- This topic has 44 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I hesitate to put this thread up – perhaps racing would be better to let the dust settle on the current debates in the wake of the events at Saturday’s Grand National.
But I think it is a valid question, and one people who support racing should be able to answer.
Is horse racing (in all/any of its forms) morally justifiable and, if so, why?
- Total Posts 17716
It’s a philosophical question.
First it’s the bible belt angle.
Horse racing is not justified because we will burn in hell with potatoes.Second it’s the animal lover’s angle.
But Napoleon said once that without tough exercise how is France supposed to win ?Incidentally Napoleon the Great was from Greece.
The family name was Kalomeris from Peloponnese, which in Latin becomes Bonaparte.
During his reign he wished to avoid a head-on clash with the Ottoman Empire and it is for that reason he was hiding his Greek ancestry.Yes.
If it is morally justifiable to breed pigs, chickens, cows, sheep etc. to slaughter so that we can eat their flesh, then it’s certainly justifiable to breed animals for human enjoyment (dogs, cats, horses, budgies etc.)
Horse Racing and NH racing isn’t designed to injure the horses; that is obvious. But life implies, ultimately, by one means or another, death and horses don’t buck that trend. If we can’t be grown-up enough to recognise that, then we really are in trouble.
I blame Disney for making our urban classes and media a big bunch of milquetoast gobaloons.I think it’s a perfectly valid question and I suspect one that’s been going round the minds of many of us since Saturday.
My answer sadly is that no it’s not morally justifiable. We were all prepared to watch and dare I say enjoy a race where jockeys had to steer around two dead and dying horses in the name of entertainment. I don’t see how you can justify it at all, yet I shall still watch and enjoy racing in the future no doubt, allbeit tinged with a lot of guilt at my pleasure.
It’s all very well to be sad at a horse’s death, but we still carry on watching and supporting the sport, so we’re clearly not THAT sad.I know you said you hesitated to put this thread up Cormack, well I think the coin came down on the wrong side. I can’t believe this question is even being asked on this forum, and now is exactly the time to let the dust settle.
This forum seems to come alive when something bad happens, as per the awful incident at Newbury, or a jockey making a mess of things.We had a great Cheltenham Festival that showcased everything that is so good about the sport. We should be getting behind the Racing For Change initative and supporting the free racing month, not moaning that it’s not enough. I’m taking a newbie to Epsom next Wednesday, and I’m even more determined to show him what it’s all about after the events of the weekend.
Can we just have a little more positivity please, I thought everyone (or nearly) on this forum loved the sport, if you go through recent threads on here, and just look at the topics, you wouldn’t think so!
It would be wrong of us to ignore the negative side though, and you can’t deny there IS a negative side. We shouldn’t sweep it under the carpet and pretend it didn’t happen.
How many children die each year through drowning? Too many? Then is it morally justifiable to take your kids to the seaside?
The problem is that, in 60 years or so we have gone from a nation where most adults would wring the neck of a chicken without any qualms to a bunch of wimps who just can’t handle death.
Our meat is almost entirely slaughtered out-of-sight and the death of animals is not something we’re at all used to or comfortbale with. This silly, infantile, over-reaction would make our great-granfathers turn in their graves if they were still alive.We play an absurd game when we start to try to justify the sport from the bottom up.
However I shall play.
In some absurdist nirvana maybe not, maybe but not necessarily. However if it’s exploitative of dumb animals it’s not the worst. It’s not even close. The animals are bred and brought up to do it. The main crime is when retired racehorses are not found a field and food somewhere.
What is immoral? Killing mosquitos. Slaughtering ants. Mouse traps. Riding horses for a day out. Racing horses. Meat eating. What is? None of these.
You want moral relativism.
The UK arms industry supplies despots with weapons. It takes massive sums to supply often sub standard equipment to our own Troops. It then employs these commissioning Generals etc on retirement to influence the next generation. We do these things in the name of jobs nothing more.
Our political leaders supported a war without the Geneva convention, connived at the promotion of torture and rendition etc
Horse racing is not immoral absolutely or relatively in a modern society.
- Total Posts 17716
In Greece we had two serious jockey injuries during the last 10 years. But in the same length of time 15 jockey deaths from bike accidents.
It proves to me that if you let the horses run in the mountains they will suffer more, from accidents.I appreciate your views Robert.
But I think that such a question is EXACTLY the sort of thing this forum should be debating. I am a big supporter of racing. But I don’t think I would be supporting it by hushing quiet whenever there was a contentious or challenging issue.
Racing, in my view, needs to be able to defend itself against the attacks on it from various agencies such as Animal Aid. They won’t go away, however much we might ignore them and hope they will, no, they’ll become more organised and stronger in all probability. Racing needs to be ready to defend its corner. I sometimes fear racing is poorly organised and amateurish in that regard, although I appreciate that things have improved. Racing’s response to the foreseeable events on Saturday seemed, to me, reactive and ‘slow’. Not easy, I know, as it is a difficult issue but an area the sport can improve its PR response I think.
Central to racing’s defence, in my view, is that there needs to be a coherent argument outlining the moral justification for racing horses.
Whether this forum is or isn’t the correct place for that debate is a matter of opinion. But there are plenty on here who won’t have the opportunity to air their views anywhere else.
