We may all be familiar with Michael Vick as a former NFL star quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons. However, his career took a shift once Vick was convicted for dog fighting in April 2007. Vick lost fans and his team for his initial failure to admit his connection to the dog-fighting ring and injured animals investigators had found at a property owned by Vick. Since then, Vick’s career has taken a while to make a comeback after Vick served 18 months in federal prison for the crime.
On National Dog Day, Aug. 26, 2015, Vick signed a one-year contract with the Pittsburgh Steelers that created a reaction out of protesters in support of this holiday. The protesters stood outside of the Steelers’ practice facility with multiple signs that read things such as, "FIRST, BEN ... NOW, VICK ... WHAT NEXT," referencing Ben Roethlisberger, the quarterback Vick would be replacing. Then, there was a poster that stated, "Jail time is not enough. Ban Vick from football," and the most outrageous one stated, “Would you let Michael Vick near your dogs? Then why would you let him in your city? Vick’s not welcomed here!” Fans even referenced how “devastating” the transition would be just to even watch Vick play on the team for their families. Ironically, all of the protesters were white women and one is forced to wonder if they even considered just how important football may be to Vick just to make a living for himself and his family.
Research by Dr. Stanley Coren has been provided to show how people may value the lives of dogs over those of humans, which could have caused such irrational reactions in fans and dog lovers of Pittsburgh. The most rational answer to the question posed, are the lives of dogs more important than humans should be? Of course not, but it’s quite hard to tell that to a person who may treat their dog as a real family member or if they view a person as valuable to his or her life. Most human decisions are based on our emotional preference rather than how rational and moral the decision could be. In his research alongside other psychologists, a scenario was presented to a group of people asking them to consider a situation where a dog and a tourist were both placed in a life-or-death situation, but they have the chance to save only one or the other. The tricky part was choosing which life to choose and why they would choose to save the dog or the person. Fourty percent chose to save the pet if it was their own, twelve percent chose to save the animal if it was not their own dog, and two percent chose to save the animal if the tourist was a close family member or friend. Twenty-seven percent of those people had no clear answer as to why they would choose the dog over the human.
Moreover, this issue can be further investigated regarding the number of times the lives of black people are disregarded when compared to animals in the American culture. Acclaimed novelist, Alice Walker, and philosopher, Peter Singer, were once featured in an online exhibit created by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) that compared aspects of slavery and oppression against blacks versus forms of mistreatment towards animals under white superiority. The featured quote by Peter Singer stated, "Suffering of enslaved animals can only be compared with that which resulted from the centuries of tyranny by white humans over black humans." The exhibit compared a slave auction with a cattle auction; two hanging black men with a hanging steer; and, last but not least, a burning black man with a burning chicken. The parallel of inequality between black people and animals in these specific analogies asked viewers to see how discrimination was, not only, placed in animals of a different species, but also, on homo sapiens of a different race.
Presently, all 50 states regard dog fights as felonies, and some people even consider it to be a harsher crime than rape. A person will have to serve up to three years in jail and a pay a $250,000 fine if he or she is convicted for dog fighting. However, it really boils down to a matter of moral behavior versus a moral judgement by onlookers and the court system. Vick should be forgiven for his past involvement with the dogs, in my opinion, especially since he has openly apologized and gone forth with efforts to end dog fighting that may be occurring elsewhere. Vick's response to this uproar was, "I can't take it back. Only thing I can do is try to inform the masses of kids to not go down the same road I went down," which is more than true. Isn't that the purpose of being incarcerated in the first place?
I challenge my readers to ask themselves: should we be more concerned with saving our own species before another, preserving the life of all?
