Fighting Bettas

[Jonathan_Tan]

hi guys,
wat do u guys think about the above topic?
is it morally acceptable?

[Foo Hong]

I see plakat fighting no diff from cock fightings. In thailand, these may take place side by side. Fighting roosters are reared for ...well fighting, not for hainanese chicken rice. By same token I felt tht some bettas are raised simply for fights. While I dont reallu enjoy seeing, I dont get overly upset as well if I see one going on.

[Foo Hong]

I see plakat fighting no diff from cock fightings. In thailand, these may take place side by side. Fighting roosters are reared for ...well fighting, not for hainanese chicken rice. By same token I felt tht some bettas are raised simply for fights. While I dont reallu enjoy seeing, I dont get overly upset as well if I see one going on.

[Toh Chen Han]

Your second question is very interesting. U will only find an answer to it if you can define the content of morality. If you can show that there is such a thing as objective morality then there will be an objective answer to your question (yes or no answer). But if u are a non-cognitivist and believe that morality is subjective then the answer will depend on who you ask.

U can spend a lifetime exploring this question, heheh.

As to your first question, I wouldn't fight any of my fish. 'Sim tia' when see them ripping each other apart. I wouldn't participate in betta/cock/bull/dog/cat (ooh actually maybe catfight i will heheh) fight - unnecessary suffering. Do not unto others (including animals)....


quote:Originally posted by Jonathan_Tan

hi guys,
wat do u guys think about the above topic?
is it morally acceptable?

[Toh Chen Han]

Your second question is very interesting. U will only find an answer to it if you can define the content of morality. If you can show that there is such a thing as objective morality then there will be an objective answer to your question (yes or no answer). But if u are a non-cognitivist and believe that morality is subjective then the answer will depend on who you ask.

U can spend a lifetime exploring this question, heheh.

As to your first question, I wouldn't fight any of my fish. 'Sim tia' when see them ripping each other apart. I wouldn't participate in betta/cock/bull/dog/cat (ooh actually maybe catfight i will heheh) fight - unnecessary suffering. Do not unto others (including animals)....


quote:Originally posted by Jonathan_Tan

hi guys,
wat do u guys think about the above topic?
is it morally acceptable?

[Steven Cheng]

What about boxing? Millions watch all over the world. Biting of ears, pop eye, brain damage etc.

[Steven Cheng]

What about boxing? Millions watch all over the world. Biting of ears, pop eye, brain damage etc.

[Toh Chen Han]

In boxing, the 'evil' of bodily harm to both participants is, in a sense, 'waived' by the prior consent that each gives. This is why boxers do not commit the crime of 'battery' each time they step into the ring. They make a fully informed choice to partake in the sport, and know the consequences of it, or at least they agree to assume the risk of any unforseen bodily harm that might result (unexpected death etc).

I am not sure whether you can say the same for animal bloodsports. The creatures are trained to fight, their killer instincts selectively bred in, and added to through rigorous 'conditioning'. When u put them in the 'ring', are they actually exercising the same kind of choice whether to fight? Or driven by pure in-built instinct to protect itself?

There was a discussion on this in arofanatics and one of the advocates of fishfighting said fighting is something which the fish do naturally = no one forces them to, they just do it so its ok. Kelvin replied that in the wild the fighting is for a reason: territorial protection / right to mating. And in the wild the animals are free to shun a fight, or to escape when losing - they can't in staged fights.

[Toh Chen Han]

In boxing, the 'evil' of bodily harm to both participants is, in a sense, 'waived' by the prior consent that each gives. This is why boxers do not commit the crime of 'battery' each time they step into the ring. They make a fully informed choice to partake in the sport, and know the consequences of it, or at least they agree to assume the risk of any unforseen bodily harm that might result (unexpected death etc).

I am not sure whether you can say the same for animal bloodsports. The creatures are trained to fight, their killer instincts selectively bred in, and added to through rigorous 'conditioning'. When u put them in the 'ring', are they actually exercising the same kind of choice whether to fight? Or driven by pure in-built instinct to protect itself?

