINCENT
Thanks a bunch.
(to Jules, who's nursing his coffee) Want a sausage?
JULES
Naw, I don't eat pork.
VINCENT
Are you Jewish?
JULES
I ain't Jewish man, I just don't dig on swine.
VINCENT
Why not?
JULES
They're filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals.
VINCENT
Sausages taste good. Pork chops taste good.
JULES
A sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie. I'll never know 'cause even if it did, I wouldn't eat the filthy $%^&#. Pigs sleep and root in _____. That's a filthy animal. I don't wanna eat nothin' that ain't got enough sense to disregard its own feces.
VINCENT
How about dogs? Dogs eat their own feces.
JULES
I don't eat dog either.
VINCENT
Yes, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
JULES
I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy, but they're definitely dirty. But a dog's got personality. And personality goes a long way.
VINCENT
So by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he's cease to be a filthy animal?
JULES
We'd have to be talkin' 'bout one $#@^&&' charmin' pig. It'd have to be the Cary Grant of pigs.
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Posted by: mcwop at Aug 27, 2007 8:49:43 AM
So which way do you want it Alex, dog fighting legal or meat eating illegal? I'm curious to know.
Posted by: angus at Aug 27, 2007 8:59:09 AM
So which way do you want it Alex, dog fighting legal or meat eating illegal? I'm curious to know.
Posted by: angus at Aug 27, 2007 8:59:50 AM
mcwop,
I don't know where you got your Pulp Fiction quote, but it's not accurate. It was bacon, not sausage, and the last line was it'd "have to be 10 times more charming than that Arnold on Green Acres." Cary Grant wasn't in there at all.
Posted by: Darren at Aug 27, 2007 9:01:31 AM
Oh Yes, now we see the depth of libertarian analysis.
Posted by: spencer at Aug 27, 2007 9:03:20 AM
Angus, some relevant comments are here
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/04/invitro_meat_an.html
Cheers
Alex
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Aug 27, 2007 9:05:05 AM
Regardless of whether it can be defended or not, the legal system has drawn a line between dogfighting and eating cow.
"The law is the law" is about the worst argument possible,
Posted by: Joshua Holmes at Aug 27, 2007 9:24:44 AM
I always thought dogfighting was messed up, but i was hoping someone answer me the questions on the laws of animal torture? Are there not certain clear cut laws that define torture of an animal ? I always assumed that is why he would be charged, not just for the funding of the fights ,and then for the killing of the dogs. Or is he charged for torturing animals too?
I guess where im confused is wouldnt all of these dogs need to be put down? Surely they cant become household pets and normal safe animals? It would seem that the needless killing of the animals is a byproduct of the torture, and shouldnt that be where the crime lies?
Posted by: NotOnThisTopic at Aug 27, 2007 9:28:06 AM
"How would you compute that?"
I don't have to. I'm making an appeal to conscience. Let you conscience be your guid.
"What is the amount of premium for "cruelty-free" meat that I should be required to pay if I make $60,000 a year? What if I have 7 kids to feed as well?"
You conscience should guide you. Once you make yourself aware of what's being done to the animals for your savings, you then decide whether to give up meat, whether to pay a premium for cruel , or whether to fund unnecessary cruelty and pocket the savings.
"How about differing prices for different levels of cruelty?"
That's up to you.
"My point is, how can you monetize the amount of suffering imposed on another species for the benefit of ours? "
Well, we do that all the time with our choices. You do it every day, so what's your problem with being aware of the monetized value you and I place on cruelty?
Why does it bother you so much to actually consider the consequences of your choices?
In short, just because the problem isn't perfectly solvable doesn't absolve you from moral considerations.
Posted by: Keith at Aug 27, 2007 9:34:33 AM
I should have previewed my post:
"You conscience should guide you. Once you make yourself aware of what's being done to the animals for your savings, you then decide whether to give up meat, whether to pay a premium for cruelty-free (or less cruel) meat, or whether to fund unnecessary cruelty and pocket the savings."
Posted by: Keith at Aug 27, 2007 9:37:01 AM
Actually, if he'd gratuitously tortured the cow before eating it, he could have been prosecuted for animal cruelty, at least in some parts of the country. The law draws lines; there are few laws that don't seep into some shade of gray, but we as a society come to agreements on where solid lines should be drawn. It seems disingenuous for an economist to pretend not to understand that. Our society has decided that it's ok to eat certain animals -- but even then, the laws have become more and more strict about how much pain those animals can endure before they're eaten. We've decided that there are societal benefits to discouraging sadism. Personally, I agree with that. I'd let a hamburger eater babysit my kid, but certainly not a dog fighter.
Posted by: lara at Aug 27, 2007 9:38:16 AM
The analogy is proper. It shows that if we think cats and dogs should be treated humanely that it's inconsistent to not do the same for cows, pigs, lambs and other mammals.
Of course, this reasoning also extends to poultry and fish, but if you cannot live life without eating a mammal your dissonance (your bias) will be so strong you will be unable to appreciate moral arguments that advocate vegetarianism.
Posted by: Macneil at Aug 27, 2007 9:40:57 AM
Eating the flesh of cattle is fine by me and, although it's not my thing, I don't have any quarrel with people who eat dog (or horse, etc.) meat. I do, however, have a huge problem with anyone who would train, and then force, animals to deliberately kill and maim each other ... dogs or cattle (or cocks, etc.).
The difference is clear to even a casual observer ... one is for sustenance, the other is entertainment; death for entertainment is the height of degeneracy.
Why is this complicated?
Posted by: mike at Aug 27, 2007 9:59:44 AM
Football players volunteer to attack and injure one another for the entertainment of fans. The dogs are coerced into doing so.
Please. How many pets volunteer to get themselves neutered? How many cows sign up for being eaten?
The analogy with football players is hardly perfect, but it's definitely worth pointing out given the absolute vehemence with which Vick is being denounced. It's a bit astounding to think that he's committed some of the worst atrocities in recorded history.
Posted by: Barbar at Aug 27, 2007 10:06:11 AM
I have no comment on this subject yet (I am still thinking) but would some like to discuss bull fighting in Mexico and Spain?
BTW these dogs are often very male to male agressive naturaly so I do not know enough to be sure that they are not willing participants.
Posted by: Floccina at Aug 27, 2007 10:07:41 AM
I do, however, have a huge problem with anyone who would train, and then force, animals to deliberately kill and maim each other ... dogs or cattle (or cocks, etc.).
death for entertainment is the height of degeneracy
So what do you think about Michael Vick's primary profession? Or boxing?
Oh that's right, human being have agency while birds don't so it's much better to get your jollies watching human beings beat the crap out of each other than it is to watch birds fight each other. What a simple, coherent moral view.
Posted by: Barbar at Aug 27, 2007 10:09:46 AM
This is silly, Tyler.
We kill dogs all the time for social benefit. We do so in the most humane way possible. Few people consider the local animal shelter equal to dog fighting.
Besides, I am more a fan of the simple joys of a monkey knife fight.
Posted by: GoodneesOfFit at Aug 27, 2007 10:14:17 AM
