Should Pit Bulls be Banned?
by lexidiperno on September 12, 2016 - 10:03pm
The city of Montreal is trying to pass a new bylaw where as of September, Pit Bull Terriers will be banned from the territory because of the recent accidents such as, the death of Christine Vadnais where a Pit Bull killed her in her own backyard and the many other non-fatal attacks and bites. Montreal’s goal is to faze them out by waiting till the Pit Bulls purchased or adopted before September die. The city of Montreal says they reserve the right to euthanize any dog if it bites or kills a human or another animal. The new regulations are raising questions about the risks within the breed; advocates of the breed claim they are dangerous dogs because they get mistreated and taught to be violent. The breed does not cause these bad behaviors Pit Bulls are associated with; the owner does. Rather than targeting a certain breed, the law would set conditions to owning dangerous dogs. These being, anyone under the age of 18 cannot own a Pit Bull or anyone with a criminal record. Pit Bulls have had a terrible reputation for almost a decade, why are we only now trying to ban them now?
While looking at different moral claims, we can depict two sides to this ethical question. These being, we should ban Pit Bulls and we should not ban Pit Bulls. Examining the side ‘we should ban Pit Bulls,’ the breed does go against a few moral principles. Pit Bulls’ are known for attacking humans in random situations leading hospitalization and even death. This being, they are violating the claim “human life is fundamentally valuable” by taking ones life in an attack. Moreover, these accidents overstep the claim “do not harm” as they are physically harming people by pouncing at them as well as the family and friends of that individual that are mourning after the mishap. However, exploring the opposite view of ‘we should not ban Pit Bulls,’ we can easily identify the moral principle of ‘treating others how you would like to be treated.’ I believe this can be applied to animals as well as humans. If humans do not want to be fazed out then why should these dogs be? Humans kill probably more than Pit Bulls do and we do not kill these criminals; the consequences are not fair and these dogs are not being treated fairly in this situation. Furthermore, we can compare the desire of abolishing Pit Bulls to genocide. We should not discriminate a breed because certain human individuals treated their Pit Bulls poorly or raised them to fight, which lead to their reputation of aggression.
Personally, I am against the abolition of pit bulls because it is simply not their fault. A puppy will not show aggression out of the womb; their mother raises them with care and affection as any mother would. We, humans, raise puppies generally as of the age of 6 weeks and this is where we teach them to be nice or mean. If a pit bull is in the right hands, they will be raised properly. What generally happens is they are not put in the right hands; because of their aggressive reputation, people with a not so good reputation themselves will generally be the ones to get a pit bull. These owners are not qualified to have a dog that can indeed be a potential threat. Our society use to think German Shepherds were the aggressive dogs, and then it was the Doberman and the Rottweiler. Pit bulls are just another breed of dog that should be added to this list. All dogs can be dangerous; generalizing a few breeds because they look more aggressive, are used to protect, or used for fighting does not mean every dog from that breed should be discriminated.
The Canadian Press. @CTVNews. "Montreal Bans New Pit Bulls; Plans to Phase out Animal on Territory." CTVNews. Web. 12 Sept. 2016.