There was a discussion on this in arofanatics and one of the advocates of fishfighting said fighting is something which the fish do naturally = no one forces them to, they just do it so its ok. Kelvin replied that in the wild the fighting is for a reason: territorial protection / right to mating. And in the wild the animals are free to shun a fight, or to escape when losing - they can't in staged fights.

[Jonathan_Tan]

hmm....
interesting answers...
i asked this because i had read somethin in arofanatics abt fighting bettas and so i wanted to find out the view of u guys (pple readin this) on the subject of fighting bettas.
my definition of morality in this case is whether or not it should be encouraged. i've got some friends who like bug me about fighting my plakats with theirs and so i'm at lost as to wat to do.
personally, i'm ok with fighting them but as to whether or not it is a acceptable thing to do, i need the advice of u guys.

[Jonathan_Tan]

hmm....
interesting answers...
i asked this because i had read somethin in arofanatics abt fighting bettas and so i wanted to find out the view of u guys (pple readin this) on the subject of fighting bettas.
my definition of morality in this case is whether or not it should be encouraged. i've got some friends who like bug me about fighting my plakats with theirs and so i'm at lost as to wat to do.
personally, i'm ok with fighting them but as to whether or not it is a acceptable thing to do, i need the advice of u guys.

[Toh Chen Han]

Well, I think nobody can tell you whether it's acceptable or not. If someone says 'fighting bettas is not acceptable', what he's really saying is that its not acceptable to HIM. This is a world of varied opinions and values. Why do you think wars are fought and jillions killed in the name of ideology/faith/politics/religion?

So look to your own value system and make your own assessment. What principles do YOU stand for? I'm sure you already know the answer to your question....but maybe you don't know that you know.

=)

[Toh Chen Han]

Well, I think nobody can tell you whether it's acceptable or not. If someone says 'fighting bettas is not acceptable', what he's really saying is that its not acceptable to HIM. This is a world of varied opinions and values. Why do you think wars are fought and jillions killed in the name of ideology/faith/politics/religion?

So look to your own value system and make your own assessment. What principles do YOU stand for? I'm sure you already know the answer to your question....but maybe you don't know that you know.

=)

[Steven Cheng]

I read in one of the Thai websites some time back about how the Thais treat fish fighting as an art/sport to achieving excellence. The staged fighting is to assess their achievement. However, gambling and betting activities also come with it. So, I think if you treat it purely as an art/sport, it is acceptable, but if you enjoy watching the violence and bloodshed and gamble etc, then I would say it is morally wrong.

[Steven Cheng]

I read in one of the Thai websites some time back about how the Thais treat fish fighting as an art/sport to achieving excellence. The staged fighting is to assess their achievement. However, gambling and betting activities also come with it. So, I think if you treat it purely as an art/sport, it is acceptable, but if you enjoy watching the violence and bloodshed and gamble etc, then I would say it is morally wrong.

[Jonathan_Tan]

personally i treat it as an art. an art whereby training is involved. i think i will only allow my bettas to fight if no serious damage is inflicted. thanks for your views guys.

[Jonathan_Tan]

personally i treat it as an art. an art whereby training is involved. i think i will only allow my bettas to fight if no serious damage is inflicted. thanks for your views guys.

[Myron Tay]

We should not live in a world in which we allow morality to be subjective. In so doing, we would be condoning the actions of militant extremists and genocide. So the answer is that there is objective morality as captured in the legislation adopted intranationally (e.g. death penalty for convicted murderers) and internationally (e.g. Geneva convention).

As for staged fighting amongst bettas (or any animal for that matter), believe that if caught, there is every chance that you can be convicted of cruelty to animals. Agreed?

quote:Originally posted by tohchenhan

Your second question is very interesting. U will only find an answer to it if you can define the content of morality. If you can show that there is such a thing as objective morality then there will be an objective answer to your question (yes or no answer). But if u are a non-cognitivist and believe that morality is subjective then the answer will depend on who you ask.

