The ethics of hunting

[JimC]

A vegan might argue that killing for food can be categorised as "unnecessary", but most of us would not.

Since it is possible to survive without eating meat, I'd suggest it's difficult to categorise killing animals for food as necessary.

I take your point, and you are technically correct. However, given a personal choice to eat meat, then killing an animal for food has at least a legitimate purpose, one that our hominid line has followed for a very long time. Such a clear rationale for killing, where the dead animal is used as nutrition, seems to me far removed from trophy hunting.

Of course, the whole issue of meat eating can be examined critically from an ethical and environmental perspective, but that is somewhat outside of the issues I wanted to raise in the thread.

[Brian Peacock]

A vegan might argue that killing for food can be categorised as "unnecessary", but most of us would not.

Since it is possible to survive without eating meat, I'd suggest it's difficult to categorise killing animals for food as necessary.

I take your point, and you are technically correct. However, given a personal choice to eat meat, then killing an animal for food has at least a legitimate purpose, one that our hominid line has followed for a very long time. Such a clear rationale for killing, where the dead animal is used as nutrition, seems to me far removed from trophy hunting.

Then that 'legitimate purpose', where killing is unnecessary but desirable, is killing driven by the pleasure of the consumer. So, what is meant by 'killing for pleasure' is really 'killing that does not involve consuming parts of the carcas' (illegitimate) as 'killing for pleasure' is quite legitimate if it involves the pleasure of eating.

There seems nothing particularly bothersome about "I enjoy hunting stuff and eating it," in this regard - as the hunter's personal pleasure seems to be tempered by the utility and enjoyment they derive from both the carcas and it's procurement, but it does appear to impact on the killing that takes place soley for the pleasure of eating but which does not involve hunting while being nutritionally unnecessary.

How does one swallow that?

[JimC]

I want a rare steak, and I will kill to get it...

[Brian Peacock]

Let the gravy flow through you and your journey to the dark side of the fork will be complete.

[Brian Peacock]

So, to crystallise one element of by previous remarks - just for posterity.

Hunted meat, hunted out of nutritional necessity, is moral meat. Arguments for sustainability, though sound in their own terms, pale in the light of the alternative - going hungry.

[Seth]

A vegan might argue that killing for food can be categorised as "unnecessary", but most of us would not.

Since it is possible to survive without eating meat, I'd suggest it's difficult to categorise killing animals for food as necessary.

I take your point, and you are technically correct. However, given a personal choice to eat meat, then killing an animal for food has at least a legitimate purpose, one that our hominid line has followed for a very long time. Such a clear rationale for killing, where the dead animal is used as nutrition, seems to me far removed from trophy hunting.

Then that 'legitimate purpose', where killing is unnecessary but desirable, is killing driven by the pleasure of the consumer. So, what is meant by 'killing for pleasure' is really 'killing that does not involve consuming parts of the carcas' (illegitimate) as 'killing for pleasure' is quite legitimate if it involves the pleasure of eating.

There seems nothing particularly bothersome about "I enjoy hunting stuff and eating it," in this regard - as the hunter's personal pleasure seems to be tempered by the utility and enjoyment they derive from both the carcas and it's procurement, but it does appear to impact on the killing that takes place soley for the pleasure of eating but which does not involve hunting while being nutritionally unnecessary.

How does one swallow that?

How does one swallow the root naturalistic fallacy of "killing good if... killing bad if..."

[JimC]

A vegan might argue that killing for food can be categorised as "unnecessary", but most of us would not.

Since it is possible to survive without eating meat, I'd suggest it's difficult to categorise killing animals for food as necessary.

I take your point, and you are technically correct. However, given a personal choice to eat meat, then killing an animal for food has at least a legitimate purpose, one that our hominid line has followed for a very long time. Such a clear rationale for killing, where the dead animal is used as nutrition, seems to me far removed from trophy hunting.

Then that 'legitimate purpose', where killing is unnecessary but desirable, is killing driven by the pleasure of the consumer. So, what is meant by 'killing for pleasure' is really 'killing that does not involve consuming parts of the carcas' (illegitimate) as 'killing for pleasure' is quite legitimate if it involves the pleasure of eating.

