Despite arguments that the toro bravo is treated with great care (see chapter one), for animal rights activists and even those who do not dedicate their time to defending animals, caring alone is not good enough when we consider the bull’s fate. Ultimately the bull will die a bloody and prolonged death, in a loud bullring with people cheering, booing, clapping and a matador piercing blades into its back. For many, the events of the bullfight outweigh the care the bull may receive beforehand. A question that one could pose is, would a human be willing to put itself in the bull’s position? If the care it receives can be used as a justification and defence of humane treatment, then why should a person be unwilling to go through the same fate?

Again – using the example of human beings – caring for a young human as it grows up to ensure it lives the best life possible is expected. It is not done with an ulterior motive that leads to a staged killing witnessed by hundreds or thousands of people. Animal rights activists believe the same should be applied to animals and in this case bulls. This is a similar argument used by Peter Singer in what he defines as equal consideration of interests. This is the concept that suffering and pain should not depend on “the species that experiences it”. Instead, identical interests should be given equal weight, regardless of species. Using this reasoning, bullfighting could not be considered ethical or just because the bull suffers in a way that would not be accepted if it were a human being.

In the 1970s Richard D Ryder coined the term speciesism, defined in the OED as, “the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals”. Peter Singer also used this term in his 1975 book, Animal Liberation, predicting that in the future human beings will look back at their treatment o