What arguments do animal-rights activists make against bullfighting?

Animal-rights activists and other critics have long argued that bullfighting is a barbaric spectacle that constitutes a perversion of the ethical principle of animal stewardship.1

The primary arguments raised against the practice include:

• Cruelty to Animals: Critics view the intentional injury and killing of the bull as inherently cruel. Historically, this opposition has extended to specific practices within the ring, such as the use of exploding banderillas (barbed darts), which were once employed to incite ferocity in the animals but were eventually abandoned due to widespread outrage regarding animal welfare.12
• Moral and Ethical Concerns: Many observers, ranging from historical religious figures to contemporary activists, characterize the event as a form of "barbaric" entertainment. This perspective holds that such spectacles are incompatible with modern standards of compassion and the humane treatment of animals.1
• Societal Impact: Some critics argue that bullfighting reflects a "debased" taste for violent, "bread-and-circuses" style entertainment. Furthermore, many intellectuals have historically viewed the persistence of the corrida as a sign of a society's refusal to embrace Enlightenment values or modernize, potentially harming a nation's standing among civilized communities.1

These ethical concerns have fueled organized campaigns to ban the practice in various regions.3