[Myron Tay]

We should not live in a world in which we allow morality to be subjective. In so doing, we would be condoning the actions of militant extremists and genocide. So the answer is that there is objective morality as captured in the legislation adopted intranationally (e.g. death penalty for convicted murderers) and internationally (e.g. Geneva convention).

As for staged fighting amongst bettas (or any animal for that matter), believe that if caught, there is every chance that you can be convicted of cruelty to animals. Agreed?

quote:Originally posted by tohchenhan

Your second question is very interesting. U will only find an answer to it if you can define the content of morality. If you can show that there is such a thing as objective morality then there will be an objective answer to your question (yes or no answer). But if u are a non-cognitivist and believe that morality is subjective then the answer will depend on who you ask.

[Toh Chen Han]

It would be great if only everyone shared common values, then morality would truly be objective. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to reflect reality. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. So many things are so multifaceted its hard to make sense of it all. It's ok to be an objectivist when the objective morality defined just happens to be the brand of morality one subscribes to. But always remember there are minorities, whose realities are pretty much shaped by the way THEY see the world. Everyone wants the world to be made in his image...that's why objectivity is dangerous. He who gets to define the rules will have his interests met.



As for fish fighting, I think enough people engage in it and abstain from it to make it impossible to arrive at any kind of consensus. As betta breeders we face a dilemma, because the best of the fish we see today is the result of countless deaths (culls). Even if you don't practice culling personally, rest assured that the only reason you were able to buy that perfect HM was because thousands of others died in the quest for perfection. The betta fighting will easily argue that culling is worse than fighting.

(Please don't read this as an invitation to a cull debate...just sharing views on a topic of interest to me).

[Toh Chen Han]

It would be great if only everyone shared common values, then morality would truly be objective. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to reflect reality. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. So many things are so multifaceted its hard to make sense of it all. It's ok to be an objectivist when the objective morality defined just happens to be the brand of morality one subscribes to. But always remember there are minorities, whose realities are pretty much shaped by the way THEY see the world. Everyone wants the world to be made in his image...that's why objectivity is dangerous. He who gets to define the rules will have his interests met.



As for fish fighting, I think enough people engage in it and abstain from it to make it impossible to arrive at any kind of consensus. As betta breeders we face a dilemma, because the best of the fish we see today is the result of countless deaths (culls). Even if you don't practice culling personally, rest assured that the only reason you were able to buy that perfect HM was because thousands of others died in the quest for perfection. The betta fighting will easily argue that culling is worse than fighting.

(Please don't read this as an invitation to a cull debate...just sharing views on a topic of interest to me).

[Foo Hong]

Siamese fighting fish shld be renamed Siamnese Flaring Fish, then poeple when fight them :D

[Foo Hong]

Siamese fighting fish shld be renamed Siamnese Flaring Fish, then poeple when fight them :D

[Myron Tay]

Which is fine as far as subjective personal beliefs are concerned; I agree that not everyone shares common values. However, the question is whether as a society we allow subjective individual morality to prevail.

As you have already shown, one can get away with anything if society chooses to live by a subjective moral code. There would be too many conflicts of "morality" and chaos would result. By choosing to live in a country or even in the international community, you have implicitly agreed to abide by the moral code as defined by its laws or suffer the consequences. Like it or not, these laws define for us a moral code for all of us to live by, whether we agree to them or not.

Fighting fishes may get you caught under cruelty to animals (I may be wrong but can someone check?). Betting (which is frequently the reason for fish bouts) is definitely outlawed. So can some forms of culling (I do not see any problems with using culls as feeder fishes, nor do the authorities).

quote:Originally posted by tohchenhan


It would be great if only everyone shared common values, then morality would truly be objective. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to reflect reality. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. So many things are so multifaceted its hard to make sense of it all. It's ok to be an objectivist when the objective morality defined just happens to be the brand of morality one subscribes to. But always remember there are minorities, whose realities are pretty much shaped by the way THEY see the world. Everyone wants the world to be made in his image...that's why objectivity is dangerous. He who gets to define the rules will have his interests met.

