I’m curious to know what your opinions are on whether or not hunting is ethical in all/some cases. I hunt, so you can probably guess my thoughts…but, how about yours? 
The only ethical form of hunting would be that which corrals and imprisons the animal, continually feeds the animal, and then slaughters it in an assembly line once deemed fit for consumption.
I was going to argue that it wasn’t ethical unless you’re using the whole of the carcass because you are in need of food or resources, but then my own hypocrisy dawned on me, so I relayed that with a little bit of satire.
I do believe that hunting is an art, whether or not it pertains to survival, if thats of any consolation.
iZach
Not unethical but probably unnecessary and generally aesthetically unpleasing. I’d like to see unnecessary killing end, and Peter Singer makes a good point that killing animals is usually unnecessary. I could imagine a hunter doing it for deep, ethical or emotional reasons, but in reality most hunters are sadistic half-wits. I think all philosophy boils down to aesthetics, even logic.
Depending on whose ethics?
Most hunters are sadistic half-wits. But it’s not necessarily unethical to hunt. But it is pretty ugly to kill an animal unless you have to, whether it’s hunting or factory farming, killing is killing. Factory farming’s worse, but both are stupid and needlessly indulgent. Your craving to experience the hunt isn’t worth the price of a sentient being’s life. And if you place little value on their life, you’re a religious fundamentalist or just being speciocentric for arbitrary reasons or just not thinking. or you just like killing. So I don’t call it ethics, but aesthetics, for someone who likes killing when they really don’t have to.
You’re right. Some people, like Eskimos (and i believe Singer points this out) must hunt to survive. Also feeding animals all of that grain (in factory farming) is an irresponsible use of the Earth’s resources, a sin that the hunter does not commit.
(In Skeptic mode here so don’t scream at me)…
But why would it be unethical to kill bambi? Does Bambi really have a soul? If we say it is wrong to kill any living thing does that apply to only mammals? What about Apples? Or I should say an Apple Tree… is it wrong to destroy any form of flora?What about bacteria… isn’t wrong to kill bacteria as well?
Isn’t some bacteria harmful to us… so it is ok to kill it… well aren’t Lion’s potentially lethal as well? Wouldn’t it be ok to kill them?
I suppose what I am asking is what makes it wrong to kill a critter?
Also, if one argues that a majority of hunters and fishermen act as conservationists of sorts, aren’t their activities ultimately allowing for more life to flourish… at least compared to the Industrialists and Condo Builders?
Excellent point. At what point is it killing? That’s why I made sure to say aesthetics, not ethics. To me and most of us, it’s just an aesthetic fact that animals are more alive, or more sentient, than plants. We caqn sort of empathize with them, maybe it’s Darwinian here, but it’s just plain ugly. Murder is killing humans. But what is human? Is a fetus human? When does it become human? Is a retarded brain dead person more human than an ape? Why? These are all good questions that can drive you crazy. I think humans are what they are because of a certain brain function, and when it ceases, they’re not human unless we want to pretend they are. But back to hunting, yes there can be rational motives in certain circumstances. I was only referring to killing when you don’t have to. Peter Singer is right when he says the pleasure of meat isn’t worth the pain of ending a sentient life…at least not to me anyway.
hunting is perfectly ethical… not all ethical systems are environmentalist wacko ethics e.g. singer, deep ecology etc… ethical egoism is perfectly ethical and using that ethical system you could hunt to your heart’s content…
-Imp
personally i hate the whole idea of ethics and would rather deal with necessity instead. id like to make an arguement against any system of ethics but its kinda hard to do so when you understand the necessity of them. plus im lazy and would rather read why ethics are dumb from a book than make up a reason for myself.
Good point. and, in some areas (i.e. deer-laddened northern Michigan), hunting deer prevents more of those deer-related car accidents. In fact, if there is not enough deer hunted each year, the DNR will actually pay hunters to hunt the deer…and fund it with raised taxes.