Good question Corm , and my answer is a definite yes , as there are far more positives and enjoyment to be gained than the negatives
As much as Saturday made me sick in the pit of my stomach , its a feeling that will never leave me , but also I have fantastic memories of great races and brave brilliant race horses ,with hopefully more to come
I just hope that we dont get to see a horse covered in Tarpaulin , dead and wasted , in full view of millions of viewers , as horses thunder around it, still trying and giving their all to entertain us
For me the Horse is the most noble animal , we should try to pay a bit more respect in the name of entertainment
Ricky
In no sense do I suggest anything should be hushed under the carpet. In fact I don’t understand why anyone is angry when the BBC show replays at the fences where the two horses were killed, it happened, and it does happen, not showing a replay, however unpleasant the viewing may be doesn’t change that. Burroughhill I don’t for a minute understand how you can say it is morally wrong and then in the next sentence say you’ll continue your interest in racing………….
Cormack, I don’t disagree that a debate as to how things could be made safer etc etc should be had. But I’m sure you yourself wouldn’t be running this forum if you didn’t think it was morally justifable, and it just seems a bit of a leading question to me.
Some flak coming my way privately for not stating my own views so here they are –
To address this you have to have a context of ‘morality’ to base your answer on. For me morality is about values, and about actions which those values justify. It is about those values being, to a greater or lesser extent, shared.
My personal values include an abhorrence of cruelty and coercion.
They would also include a love of animals and a strong sense of duty for the welfare of animals, including horses of course.
Moral justification must be contextual and must also be based on facts.
Looking at some of those facts, it is an undeniable fact that racing horses competitively puts them at risk of injury and death. That cannot be denied.
It is also a fact that the horse has no say in the matter, it is co-erced into racing by humans.
And when we look at why we race horses it is impossible to get away from the facts that it is solely for human leisure and human commerce.
But I strongly believe that these risks of injury to the horse and its forced coercion in racing are morally justified.
I believe this for the following reasons –
The risks involved is outweighed by the utility. By that, I mean the general good that comes of racing outweighs the cost. I grieve for every injury and loss of life but I balance that against the good that comes in terms of enjoyment and commercial activity. I know some will rail against the use of commercial considerations in this argument but it is important. There are many factory accidents to humans every year but it would be ludicruous to suggest that all factories are shut down, wouldn’t it? There is a risk to most things in life, every time we coerce our children into a car journey (the majority of which are not strictly necessary) we place them into danger. We do this because it is deemed morally acceptable by the individual and by society on the basis of the utility that car travel brings.
You may disagree with my view on utility against cost. The value of a life, equine or human, is something that can never satisfactorily be agreed, a philosophical conundrum. That judgement of utility against cost must be based on a subjective judgement which is value based.
As someone who enjoys watching racing I appreciate my utility/cost value based judgement will, in all likelihood, be different than someone who is indifferent to racing.
In addition to the utility/cost judgement I also believe the following –
That the welfare of racehorses is extremely good and is being constantly improved.
That horses are naturally predisposed to running.
That the quality of life a racehorse enjoys during his lifetime, in all but the most unfortunate and thankfully very rare cases of neglect, is exceptional.
That there is no intent towards cruelty. There is an acceptance that there will be injuries but that is, morally, a different issue to wilful cruelty. An important distinction. I know, for example, that every time I let my pet dog off its lead I increase the risk to that dog, I know that factually it is at greater risk of injury or death, but I do it because I judge that its quality of life would be diminished were I to fail to allow it to express itself.
But I also believe we shouldn’t ignore the arguments and conerns of those for whom racing is morally unacceptable. The issues around the over-production of racehorses needs constant evaluation as do the fates of those horses who are no longer able to race. And of course the safety and minimisation of risk on the racecourse must be constantly evaluated. Not eliminated, for I don’t think that could ever be achieved, but minimised to a reasonable degree. This is something I believe that all in racing support.
I think also that the use of the whip in racing is a matter that requires further debate and is something with which I do have philosophical difficulty.
•More than 30 million children in the world are not immunized against treatable or preventable diseases
•95 percent of all the people who get polio are under the age of 5
•HIV/AIDS has created more than 14 million orphans — 92 percent of them live in Africa
•Six million children under five die every year as a result of hunger
•134 million children between the ages of 7 to 18 have never been to school.
•In the last decade, more than 2 million children have died as a direct result of armed conflict
•More than 300,000 child soldiers are exploited in armed conflicts in over 30 countries around the world
•2 million children are believed to be exploited through the commercial sex trade
•Approximately 246 million children work
•171 million children work in hazardous conditionsAnd we’re questioning the morality of horseracing? Let’s get some perspective, people.
- Total Posts 17716
The thoroughberds love racing.
What alternative life is there for them ?We ought to consider the issue of danger but within the context of horse racing and it’s not fair to say "ban racing".
Faulty constructed surfaces for example are known to have caused many injuries and fatal injuries. Bad servicing of the surfaces also.I agree with pretty much everything Cormack has now said, and would probably have gone down the line of what Tuffers has pointed out as well.
I would like to point you in the direction of this article, written by a young female vet in Ireland, which I think only the fanatical animal rights campaigners could/would argue with.
http://justhelens.blogspot.com/ **(Having read it again I realise they’re a few factual errors in there, but when the best the BHA can do is to say "If racing didn’t exist, a large part of British life would disappear", I don’t think it’s the worse article in the world)
I’ve just read that and thought it was very well put … and I’d like to quote this bit:
I spend many weeks a year shadowing vets as part of my veterinary medicine degree. One of my favourite placements is with an equine vet based in Tipperary, who visits an assortment of horses ranging from racers to hacking ponies. Every single racehorse I’ve visited with him has been of excellent condition; the perfect weight, on a correct diet, fit as a fiddle, nicely hydrated, happy, healthy, sound. The sorry cases are the fat ponies left in a field to get laminitis. They are fed too much and their delusional owners think it’s cruel to in any way push the horse, or to make it exercise for more than an hour a day. These are the horses which deserve the welfare concerns, not the impeccable specimens that are racehorses in their prime.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.