Michael Vick: The problem of forgiveness and intrinsic value [W:251]

[Hypersonic]

The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic. But I wonder, although dogs do have their value, do we value dogs value intrinsically, or based on some sentimental value? I mentioned Michael Vick in the title because it seems that some portions of society say Michael Vick's actions have labeled him cruel and inhumane thus deprives him of the quality of being called "human" because he caused pain to sentient beings. Although Michael Vick's actions were cruel, how do we view those who test animals under scientific conditions for the purpose of advanced cosmetics, research concerning diseases, or what about animals being in captivity? Surely the psyche of such a wild creature can be seen as breaking down their intrinsic value.

I personally feel in the situation with Vick, most people identified with the dogs sentience along with their own personal love for dogs, and while society perceives Vick's actions as cruel society seems to remain steadfast at not forgiving Vick's actions. To those same people that criticize Vick and refuse to forgive his past actions even though he paid his debt to society I ask, what are your views of the many creatures you wear on your feet or belt? Do we forgive the manufacturers that hunt animals down for the mere pleasure of aesthetics? Before you mention torture let me as you another question, what about C*ck fighting? Why is that so-called sport overshadowed by Vick's actions? What about the running of the bulls?

I believe dogs offer sentimental value to the person because the dog provides pleasure and unquestionable loyalty (if unabused) however I find it hypocritical for society to try to be ethically sound and condemn Vick, yet we find comfort in partaking in the luxuries of clothing, cosmetics and other aesthetic comforts.

 

[specklebang]

offer sentimental value to the person because the dog provides pleasure and unquestionable loyalty (if unabused) however I find it hypocritical for society to try to be ethically sound and condemn Vick, yet we find comfort in partaking in the luxuries of clothing, cosmetics and other aesthetic comforts.

Dogs and cats are companion animals. Cows, chickens and sheep are not. That's the difference.

Vick doesn't care if he is condemned. He is wealthy enough to be immune from the opinions of others.

 

[Ray410]

I don't see much redemptive value in someone that kills dogs by hanging them. I'd rather have the dog around than Vick.

The fact that a post would even attempt to portray Vick as some sort of victim of societies' failure to forgive is extremely offensive.

 

[reinoe]

I don't see much redemptive value in someone that kills dogs by hanging them. I'd rather have the dog around than Vick.

The fact that a post would even attempt to portray Vick as some sort of victim of societies' failure to forgive is extremely offensive.

If Vick were White would you be able to find it in your heart to forgive him?

 

[chromium]

I'm not losing sleep over whether multi millionaires are forgiven. What he did was heinous. Research that kills animals is unfortunate but has also contributed greatly to eradicating disease, of far greater benefit to society and even other animals than some football player will ever manage. He killed those dogs for the hell of it, for sport. It's not about "paying debt to society" in those circumstances, like i'm standing in the way of him making a living, if we can call the nfl a real job. With forgiveness, you're asking for an emotional assessment, and i think he's a monster.

 

[RGacky3]

The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic. But I wonder, although dogs do have their value, do we value dogs value intrinsically, or based on some sentimental value? I mentioned Michael Vick in the title because it seems that some portions of society say Michael Vick's actions have labeled him cruel and inhumane thus deprives him of the quality of being called "human" because he caused pain to sentient beings. Although Michael Vick's actions were cruel, how do we view those who test animals under scientific conditions for the purpose of advanced cosmetics, research concerning diseases, or what about animals being in captivity? Surely the psyche of such a wild creature can be seen as breaking down their intrinsic value.

I personally feel in the situation with Vick, most people identified with the dogs sentience along with their own personal love for dogs, and while society perceives Vick's actions as cruel society seems to remain steadfast at not forgiving Vick's actions. To those same people that criticize Vick and refuse to forgive his past actions even though he paid his debt to society I ask, what are your views of the many creatures you wear on your feet or belt? Do we forgive the manufacturers that hunt animals down for the mere pleasure of aesthetics? Before you mention torture let me as you another question, what about C*ck fighting? Why is that so-called sport overshadowed by Vick's actions? What about the running of the bulls?

I believe dogs offer sentimental value to the person because the dog provides pleasure and unquestionable loyalty (if unabused) however I find it hypocritical for society to try to be ethically sound and condemn Vick, yet we find comfort in partaking in the luxuries of clothing, cosmetics and other aesthetic comforts.