-
In many states (here in the U.S.) part of the fees from gaming licenses goes to various conservation and ecological programs
-
That might be true in Africa (for example) here, nowadays, if a species is threatened with extermination it is because those animals have little to no natural habitat remaining… this is the result of human beings moving in and altering it in such a way said animals cannot survive.
-
I would think after your Evolution thread you would realize that any creature that is killed and thus cannot reproduce is just as sterilized.
-
In which case conservationists (which will always include some hunters) will raise the cry, the authorities will step in and enforce stricter guidelines.
-
Well which humans would you prefer to “hunt”? Let me guess, those who are mentally and physically disabled, those of any race you see as inferior, and those of any religous and/or political persuasion you dislike? I seem to remember a war being fought over stuff like that.
-
I agree, what with all that ripe farmland around and all.
well… whats wrong with war? if its cool to kill deer for causing problems than why not other things?
Is hunting really waging war with Deer? I mean do people shout “Remember the Alamo” as they they aim on some unsuspecting doe? The only possible explantion I can see for hunting any animal would be that such hunting might stave off future misery for said animals.
If a hunter can make this claim as being what is best for an animal, based upon his or her superiority to said animal… that hunter could not make the same claim to a human being and have it be valid (if it ever was to start with) as any criteria given to establish one human being’s “superiority” over another Human being cannot be established by some objective reality.
No doubt I could probably kill Stephen Hawking with my bare hands… doing so might prove to be my ruination… as tomorrow Stephen Hawking might possibly save the world and all the people and animals on it (even thugs like myself). Or then again he might go crazy and kill us all…
Ya just never know.
"Is hunting really waging war with Deer? I mean do people shout “Remember the Alamo” as they they aim on some unsuspecting doe? "
only if they’re from Texas with a good sense of humor…
-Imp
BMW-GUY said:
Fascist assholes down here in Va paid cops to kill the deer… Not that i’m a hunter, never have been, i was even a vegetarian for a while. But one can only go so long on utilitarian arguments like Singer’s…
Short answer: I don’t think hunting is unethical in any way. In fact, I think there’s nothing that humans can do to animals that would qualify as unethical, because they’re just animals.
I know I’m going to be assumed to be some hick with rifle and a pickup truck full of ammo who tortures kittens for fun, but the truth is, I’ve never hunted anything, unless you count fishing, and I’ve never intentionally harmed any small mammals in my life. I’m just a guy that doesn’t assign any ‘higher value’ to animal life. They’re not tiny humans in animal bodies, people, they’re just animals. To me, ethical matters only concern implied contracts that exist in society. The social contract works like this: Every individual in the society willingly gives up certain freedoms, and in exchange for this, they are protected from other individuals in that society. If you were thrown on an island with a bunch of people and there was no social contract, you could do whatever you wanted to whomever you wanted, and it wouldn’t be ‘wrong’. You could steal your neighbor’s food, and it wouldn’t be ‘wrong’ or ‘unethical’, because you wouldn’t be breaking any implied social contract by doing so. But with this freedom comes a downside. Your neighbor can also steal your food and burn down your house, and that’s not ‘wrong’ either. No restriction, no protection. If however on this island there were a social contract, then everyone on the island looses certain freedoms. No one would have the freedom to steal from their neighbor or burn their neighbor’s house down. But with this loss of freedom comes an upside. Your neighbor can no longer steal your food or burn down your house. To do so would break the social contract, and those that break the contract can be punished accordingly.
In my mind, animals are not capable of making such social contracts with humans (and before you ask: No, not even dolphins or gorillas). Therefore they are granted the freedoms and pitfalls inherent to living outside a social contract. A dog could bite me in the leg, and though it would piss me off, I wouldn’t consider what the dog did to be morally wrong. Similarly, I wouldn’t see anything done to a dog by a human to be morally wrong. I would consider things done to the dog that cause the dog unnecessary pain to be heartless and cruel, but morally wrong? Ethically wrong? I say no.