There seems nothing particularly bothersome about "I enjoy hunting stuff and eating it," in this regard - as the hunter's personal pleasure seems to be tempered by the utility and enjoyment they derive from both the carcas and it's procurement, but it does appear to impact on the killing that takes place soley for the pleasure of eating but which does not involve hunting while being nutritionally unnecessary.

How does one swallow that?

How does one swallow the root naturalistic fallacy of "killing good if... killing bad if..."

So what is your alternative?

"Killing always good"?

"Killing always bad"?

Or do we use our intelligence to carefully analyse the underlying ethics, and understand that different situations have different ethical solutions?

[Seth]

How does one swallow the root naturalistic fallacy of "killing good if... killing bad if..."

So what is your alternative?

"Killing always good"?

"Killing always bad"?

Or do we use our intelligence to carefully analyse the underlying ethics, and understand that different situations have different ethical solutions?

I think we look rationally at each event to analyze it's moral and ethical implications and use logic and reason, not emotion, to decide what the moral implications are. I think we also ought to look to the consistency of the moral reasoning when it comes to killing to see if those who either object or approve are being logically and ethically consistent.

For example, for anyone to bitch about a single lion in Africa being killed while completely ignoring and denying the 40 million unborn children that are slaughtered in the US each year, or the thousands of African human beings who die of preventable disease because the moralizers worried about poor Cecil aren't willing to put up five bucks each to buy kids mosquito nets so they don't die of malaria is the ultimate in hypocritical arrogance and a moral outrage of monumental proportions.

[Seth]

One Dead, Two Flee After Man Pulls Gun and Shoots to Protect His Date
4
AP Photoi/Seth Wenig
AP Photoi/Seth Wenig

by AWR Hawkins7 Aug 2015Las Vegas, NV0
On August 5, a man and woman were getting out of their car at an apartment complex in Las Vegas “when three black males came up”—one of whom allegedly had a gun—and demanded the woman hand over her purse. The man then pulled his own gun and shot the alleged armed robber, causing the other two to flee.

The incident took place at about 9:25 p.m. “near Spencer Street and East Tropicana Avenue.”

According to 3 News, witnesses at the apartment complex confirmed what the couple told police, and “a weapon believed to belong to the suspect also was recovered at the scene.”

Metro police summed up the incident by saying the “three men (allegedly) approached a couple in their car, one of them armed with a gun. He tried to take the woman’s purse [and] the man in the car pulled out a gun and shot that suspect.” The suspect was taken to Sunrise Hospital, where he died.

The two suspects who fled are believed to be “black men in their late teens or early 20s.”

Susan Russell lives in the same complex where the incident occurred, and she said the news convinced her to get a gun. She said the news scared her, so she “went to the gun store.”

Russell said, “I’m not against guns. But I’m against criminals using guns for criminal activities.”

[JimC]

What the fuck has that to do with hunting?

[Seth]

What the fuck has that to do with hunting?

What do you think the three black males were doing?

[mistermack]

For example, for anyone to bitch about a single lion in Africa being killed while completely ignoring and denying the 40 million unborn children that are slaughtered in the US each year, or the thousands of African human beings who die of preventable disease because the moralizers worried about poor Cecil aren't willing to put up five bucks each to buy kids mosquito nets so they don't die of malaria is the ultimate in hypocritical arrogance and a moral outrage of monumental proportions.

Not really.
If there were seven billion lions in the world, you might have a point.
If you regularly gave to charities supporting single mothers, you might have a point.

What happened to adapt or die? Suddenly, you're all concern for Africans and other Americans' fetuses.
THAT'S hypocrisy. Because you don't really give a fuck.

[Brian Peacock]

A vegan might argue that killing for food can be categorised as "unnecessary", but most of us would not.

Since it is possible to survive without eating meat, I'd suggest it's difficult to categorise killing animals for food as necessary.