As for fish fighting, I think enough people engage in it and abstain from it to make it impossible to arrive at any kind of consensus. As betta breeders we face a dilemma, because the best of the fish we see today is the result of countless deaths (culls). Even if you don't practice culling personally, rest assured that the only reason you were able to buy that perfect HM was because thousands of others died in the quest for perfection. The betta fighting will easily argue that culling is worse than fighting.

(Please don't read this as an invitation to a cull debate...just sharing views on a topic of interest to me).

[Myron Tay]

Which is fine as far as subjective personal beliefs are concerned; I agree that not everyone shares common values. However, the question is whether as a society we allow subjective individual morality to prevail.

As you have already shown, one can get away with anything if society chooses to live by a subjective moral code. There would be too many conflicts of "morality" and chaos would result. By choosing to live in a country or even in the international community, you have implicitly agreed to abide by the moral code as defined by its laws or suffer the consequences. Like it or not, these laws define for us a moral code for all of us to live by, whether we agree to them or not.

Fighting fishes may get you caught under cruelty to animals (I may be wrong but can someone check?). Betting (which is frequently the reason for fish bouts) is definitely outlawed. So can some forms of culling (I do not see any problems with using culls as feeder fishes, nor do the authorities).

quote:Originally posted by tohchenhan


It would be great if only everyone shared common values, then morality would truly be objective. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to reflect reality. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. So many things are so multifaceted its hard to make sense of it all. It's ok to be an objectivist when the objective morality defined just happens to be the brand of morality one subscribes to. But always remember there are minorities, whose realities are pretty much shaped by the way THEY see the world. Everyone wants the world to be made in his image...that's why objectivity is dangerous. He who gets to define the rules will have his interests met.

As for fish fighting, I think enough people engage in it and abstain from it to make it impossible to arrive at any kind of consensus. As betta breeders we face a dilemma, because the best of the fish we see today is the result of countless deaths (culls). Even if you don't practice culling personally, rest assured that the only reason you were able to buy that perfect HM was because thousands of others died in the quest for perfection. The betta fighting will easily argue that culling is worse than fighting.

(Please don't read this as an invitation to a cull debate...just sharing views on a topic of interest to me).

[Phil]

The indonesians have divided bettas into 2 categories:
Cupang Hias : or ornamental bettas and
Cupang Adu : Fighting bettas. These bettas are bred basically for fighting.
I am for ornamental bettas be it plakats, HM CT, DTs etc. I don't see the need for bettas to fight for their lives for the mere pleasure of humans. One should note that this is not a natural act as well, since bettas in the wild are not usually as aggressive as those natured in captivity. Bettas in the wild do not fight to the death.

[Phil]

The indonesians have divided bettas into 2 categories:
Cupang Hias : or ornamental bettas and
Cupang Adu : Fighting bettas. These bettas are bred basically for fighting.
I am for ornamental bettas be it plakats, HM CT, DTs etc. I don't see the need for bettas to fight for their lives for the mere pleasure of humans. One should note that this is not a natural act as well, since bettas in the wild are not usually as aggressive as those natured in captivity. Bettas in the wild do not fight to the death.

[Foo Hong]

in fact when i recalled catching splendens in msian padi field as a boy, the fishes never had torn fins. shows that they merely chase others away....in the confines of tank, they had to fight for their lives....its a bit unnatural

[Foo Hong]

in fact when i recalled catching splendens in msian padi field as a boy, the fishes never had torn fins. shows that they merely chase others away....in the confines of tank, they had to fight for their lives....its a bit unnatural

[Toh Chen Han]

Myron, I agree with what you said. You pointed out that the hobbes-ian social contract type reasoning has its problems because as you say we live by the moral codes imposed upon us by society (meaning the majority's morality in societies following majority rule). I don't think there can really be any meaningful 'implicit agreement' to a society's rules by the fact that someone chooses to live in it (such an implication would only be reasonable is everyone had an unfeterred choice where to live - practically not true at all).

