Home / I. Other uses: testing, clothing, entertainment / Part IND

"Rodeos, bullfights and circuses are culture."

Before answering: an indirect argument

This argument is about the usefulness of testing, clothing, entertainment and companion animals, not whether animals deserve respect. Many activists question this kind of argument in defending animals, because it sidesteps what matters: no one defends the rights of people who face discrimination by saying that treating them fairly is good for the environment.

Why it is not good to use it, or why always to pair it with an ethical argument: If the defense of animals depended on showing that testing, clothing or entertainment with animals are useless, one useful use would be enough to justify them. But usefulness does not settle the question: no benefit justifies using people who did not consent, and the same holds for animals.

When used to justify exploitation, arguments like this one usually fail twice. They get the facts wrong, which often arrive distorted. And they get the morality wrong, because they leap from what is to what ought to be: even a real benefit would not show it is just to make someone suffer and die to obtain it.

So show the facts and correct what is wrong, but always come back to what matters: respect for animals and justice toward them. Learn why

The answer in one sentence

it's the appeal to tradition (D1) applied to suffering imposed for entertainment. Many countries have already decided that being cultural doesn't put a practice beyond the reach of laws against cruelty: England and Wales banned hunting with dogs in 2004 and wild animals in circuses in 2020; Brazil's Supreme Court banned the farra do boi, a bull-chasing festival, and cockfighting, and in 2016 ruled the vaquejada, a rodeo in which riders pull bulls down by the tail, unconstitutional for cruelty. Tradition explains why a practice exists; it doesn't justify the suffering in it.

Short answer

Being a tradition doesn't put a practice beyond laws against cruelty. England and Wales banned hunting with dogs in 2004 and wild animals in circuses in 2020. Brazil's Supreme Court banned the farra do boi and cockfighting, and in 2016 ruled the vaquejada unconstitutional for cruelty; a constitutional amendment then tried to protect it. Festivals can keep their music, food and gathering, without the animals' suffering.

For children

At some festivals, people pull bulls down by the tail, fight bulls in an arena, or ride animals that buck out of fear and pain. This is called tradition. But hurting animals for fun doesn't become right just because it has gone on for a long time. Festivals can carry on with music, food and dancing, without hurting anyone.

Ask a question back

"If other traditions involving animals have been banned for cruelty, why should this one be different?"

Como pode aparecer

"Rodeo is cultural heritage."

Everyday conversation

"They want to end the tradition."

Everyday conversation

"The bull doesn't even feel it."

Everyday conversation

"City people want to wipe out rural culture."

Social media

"The constitution protects cultural expressions."

Legal version

"It's cultural; criticizing it is ethnocentric." (which is D2)

Disguised version

The strongest version

How it is said

"Rodeo is cultural heritage. They want to end the tradition. The bull doesn't even feel it."

Strongest version (steelman):

P1Rodeos, bullfights and other festivals with animals are part of many communities' identity.
P2These practices are recognized as cultural heritage.
P3Banning them would destroy part of the culture and harm those who make a living from them.
CSo these practices should be kept.

P1 and P2 are true. P3 has a point about economic impact. The problem lies in the conclusion: cultural value doesn't authorize the suffering imposed on the animals.

The argument is valid. Its soundness fails because cultural value doesn't answer the question of cruelty.

Full answer

Reconstruction and diagnosis

The argument uses cultural value to close the discussion about cruelty:

Practice	What happens to the animal	Legal situation
Hunting with dogs (England and Wales)	Foxes and other mammals chased and killed by dogs	Banned by the Hunting Act 2004
Wild animals in circuses (England)	Confinement, transport and training for performances	Banned since 2020
Bullfighting (Spain)	The bull is wounded and usually killed in the arena	Banned in Catalonia in 2010; the ban was overturned by Spain's Constitutional Court in 2016
Farra do boi and cockfighting (Brazil)	Bulls chased and beaten; birds fighting to injury or death	Banned
Vaquejada (Brazil)	The bull is pulled down by the tail	Ruled unconstitutional in 2016; later protected by Constitutional Amendment 96

b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's the appeal to tradition.
The age of a practice says nothing about whether it's just (D1).
2. The law has already recognized the cruelty.
Parliaments and courts in several countries have banned traditional practices with animals because of the suffering involved. Where they were later protected, as with the vaquejada in Brazil or bullfighting in Spain, the reason given was culture, not the absence of suffering; Brazil's amendment even made the practice conditional on animal welfare.
3. "The bull doesn't even feel it" is false.
Cattle are sentient, and being pulled down by the tail can cause fractures, dislocations and serious injuries. In bullfighting, wounding the bull is part of the spectacle.
4. Cultures change.
Many traditional festivals keep their value without using animals, and many places have already replaced cruel practices.
5. The suffering is imposed for entertainment.
Unlike food, here there isn't even a claim of necessity.

Data and sources

Source	What it says	Note
United Kingdom, Hunting Act 2004	Bans hunting wild mammals with dogs in England and Wales	A traditional practice banned for cruelty
United Kingdom, Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019	Bans the use of wild animals in traveling circuses in England	In force since January 2020
Dizer o Direito, vaquejada (ADI 4983) (in Portuguese)	Brazil's Supreme Court ruled the vaquejada law of Ceará unconstitutional for cruelty	Also used in D1 and D2
Dizer o Direito, Constitutional Amendment 96/2017 (in Portuguese)	The amendment deems sporting practices with animals registered as cultural heritage not cruel, provided they are regulated to ensure welfare	Congress's response to the Court's ruling

d
The strongest counter-reply: communities live off these festivals
The most serious version points out that many communities depend economically on these festivals, and that banning them without alternatives would harm real people.
e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Economic impact calls for a transition, not preservation.
Festivals can transform and keep their audience.
Economics doesn't justify cruelty.
The same argument would defend dogfighting.
There are examples of change.
Festivals that replaced cruel practices and kept drawing crowds.
f
Back to the moral question
Here there isn't even a claim of necessity: the suffering is imposed for entertainment. The moral question becomes even clearer: does the pleasure of a spectacle justify hurting and frightening animals?

Reasoning errors

Logical

Is the form valid?

Appeal to tradition

Culture becomes a justification

Epistemological

Does the evidence support it?

Denying the suffering

"The bull doesn't even feel it"

Moral

Is the criterion coherent?

Entertainment as justification

The audience's pleasure outweighs the animal's suffering

Biases

Group identity

Criticizing the practice sounds like attacking the community

Linked to D2 and J14

Status quo bias

Tradition seems untouchable

Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988

Extrapolations

The principle being tested is: "if a practice is cultural, the animals' suffering in it is acceptable".

If it applied to…Hunting with dogsTap to see

It should have continued

Banned in England and Wales

If it applied to…Dogfighting and cockfightingTap to see

They should continue

Banned in many countries

If it applied to…Bear-baitingTap to see

It should have continued

Banned in Britain since 1835

Contradictions

Accepts the bans on other traditions.

Such as dogfighting or cockfighting.

Wouldn't accept the same practice with dogs.

The criterion is species.

Recognizes welfare rules.

Which admits there's a risk of suffering.

What the argument gets right

What is true

Traditional festivals have real cultural and social value, and many communities identify deeply with them. Changes imposed without dialogue can breed resentment and harm people who make a living from these festivals.

But

But the value of a festival lies in the gathering, the music, the food and the history, not in the animals' suffering. Traditions can change and still be traditions.