You're EXACTLY right, why is it less moral to use a dog for dog fighting, than it is to test drugs on a rat? Other than the fact that some people can relate to loving a dog, i.e. it's sentimental.

I love how people totally ignore the entirepost, whether or not he's a millionaire has nothing to do with the ethical question.

 

[RGacky3]

Dogs and cats are companion animals. Cows, chickens and sheep are not. That's the difference.

Vick doesn't care if he is condemned. He is wealthy enough to be immune from the opinions of others.

They are companion animals TO YOU .... to Michael Vick they we're fighting animals ...

 

[GottaGo]

If Vick were White would you be able to find it in your heart to forgive him?

What the **** does his skin color have to do with anything?

HIS actions, HIS price to pay.

 

[Thorgasm]

What's with the microscopic font?

 

[X Factor]

The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic. But I wonder, although dogs do have their value, do we value dogs value intrinsically, or based on some sentimental value? I mentioned Michael Vick in the title because it seems that some portions of society say Michael Vick's actions have labeled him cruel and inhumane thus deprives him of the quality of being called "human" because he caused pain to sentient beings. Although Michael Vick's actions were cruel, how do we view those who test animals under scientific conditions for the purpose of advanced cosmetics, research concerning diseases, or what about animals being in captivity? Surely the psyche of such a wild creature can be seen as breaking down their intrinsic value.

I personally feel in the situation with Vick, most people identified with the dogs sentience along with their own personal love for dogs, and while society perceives Vick's actions as cruel society seems to remain steadfast at not forgiving Vick's actions. To those same people that criticize Vick and refuse to forgive his past actions even though he paid his debt to society I ask, what are your views of the many creatures you wear on your feet or belt? Do we forgive the manufacturers that hunt animals down for the mere pleasure of aesthetics? Before you mention torture let me as you another question, what about C*ck fighting? Why is that so-called sport overshadowed by Vick's actions? What about the running of the bulls?

I believe dogs offer sentimental value to the person because the dog provides pleasure and unquestionable loyalty (if unabused) however I find it hypocritical for society to try to be ethically sound and condemn Vick, yet we find comfort in partaking in the luxuries of clothing, cosmetics and other aesthetic comforts.

The way you censored your spelling of **** fighting suggests you meant something other than roosters. :lol:

To answer your question, I don't support dog fighting, **** fighting, bull fighting or any other spectator sport that involves putting animals in a cage to hurt and kill each other and I have zero respect for someone that thinks the slow, bloody death of an animal is fun entertainment. I don't "forgive" Michael Vick (not that he needs anything from me) because what he did was intentionally cruel and he enjoyed it. I don't see how someone changes their character like that. It's like a pedophile, they may refrain from victimizing children and even recognize that it's wrong to it, but it won't change their fundamental attraction.

 

[X Factor]

They are companion animals TO YOU .... to Michael Vick they we're fighting animals ...

We get it. You hate dogs and want to see them drown. No wonder Michael Vick is your hero.

 

[calamity]

The irony is that the same people who whine about Vick' s cruelty to dogs, which was business, since dog fighting is a gambling endeavor designed for entertainment purposes, entertain themselves by watching and gambling on athletes like Vick smash each other's bodies to bits on the gridiron. Football is human dog fighting without the teeth.

 

[RGacky3]

We get it. You hate dogs and want to see them drown. No wonder Michael Vick is your hero.

Not at all ... I just would like to see some justification ... You're on a philosophy forum here.

Why is dog fighting different than other forms of animal cruelty? Such as testing products on them, or industrial farming, or whatever.

 

[Thorgasm]

The irony is that the same people who whine about Vick' s cruelty to dogs, which was business, since dog fighting is a gambling endeavor designed for entertainment purposes, entertain themselves by watching and gambling on athletes like Vick smash each other's bodies to bits on the gridiron. Football is human dog fighting without the teeth.

This is a ridiculous comparison. Dogs can't give consent. Football players don't play until death.

 

[Thorgasm]

Not at all ... I just would like to see some justification ... You're on a philosophy forum here.

Why is dog fighting different than other forms of animal cruelty? Such as testing products on them, or industrial farming, or whatever.

There are no benefits from the outcome of dog fighting.

 

[RGacky3]

There are no benefits from the outcome of dog fighting.