Yes, subjective morality doesn't get one off the hook. But I think we should recognise that at the end of the day it's the law of the jungle that rules us...i.e. the strong (and by strong i mean primarily strength in numbers) make the rules, and the weak (minority) live by them.

Objective morality is just a tool used by those in the position to make rules to lend an aura of 'correctness' or normativity to their laws/values. It makes a law enforcer's life easier if the mob believes that they have been told they can and cannot do is objectively 'right'. Philosophical tai chi.

Granted there are certain values which may have unanimous support - e.g. virtually everyone is opposed to genocide (I think even perpetrators would not deny that it's wrong), torture, arbitrary incarceration etc. But the fact that everyone agrees on something doesn't make it objectively true. For example everyone in the whole world may not like my cooking, but that doesn't mean that my cooking is bad by some objective universal law. =) (btw it isn't ok? just an example heheh).


quote:Originally posted by Myron Tay

Which is fine as far as subjective personal beliefs are concerned; I agree that not everyone shares common values. However, the question is whether as a society we allow subjective individual morality to prevail.

As you have already shown, one can get away with anything if society chooses to live by a subjective moral code. There would be too many conflicts of "morality" and chaos would result. By choosing to live in a country or even in the international community, you have implicitly agreed to abide by the moral code as defined by its laws or suffer the consequences. Like it or not, these laws define for us a moral code for all of us to live by, whether we agree to them or not.

Fighting fishes may get you caught under cruelty to animals (I may be wrong but can someone check?). Betting (which is frequently the reason for fish bouts) is definitely outlawed. So can some forms of culling (I do not see any problems with using culls as feeder fishes, nor do the authorities).

quote:Originally posted by tohchenhan


It would be great if only everyone shared common values, then morality would truly be objective. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to reflect reality. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. So many things are so multifaceted its hard to make sense of it all. It's ok to be an objectivist when the objective morality defined just happens to be the brand of morality one subscribes to. But always remember there are minorities, whose realities are pretty much shaped by the way THEY see the world. Everyone wants the world to be made in his image...that's why objectivity is dangerous. He who gets to define the rules will have his interests met.

As for fish fighting, I think enough people engage in it and abstain from it to make it impossible to arrive at any kind of consensus. As betta breeders we face a dilemma, because the best of the fish we see today is the result of countless deaths (culls). Even if you don't practice culling personally, rest assured that the only reason you were able to buy that perfect HM was because thousands of others died in the quest for perfection. The betta fighting will easily argue that culling is worse than fighting.

(Please don't read this as an invitation to a cull debate...just sharing views on a topic of interest to me).

[Toh Chen Han]

Myron, I agree with what you said. You pointed out that the hobbes-ian social contract type reasoning has its problems because as you say we live by the moral codes imposed upon us by society (meaning the majority's morality in societies following majority rule). I don't think there can really be any meaningful 'implicit agreement' to a society's rules by the fact that someone chooses to live in it (such an implication would only be reasonable is everyone had an unfeterred choice where to live - practically not true at all).

Yes, subjective morality doesn't get one off the hook. But I think we should recognise that at the end of the day it's the law of the jungle that rules us...i.e. the strong (and by strong i mean primarily strength in numbers) make the rules, and the weak (minority) live by them.

Objective morality is just a tool used by those in the position to make rules to lend an aura of 'correctness' or normativity to their laws/values. It makes a law enforcer's life easier if the mob believes that they have been told they can and cannot do is objectively 'right'. Philosophical tai chi.