I take your point, and you are technically correct. However, given a personal choice to eat meat, then killing an animal for food has at least a legitimate purpose, one that our hominid line has followed for a very long time. Such a clear rationale for killing, where the dead animal is used as nutrition, seems to me far removed from trophy hunting.

Then that 'legitimate purpose', where killing is unnecessary but desirable, is killing driven by the pleasure of the consumer. So, what is meant by 'killing for pleasure' is really 'killing that does not involve consuming parts of the carcas' (illegitimate) as 'killing for pleasure' is quite legitimate if it involves the pleasure of eating.

There seems nothing particularly bothersome about "I enjoy hunting stuff and eating it," in this regard - as the hunter's personal pleasure seems to be tempered by the utility and enjoyment they derive from both the carcas and it's procurement, but it does appear to impact on the killing that takes place soley for the pleasure of eating but which does not involve hunting while being nutritionally unnecessary.

How does one swallow that?

How does one swallow the root naturalistic fallacy of "killing good if... killing bad if..."

There's no naturalistic fallacy there, you just have two hypothetical moral statements. 'Killing' for the purposes of this discussion is 'hunting'.

Some have argued that killing (hunting) is justified in some circumstances and less justifiable, or unjustified, in others. Would you agree with that?

[Seth]

For example, for anyone to bitch about a single lion in Africa being killed while completely ignoring and denying the 40 million unborn children that are slaughtered in the US each year, or the thousands of African human beings who die of preventable disease because the moralizers worried about poor Cecil aren't willing to put up five bucks each to buy kids mosquito nets so they don't die of malaria is the ultimate in hypocritical arrogance and a moral outrage of monumental proportions.

Not really.
If there were seven billion lions in the world, you might have a point.
If you regularly gave to charities supporting single mothers, you might have a point.

How about if I regularly give to organizations that tell women to keep dicks out of their vaginas unless they are prepared and willing to raise a child?

What happened to adapt or die? Suddenly, you're all concern for Africans and other Americans' fetuses.
THAT'S hypocrisy. Because you don't really give a fuck.

That's exactly my point. Lion didn't adapt, so it died. So what? All living creatures die. So what? To you it's not a human being or a child, it's a fetus, so it must be ethical to kill it. It's an African, so it must be ethical to let it die while you bitch and bitch about a lion dying.

In other words, you have no business discussing the ethics of hunting because you won't discuss the ethics of abortion. In your ethics and morality free world, human beings have less worth than lions, so you should have no problem with someone hunting YOU and killing you (or your children) and mounting your head on the wall. After all, you're just one of seven billion members of a prey species for those who choose to hunt you, so you don't matter even a little and your death will pass entirely unnoticed and unremarked.

That's the hypocrisy involved.

[Seth]

Some have argued that killing (hunting) is justified in some circumstances and less justifiable, or unjustified, in others. Would you agree with that?

First I must correct myself, it's not a "naturalistic fallacy" I'm invoking. What I meant was the fallacy of appeal to nature, ie: what is natural is good (or bad), and what is unnatural is bad (or good), which is fallacious because neither proposition is inerrantly true (It's worth reading this because the term "naturalistic fallacy" is often misused here, particularly when it comes to discussions of the origination of "rights", and I admit to misunderstanding it myself).

"Justification" is a slippery term because it is necessarily subjective and relative and therefore abstract. While the lion's death in question may seem "unjustifed" to some, to others it's entirely justified and justifiable, depending on the context the question is view in and from.

This is demonstrated by the fact that the people who live in the region are baffled by all the outcry over the death of a single lion because to them lions are dangerous predators that kill their children and their livestock and they are happy to see them killed.

Thus, it seems a bootless exercise to try to judge the ethics of hunting from afar. I suggest that such decisions be left up to those who do the hunting and those who control such hunting, who do so with greater knowledge of the competing interests involved and have the authority to regulate when and where hunting is permissible or desirable for reasons of overall species and ecosystem management.

The same lion, in the Cleveland Zoo, would not be an appropriate subject for a hunt...unless it escaped. And therein lies the contextual difficulty involved in this thread.