"Francis Wolffs Flawed Philosophical Defence of Bullfighting"

 Today I found an article that looks into Francis Wolff and his opinions on bullfighting. Wolff defends it, and this is seen in the Netflix film "A Philosopher in the Arena", https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/219380874.pdf. However, this article is an academic refutation of his points, which I find interesting as it offers a viewpoint and secondary data that support my own opinions. 

Firstly, the author challenges the way Wolff  "denies that in bullfighting, there is any torture." (Andrade, 2018). He argues that its an art so it cannot be torture: it is "not about the intristic suffering of an animal, in the same manner that fishing is about the thrill of catching a fish, not about the pain of the fish itself."  (Andrade, 2018). This would insinuate there is no difference between bullfighting and other competetive sports, but the logic is flawed because in bullfighting the violence is prolongued, enforced and it is in no way ethical. The author claims "If the goal is to entertain and create art with a bull, corridas do not need to be so violent. There are bloodless varieties of bullfighting, and crowds seem capable of enjoying them."(Andrade, 2018) so this exposes the unnecessary need for violence. On top of this, Wolff also argues that bullfighting is not about torture, "because the bull is given a chance to fight back" (Andrade, 2018). His viewpoint seems to be that it is a necessary part of culture, and the animal isn't helpless like it appears to be. 

"Wolff (2011, 224) claims that although in the struggle between the bull and the matador the former always dies, it is a fair combat. This is so, because the struggle is between the brute force of the bull and the matador’s skills. Wolff argues that, in order to avoid bloodshed and excessive human deaths, bullfighters need to protect themselves, and that is why they must have an advantage over the bull’s immense strength." His viewpoints offer an interesting counter argument to my own positionality, he evidently feels strongly and has very specific views. 

Furthermore, Wolff has claimed that bullfighting is not torture, because there is "Always the chance that the matador dies".

A summary of his other points is below:

• Ecologist activists should de- fend bullfighting, because this tradition guarantees the preser- vation of wildernesses, inasmuch as fighting bull breeds need to be raised in extensive terrains. Without bullfighting, bull farms would give way to intensive and industrial agriculture. 
• He argues that the bull could flee, but it fights and this raises the "fight or flight" concept and his point becomes baseless as it in a bulls instinct to charge when it is not comfortable or scared. 
• Wolff claims we do have the right to kill the bulls, because in fact, many animals need to kill others to survive. However, this is unjustified since it is almost assuming a God complex to take on that role for ourselves when it is not natural. 
• Wolff claims that bulls of corridas are edible, and as such, bullfighting serves human nutritional needs, but many nutritionists agree that the meat of bulls after corridas is not very nutritive and it is high in acid, because during the fight, the bull is too weakened (Weil 2006)

Source Evaluation:

Overall, this source has been helpful in showing me the way that some people have very strong opinions; it offered me views that completely contrast my own and it has aided me in overcoming any positionality as I can effectively comment on both sides of the debate. While I do not agree with Wolff, his points are useful for a counter argument and to demonstrate my understanding. 

(Andrade, Gabriel, Between Species, Francis Wolffs Flawed Philosophical Defence of Bullfighting, 2018, Volume 22, Issue 1, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/219380874.pdf Accessed 13/3/22)