Granted there are certain values which may have unanimous support - e.g. virtually everyone is opposed to genocide (I think even perpetrators would not deny that it's wrong), torture, arbitrary incarceration etc. But the fact that everyone agrees on something doesn't make it objectively true. For example everyone in the whole world may not like my cooking, but that doesn't mean that my cooking is bad by some objective universal law. =) (btw it isn't ok? just an example heheh).


quote:Originally posted by Myron Tay

Which is fine as far as subjective personal beliefs are concerned; I agree that not everyone shares common values. However, the question is whether as a society we allow subjective individual morality to prevail.

As you have already shown, one can get away with anything if society chooses to live by a subjective moral code. There would be too many conflicts of "morality" and chaos would result. By choosing to live in a country or even in the international community, you have implicitly agreed to abide by the moral code as defined by its laws or suffer the consequences. Like it or not, these laws define for us a moral code for all of us to live by, whether we agree to them or not.

Fighting fishes may get you caught under cruelty to animals (I may be wrong but can someone check?). Betting (which is frequently the reason for fish bouts) is definitely outlawed. So can some forms of culling (I do not see any problems with using culls as feeder fishes, nor do the authorities).

quote:Originally posted by tohchenhan


It would be great if only everyone shared common values, then morality would truly be objective. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to reflect reality. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. So many things are so multifaceted its hard to make sense of it all. It's ok to be an objectivist when the objective morality defined just happens to be the brand of morality one subscribes to. But always remember there are minorities, whose realities are pretty much shaped by the way THEY see the world. Everyone wants the world to be made in his image...that's why objectivity is dangerous. He who gets to define the rules will have his interests met.

As for fish fighting, I think enough people engage in it and abstain from it to make it impossible to arrive at any kind of consensus. As betta breeders we face a dilemma, because the best of the fish we see today is the result of countless deaths (culls). Even if you don't practice culling personally, rest assured that the only reason you were able to buy that perfect HM was because thousands of others died in the quest for perfection. The betta fighting will easily argue that culling is worse than fighting.

(Please don't read this as an invitation to a cull debate...just sharing views on a topic of interest to me).

[Toh Chen Han]

Yup Phil and Foo Hong, this is exactly what kelvin said to the fella who said 'fighting fish were meant to fight - it's in their nature - natural'.

quote:Originally posted by Foo Hong

in fact when i recalled catching splendens in msian padi field as a boy, the fishes never had torn fins. shows that they merely chase others away....in the confines of tank, they had to fight for their lives....its a bit unnatural

[Toh Chen Han]

Yup Phil and Foo Hong, this is exactly what kelvin said to the fella who said 'fighting fish were meant to fight - it's in their nature - natural'.

quote:Originally posted by Foo Hong

in fact when i recalled catching splendens in msian padi field as a boy, the fishes never had torn fins. shows that they merely chase others away....in the confines of tank, they had to fight for their lives....its a bit unnatural

[Myron Tay]

Chen Han, maybe a correction is in order. What I meant was that there is implicit agreement to abide by a society's rules by one's choice to live in that society (i.e. he must be prepared to suffer the consequences if he chooses not to accept it). Even if barred from living in another country, an individual has a choice to seek to go to his 2nd choice country. Barred to even leave the country of his birth, he could choose even to continue even living at all. In all situations that he choose to stay in the country (or continuing to live) after considering all his options and priorities, he must subject himself to adhering to the society's moral code.

I agree that the rules are largely written by the majority, especially in democracies where the needs of the majority tends to determine government policies. Granted that these rules would have a subjective element and not truly "objective".

Perhaps my point is less about objectivity vs subjectivity in moral codes, but more about a moral code that is imposed on each society; a moral code that one has to adhere to if one lives in that particular society, or suffer the consequences.

quote:Originally posted by tohchenhan

Myron, I agree with what you said. You pointed out that the hobbes-ian social contract type reasoning has its problems because as you say we live by the moral codes imposed upon us by society (meaning the majority's morality in societies following majority rule). I don't think there can really be any meaningful 'implicit agreement' to a society's rules by the fact that someone chooses to live in it (such an implication would only be reasonable is everyone had an unfeterred choice where to live - practically not true at all).