If you already have problems with the above then this might really throw you for a loop: If some super-intelligent alien race came to Earth and started hunting us for game, and using us for food, I wouldn’t see that as morally wrong either. If an alien race deemed humanity a species incapable of making a social contract, then I would expect them to grant us the freedoms and pitfalls inherent to living outside of a social contract, and treat us accordingly.
Hopefully with this in mind you can see that I’m not of the mind that humans are in some way unique, and that this uniqueness excuses us from harming animals, but rather that all animals are excused morally from harming lesser animals. Humans just happen to be top animal at the moment.
lol, you really believe that one?
obviously they try and make good excuses,
just like those that say;
there’s too many foxes, too many dears… let’s kill em
any ecoligist can tell you that is b.s., there is no such thing as too large a population, it simply couldn’t endure, that’s self-control of ecological systems for you
i read the thing you wrote about social contract, asok, … it’s very interesting, but i’m more conserned with the value of wildlife than with social contracts…
there’s lesser humans as well, i don’t think we should start shooting those…
as for animals in wild, which are those they hunt, the ecological, esthetical, scientifical and educational value is far too big
willem
While yes, it is sad to think about killing Bambi, hunting is neccessary to help maintain balance within animal habitats and nature. For instance, Doves carry a disease which can infect the local animal community if the Dove population is not kept down.
To just stop hunting from the land would result in an excessive amount of animals and depletion of land would occur. Nature implemented a food chain for a reason and human beings are simply at the top.
Now, it is up to us to maintain balance between hunting and the ecological system, implement laws protecting endangered species and humane killing of animals. I myself was a vegetarian for about a year, but I became seriously ill. I was taking the vitamins, the iron pills and everything i was told to take to avoid this, but my doctor told me that there are not many people who can successfully cut out meat from their diet and not experience any negative consequences. Interestingly enough my two friends, one who has been a vegetarian from birth, and the other for 4 years, are both now seriously anemic and not only have to eat meat, but have to eat it three times a day with every meal.
I don’t really see how killing even 50% of the doves would eliminate the threat. Reduce it obviously yes but that’s not a great preventative method.
Nature doesn’t exist. It’s not a thinking entity. I seriously doubt there was a reason.
The top? No not really. We are gods. Humans as a species have way too large an influence to even consider them in the food chain. We don’t belong in it. We’re very much alien to the whole system. Humans don’t care about natural selection or even being strong and efficient. We’re all saved.
Yea but it’s going to be sad when a forest is endangered and seeing one will require us to visit artificial zoo like places. Balance is very loosely defined.
As far as suggesting that being a vegetarian is unhealthy thats total crap. If you know how to do it you won’t get sick. I’ve been a vegetarian for 9 years I’m not perfect but I know it has more to do with not eating enough than eating the right foods. The biggest problem vegetarians have is finding enough food and enough variety. Supplements 90% of the time are horrible. Vitamins you get from fruits and vegetables not meat anyway. You’d suffer from a lack of protein and fat if anything. The excess protien would probably turn to calories or fat which would explain loss of energy but if you’re eating right you don’t really need that. Plus grains and fruits are a better source of calories than meat is and protein allowances can easily be met but you have to try to get it and you have to make sure you’re getting all essential amino acids. I don’t remember which sources give them in full but you could look it up if you wanted. I believe that’s all accurate anyway. I read a book on althetic diets a couple months ago I don’t remember all of it.
Whosoever likes to hunt,
Here’s my take on it.
Go in the jungle barefoot and with no arms or ammunition on you and hunt all you like bare-handed. Come and tell me about the experience! I promise you I’ll be all ears
My dears, when you have a gun to shoot, that is like a lion against a baby deer and shooting rubber darts just to knock the animal cold for fun is not fun in that animal’s eyes.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that unnecessary and deliberate killing and shocking animals has to be unethical. I would even go so far as to say that I don’t think plant life has consciousness and so they don’t know that they exist. But somewhere in life we must have found it easier to live off through killing but otherwise we could very well have existed on plants and vegetables alone. But that’s what I feel, I may be wrong, I don’t know.
I do know that we can’t absolutely avoid hurting others in life but we can at least try to bring it to the very minimum.