The ethics of hunting

[Seth]

The ethics of hunting hinges upon one point only: on whether the very notion of 'ethics' means ANYTHING with respect to the reality we find ourselves in.

This is an impossible question to address, short of making naive assumptions about the reality one considers oneself to be a part thereof. Unless, of course, one has a foolproof metaphysical argument at one's disposal as the basis of such ethics!!!

Clearly, the ethics of hunting animals hinges upon what you think 'you' are and what you think 'they' are. So this exercise is just a waste of time until we've thrashed out this ontology and metaphysics of life and reality.

You're wasting your time gents.

Sorry, but while the philosophical gents are pontificating about the whichness of why, I'll roll up my sleeves and comment intelligently about whether certain types of human activities create harm or not...

Depends on what you consider "harm." The human occupants of the region get "harmed" all the time by lions, so to them one more dead lion is a benefit to them. Aaaaand we're right back where we started because it's all relative. It's easy to whine about Cecil the Lion being killed from the comfort of your living room in another country far, far away. It's not so easy when it's your cattle or your kids that Cecil the Lion kills and eats when he decides, all on his own, to walk out of the game preserve in search of something to kill and eat.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

So, the question turns to whether an ethical decision by a human being advances evolutionary supremacy or retards it, and that's a pretty difficult thing to assess given all the variables involved and the nature of evolution, which in and of itself favors no individual of a species nor any particular species as the ultimate "goal" of evolution.

What is "evolutionary supremacy", and why does it need to be advanced?

The name says it all, and it doesn't "need" to be anything. For the individual and the species however, evolutionary supremacy helps to ensure perpetuation of the species, which the species members may feel is a favorable thing. Evolution doesn't give a damn one way or another.

It's fairly clear that H. sapiens has arrived at a form of evolutionary supremacy, but it could be a hollow victory if it leads us to being the overlords of a ruined and impoverished biosphere...

Depends on what you mean by "ruined" and "impoverished." If the future of humanity is 80 billion humans and zero lions who is to say this is better or worse than zero humans and 80 billion lions. Don't be so anthropocentric. What about the poor cockroaches who have, as a species, been waiting millions of years for their chance as the apex species. It's just wrong for us to not nuke ourselves and everything else into oblivion and by doing so let the cockroaches flourish because of their evolved resistance to radiation.

Just because you like things the way they are doesn't mean that's how it should or will be.

Adapt or die.

[Seth]

So, hunting for sport (and by that I mean hunting for the pleasure of hunting alone; hunting for its own sake) is ethical because it's the expression of an evolved trait inherent in the human genome? Is that what you're saying Seth?

That's the message I'm getting. Seth seems rather fond of employing the appeal to nature whenever it suits his agenda.

Well, not really. The gist of my argument is that the appeal to nature is fallacious in both respects. Nature is neither good nor bad, it just is. Therefore making a moral or ethical claim about natural processes or events is a fallacy. Hunting is a natural process and is neither good nor bad, it just is or isn't. It happens or it doesn't. There is no ethical dilemma inherent in hunting because the very concept of ethics demands a balancing of good and bad.

On the other hand, from the biological perspective, hunting is one of the traits that enhances the survival of many species. Whether a species survives or prevails is also not a matter of ethics, it's a matter of biology and fact.

However, from the perspective of the species and its members, survival may be more desirable than non-survival even as both options are ethically neutral.

[Brian Peacock]

So, hunting for sport (and by that I mean hunting for the pleasure of hunting alone; hunting for its own sake) is ethical because it's the expression of an evolved trait inherent in the human genome? Is that what you're saying Seth?

Sure, why not? Those who can hunt are genetically more likely to survive than those who can't, and practice makes perfect.

So aside from not providing any evidence for those hunting for sport begin genetically more likely to survive than those who don't, your view basically entails declaring all human activity ethical because it's the expression of an evolved trait inherent in the human genome. How long have you been a Nihilist?

[Hermit]

So, hunting for sport (and by that I mean hunting for the pleasure of hunting alone; hunting for its own sake) is ethical because it's the expression of an evolved trait inherent in the human genome? Is that what you're saying Seth?

That's the message I'm getting. Seth seems rather fond of employing the appeal to nature whenever it suits his agenda.

Well, not really

Yes, really:

So, hunting for sport (and by that I mean hunting for the pleasure of hunting alone; hunting for its own sake) is ethical because it's the expression of an evolved trait inherent in the human genome? Is that what you're saying Seth?

Sure, why not?

[Seth]

So, hunting for sport (and by that I mean hunting for the pleasure of hunting alone; hunting for its own sake) is ethical because it's the expression of an evolved trait inherent in the human genome? Is that what you're saying Seth?

Sure, why not? Those who can hunt are genetically more likely to survive than those who can't, and practice makes perfect.

So aside from not providing any evidence for those hunting for sport begin genetically more likely to survive than those who don't, your view basically entails declaring all human activity ethical because it's the expression of an evolved trait inherent in the human genome. How long have you been a Nihilist?

I'm not a Nihilist, I just play one on the Interwebz.

[Brian Peacock]

OK.

[JimC]

"I'm a nihilist, and I'm OK..."

(sung to the tune of Monty Python's lumberjack song...)