Yes, subjective morality doesn't get one off the hook. But I think we should recognise that at the end of the day it's the law of the jungle that rules us...i.e. the strong (and by strong i mean primarily strength in numbers) make the rules, and the weak (minority) live by them.

Objective morality is just a tool used by those in the position to make rules to lend an aura of 'correctness' or normativity to their laws/values. It makes a law enforcer's life easier if the mob believes that they have been told they can and cannot do is objectively 'right'. Philosophical tai chi.

Granted there are certain values which may have unanimous support - e.g. virtually everyone is opposed to genocide (I think even perpetrators would not deny that it's wrong), torture, arbitrary incarceration etc. But the fact that everyone agrees on something doesn't make it objectively true. For example everyone in the whole world may not like my cooking, but that doesn't mean that my cooking is bad by some objective universal law. =) (btw it isn't ok? just an example heheh).

[Myron Tay]

Chen Han, maybe a correction is in order. What I meant was that there is implicit agreement to abide by a society's rules by one's choice to live in that society (i.e. he must be prepared to suffer the consequences if he chooses not to accept it). Even if barred from living in another country, an individual has a choice to seek to go to his 2nd choice country. Barred to even leave the country of his birth, he could choose even to continue even living at all. In all situations that he choose to stay in the country (or continuing to live) after considering all his options and priorities, he must subject himself to adhering to the society's moral code.

I agree that the rules are largely written by the majority, especially in democracies where the needs of the majority tends to determine government policies. Granted that these rules would have a subjective element and not truly "objective".

Perhaps my point is less about objectivity vs subjectivity in moral codes, but more about a moral code that is imposed on each society; a moral code that one has to adhere to if one lives in that particular society, or suffer the consequences.

quote:Originally posted by tohchenhan

Myron, I agree with what you said. You pointed out that the hobbes-ian social contract type reasoning has its problems because as you say we live by the moral codes imposed upon us by society (meaning the majority's morality in societies following majority rule). I don't think there can really be any meaningful 'implicit agreement' to a society's rules by the fact that someone chooses to live in it (such an implication would only be reasonable is everyone had an unfeterred choice where to live - practically not true at all).

Yes, subjective morality doesn't get one off the hook. But I think we should recognise that at the end of the day it's the law of the jungle that rules us...i.e. the strong (and by strong i mean primarily strength in numbers) make the rules, and the weak (minority) live by them.

Objective morality is just a tool used by those in the position to make rules to lend an aura of 'correctness' or normativity to their laws/values. It makes a law enforcer's life easier if the mob believes that they have been told they can and cannot do is objectively 'right'. Philosophical tai chi.

Granted there are certain values which may have unanimous support - e.g. virtually everyone is opposed to genocide (I think even perpetrators would not deny that it's wrong), torture, arbitrary incarceration etc. But the fact that everyone agrees on something doesn't make it objectively true. For example everyone in the whole world may not like my cooking, but that doesn't mean that my cooking is bad by some objective universal law. =) (btw it isn't ok? just an example heheh).

[Myron Tay]

So back to the original question of "is it morally acceptable?". In Singapore, I believe that we have determined it is not, firstly, because it is cruel to animals and secondly, gambling on the outcome of such contests (which usually accompany such fights) is outlawed. Thanks.

[Myron Tay]

So back to the original question of "is it morally acceptable?". In Singapore, I believe that we have determined it is not, firstly, because it is cruel to animals and secondly, gambling on the outcome of such contests (which usually accompany such fights) is outlawed. Thanks.

[Toh Chen Han]

Hi Myron, I don't disagree with that.

Regards

Chen Han

[Toh Chen Han]

Hi Myron, I don't disagree with that.

Regards

Chen Han

[Foo Hong]

yep no fights!

[Foo Hong]

yep no fights!