from the investigation noted that Vick participated in actives such as the training and torture of the dogs, and the gruesome killing of failed fighting dogs. In his trial, Vick stated “Yeah, fine, I killed the dogs. I hung them. I slammed them. I killed all of them.” These actions would be considered by most cultures to be immoral, but that was not the case for Vick. In an attempt to explain his crime, Vick noted that the culture he grew up in was not the same as the culture(s) of people who are horrified by his actions. Vick was raised in a poverty-stricken area where there
often was not enough money or food to take care of the people in his family, let alone a family dog. His environment caused him to see dogs as disposable sources of entertainment that simply were not treated as living creatures with thoughts and feelings. If you were to apply the cultural differences argument to this scenario it would resemble the following: (1) The culture in which Michael Vick was raised believed that dog abuse was morally acceptable, whereas other cultures believe that dog abuse is immoral (2) Therefore, dog abuse is neither objectively right nor wrong, and its moral value shifts across cultures. Many would not agree with the conclusion of this argument because it goes against what intuition tells us to be true. If we are not to agree with the above argument, it is important to establish the falsity of the conclusion of the cultural differences argument.
- Spring '14