One of the strongest arguments for banning cock/dog fighting is that it inculcates moral depravity in its participants. To stand there and take pleasure in causing suffering in living things can only serve make you callous to human suffering as well. It seems justified to ban it, at least as an organized, large-scale enterprise.
I realize I've laid out a slippery slope. That's why I was hesitant. The strongest case is for banning organized, large-scale animal cruelty done for depraved enjoyment. But I don't think we should prosecute people because we don't like, for example, that they use electric shock collars to keep their dogs from running off.
I'd summarize my position as: 1) animal interests for their own sake are not a legitimate end of government coercion, and 2) the moral character of the people is a legitimate end, but we should be very hesitant to use coercion for social engineering.
You're not holding much water to be honest. Pick one:
a) animals are incapable of suffering
b) we shouldn't care if animals suffer
c) we should care and pass laws
Are you arguing that the solution to all controversy is to pass a law? You are proposing to solve all problems at gunpoint.
What space for different conceptions of the good, for diversity of values and preferences, could exist in such a society?
You must have limiting principles for when we should resort to the remedy of the law. Perhaps yours are different than mine, but I doubt that you have none at all.