If Michale Vick gets entertained by it, or other people get entertained, why isn't that a beneficial outcome?

Anymoreso than just saying "pork is delicious."

Also if animals have intrinsic value, does the outcome of cruely towards them matter ... if someone murdered you does it matter if they did it because they wanted to, or because they wanted to use your organs for someone else ... is the latter less evil?

 

[Thorgasm]

If Michale Vick gets entertained by it, or other people get entertained, why isn't that a beneficial outcome?

Anymoreso than just saying "pork is delicious."

Also if animals have intrinsic value, does the outcome of cruely towards them matter ... if someone murdered you does it matter if they did it because they wanted to, or because they wanted to use your organs for someone else ... is the latter less evil?

Personal entertainment isn't a benefit for society. Actually, it sounds like an argument for pedophiles.

I don't believe you are asking the last question in a serious manner.

 

[X Factor]

The irony is that the same people who whine about Vick' s cruelty to dogs, which was business, since dog fighting is a gambling endeavor designed for entertainment purposes, entertain themselves by watching and gambling on athletes like Vick smash each other's bodies to bits on the gridiron. Football is human dog fighting without the teeth.

His dogs didn't have any choice. Vick (and other football players) choose to play football. I have a lot of respect for the type of talent and strength it takes to play in the NFL, but it's still their choice.

 

[RGacky3]

Personal entertainment isn't a benefit for society. Actually, it sounds like an argument for pedophiles.

I don't believe you are asking the last question in a serious manner.

Neither is personal taste in pork ... It doesn't apply to pedophiles because a child has intrinsic value, it's the exact same thing as the murdering for fun or murdering or organs, the latter is no less evil.

If animal cruely is justified because it makes tasty food, or nice jackets, why is it not equally justified if it leads to entertainment?

I'm asking it seriously, this is an important ethical question, the question of animal rights, and what they are based on.

 

[calamity]

I don't see much redemptive value in someone that kills dogs by hanging them. I'd rather have the dog around than Vick.

The fact that a post would even attempt to portray Vick as some sort of victim of societies' failure to forgive is extremely offensive.

People do their time and come out redeemed for a crime all the time. The grudge against Vick goes deeper than that. It's probably racial.

Denny McClain was caught dealing cocaine and worked for John Gotti, but yet no one demonizes him nearly as much as they do some Black QB who killed a few dogs. Sheesh.

 

[calamity]

His dogs didn't have any choice. Vick (and other football players) choose to play football. I have a lot of respect for the type of talent and strength it takes to play in the NFL, but it's still their choice.

Oh, so now you're saying you are concerned with animal rights. Do you get your nose bent out of shape when you see hidden camera shots taken inside a slaughter house? Do you donate to PITA? :roll:

"The dogs didn't have a choice" is a weak argument to use when justifying the fact that watching over-sized men on steroids cripple each other for your entertainment.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Just to be clear on how I feel.
Mike Vick is worthless scum that should still be in jail right along with Ray Lewis.

 

[Thorgasm]

Neither is personal taste in pork ... It doesn't apply to pedophiles because a child has intrinsic value, it's the exact same thing as the murdering for fun or murdering or organs, the latter is no less evil.

Sustenance isn't the same thing.

Evil is a hypothetical construct. There is no objective "more" or "less" evil. Evil can't be measured with empirical data.

If animal cruely is justified because it makes tasty food, or nice jackets, why is it not equally justified if it leads to entertainment?

I'm asking it seriously, this is an important ethical question, the question of animal rights, and what they are based on.

Eating animals doesn't mean that people are practicing animal cruelty.

 

[Thorgasm]

People do their time and come out redeemed for a crime all the time. The grudge against Vick goes deeper than that. It's probably racial.

Denny McClain was caught dealing cocaine and worked for John Gotti, but yet no one demonizes him nearly as much as they do some Black QB who killed a few dogs. Sheesh.

The race baiting you are engaging in is weak.

Dealing cocaine to consenting humans is different than killing dogs and putting them in rape racks without their consent.

 

[Thorgasm]

Oh, so now you're saying you are concerned with animal rights. Do you get your nose bent out of shape when you see hidden camera shots taken inside a slaughter house? Do you donate to PITA? :roll:

"The dogs didn't have a choice" is a weak argument to use when justifying the fact that watching over-sized men on steroids cripple each other for your entertainment.

What's PITA? Is there a charity for Gyros?