The danger to the people in the ring is a condition of the spectacle, not an accident

The argument

A second case for prohibition concerns the humans rather than the animal. Proponents of a ban argue that the risk run by matadors, their assistants and the horsemen is not an unfortunate by-product of the event but one of its requirements. An animal rendered harmless in advance would not produce the display an audience has come for, so the spectacle depends on a bull still capable of killing a man. Injuries and deaths in the ring therefore follow from the design of the practice rather than from lapses that better training or equipment could remove. Defenders of bullfighting answer that participants consent to the danger. Supporters of a ban reply that consent is doing less work here than it appears to. The profession is commonly entered in youth, through family and regional expectation rather than open choice, and advancement within it depends on accepting greater exposure than rivals will. A performer whose standing and income rest on how close he works to the horns is not simply choosing a risk; he is responding to an incentive the practice creates. They argue further that the audience is part of the objection. The danger is advertised as part of the attraction, which means spectators, including children, attend in the expectation that they may see a person gravely injured. Proponents of a ban note that no other entertainment is licensed on those terms, and that a society unwilling to permit a performance whose appeal includes the chance of a participant's death has no consistent ground for permitting this one.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Defenders reply that adults in many lawful occupations and sports knowingly accept comparable danger, from mountaineering and motor racing to boxing, and that singling out bullfighting applies a standard the rest of public life does not meet. They add that matadors are trained professionals who understand the risk better than any outside critic can, that regional and family routes into a craft are how most skilled trades have always been entered, and that an argument resting on the liberty of the participants sits awkwardly beside a case that elsewhere rests on the welfare of the bull.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That the spectacle requires a dangerous animal is granted, and it does not establish that the danger is what the event is for. A pursuit can require conditions that make injury possible without the possibility of injury being its point, which is the ordinary case in climbing, sailing and equestrian sport. [Rejecting P2] The considerations named weaken consent without showing it absent, and each of them applies to other inherited trades and sports entered in youth. Taken as a general standard the premise would invalidate consent across much skilled and hazardous work. [Rejecting P3] That no other entertainment is licensed on these terms is asserted rather than shown, and boxing, bull running and motor racing are each licensed with a known chance of death. The comparison the premise relies on does not hold.