The ethics of hunting

[JimC]

So Seth, you would be quite happy to see creatures such as lions and tigers become extinct in the wild, and think that there should be no human effort or government legislation to prevent that happening...

[Brian Peacock]

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).

That's good, because for the most part I haven't made an argument on the back of a naturalistic appeal. I've only gone as far as qualifying a view that the proscription against 'hunting for pleasure' put forward earlier was ambiguous and really entailed a proscription against 'hunting only for the pleasure of hunting'. I went a little further to suggest that 'hunting for pleasure' could legitimately entail 'hunting for the pleasure gained through the utility of the carcass' where an animal was a necessary resource unavailable through other means. This is as far as I have gone on this, for now.

"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.

I don't know why you appear so squeamish about the 'justification' part of an argument or about the subjective nature of it. Different people have different views. There's no problem with that - as long as they can explicate their reasons for maintaining those views and as long as one isn't seeking some absolute, fixed, given, normative moral fact which applies to all hunting. Similarly there's nothing wrong with admitting that one's moral judgements may shift depending on the context of the moral questions being asked - again, unless one is looking to justify that there can only ever be a single normative declaration that has to fit all circumstances.

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.

But nobody is being asked here to deploy an unassailable, unquestionable, incontrovertible, undoubted, normative judgement which declares hunting either good and only good or bad and only bad. Jim asked if we thought hunting could be undertaken ethically, and if so under what conditions, and if not, why not? You yourself have mentioned two contrasting sets of circumstances where hunting might be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, but I think the questions about the recent Lion hunt would revolve around whether we think it is ethically defensible for a tourist to hunt and kill an animal only for the pleasure of hunting and/or to what extent such an animal can or should be used for that purpose and as an economic resource. That the locals might thank the now infamous US dentist for killing the lion is a different matter - and that the national government have called the hunter a poacher, declared the hunt an unlawful killing, arrested and bailed the two scouts employed to track the animal, and are currently preparing to try the hunter in his absence, suggests that not everyone in the region has been so welcoming about the kill.

In other words - I don't think this kind of discussion is easily closed with a simple, one-size-fits-all, unambiguous normative moral statement about the virtues or turpitude of hunting.

[Seth]

So Seth, you would be quite happy to see creatures such as lions and tigers become extinct in the wild, and think that there should be no human effort or government legislation to prevent that happening...

That's not even anywhere in the same universe as what I said.

[mistermack]

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.

I'm not bothered about individual lions dying. Not in the slightest. I just hate to see the species driven to extinction.
And as far as trophy hunting goes, my criticism is that the people doing it are pathetic wankers.
You won't find any bitching by me about a lion dying.

And yes, I value the life of rare species above human life. And certainly above unborn and unwanted clusters of human cells. And certain American dentists.

If the lion was killing the trophy hunter, I certainly wouldn't waste a bullet to stop it. Although I don't particularly like either. It's extinction I care about, and humans are not in any danger of that.
On the contrary, human numbers are the problem, so losing a few million American fetuses is a good thing.

[Seth]

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.

I'm not bothered about individual lions dying. Not in the slightest. I just hate to see the species driven to extinction.
And as far as trophy hunting goes, my criticism is that the people doing it are pathetic wankers.
You won't find any bitching by me about a lion dying.

Lions aren't being driven to extinction and if the lion is going to die, what does it matter how it dies or what happens to it's pelt? One might say that it's "better" for the lion to be mounted and admired than for it to rot away and be eaten by bugs.

And yes, I value the life of rare species above human life.

Good to know.

And certainly above unborn and unwanted clusters of human cells.

I might note that to someone you might be an unwanted cluster of human cells, so perhaps you ought to reconsider your position lest they do to you what you would do to some other unwanted cluster of cells.

And certain American dentists.

You got me there...I haven't seen a dentist in decades thanks to a particularly sadistic one I chanced upon as a young boy.

If the lion was killing the trophy hunter, I certainly wouldn't waste a bullet to stop it.

Well, that's rather the point. The lion was armed, and so was the hunter. As big game hunters go, he was less armed than most in that he was bow hunting, which has been going on in Africa for some hundreds of thousands of years, so the lion certainly had a reasonable chance of coming out on top of that battle. I'll also make note of your compassion towards your fellow humans should it fall to me to waste a bullet to stop someone or something from killing you.

Although I don't particularly like either. It's extinction I care about, and humans are not in any danger of that.

We're all one asteroid strike away from that my friend.

On the contrary, human numbers are the problem, so losing a few million American fetuses is a good thing.

How cowardly of you. If you want to cut down the population how about you have the balls to at least take on someone your own size in a "fair" fight. It's pretty disgusting that the best you can do is prey on helpless fetuses. I've a better idea, if you want to remain ethically consistent and non-hypocritical, then YOU should kill YOURSELF, immediately. After all, if you're not part of the solution, and you aren't, you're part of the problem. You owe it to the rest of us.

Buh-bye!

[mistermack]

Well, that's rather the point. The lion was armed, and so was the hunter. As big game hunters go, he was less armed than most in that he was bow hunting, which has been going on in Africa for some hundreds of thousands of years, so the lion certainly had a reasonable chance of coming out on top of that battle.

Battle? God, you make the lion look intelligent.
He had a bow. The rest of his team covered him with high-powered rifles of course.
And the lion was baited, not hunted. And lit up with a search light.
Those park lions come right up to the car, they are accustomed to vehicles.

That was as much of a hunt as netting a goldfish from a tank.

[Hermit]

More proof that what Seth keeps ranting on about is true: If only the lion was carrying a gun...

[mistermack]

if you want to remain ethically consistent and non-hypocritical,

A troll giving advice on ethics and non-hypocrisy is like a pig giving hygiene lessons.

[Seth]

Well, that's rather the point. The lion was armed, and so was the hunter. As big game hunters go, he was less armed than most in that he was bow hunting, which has been going on in Africa for some hundreds of thousands of years, so the lion certainly had a reasonable chance of coming out on top of that battle.

Battle? God, you make the lion look intelligent.

Ever been stalked by a lion? Go read "The Lions of Tsavo" or go watch "The Ghost and the Darkness" and then tell me lions aren't top-tier predators fully capable of killing a human.

He had a bow. The rest of his team covered him with high-powered rifles of course.

No guarantee they were good shots or that they would hit the lion if it charged. Professional hunters get killed by lions and other cats with some regularity in Africa.

And the lion was baited, not hunted. And lit up with a search light.

I wasn't aware the hunt took place at night. Do you have some citation? As for "baited" that's common practice in Africa and it's entirely legal in most places.

Those park lions come right up to the car, they are accustomed to vehicles.

Your evidence that this particular lion had that habit? And my understanding is that the hunters weren't in a vehicle, which is illegal, they were on foot during the initial hunt. Vehicles were only used to pursue the wounded lion in an attempt to finish the kill as quickly as possible, in accordance with both the law and proper hunting practices.

That was as much of a hunt as netting a goldfish from a tank.

You were there, were you? No? Then you don't know anything.

[Seth]

More proof that what Seth keeps ranting on about is true: If only the lion was carrying a gun...

The lion was carrying teeth and claws and was an experienced predator fully capable of killing the hunter and all his companions.

[Seth]

if you want to remain ethically consistent and non-hypocritical,

A troll giving advice on ethics and non-hypocrisy is like a pig giving hygiene lessons.

Person's other than idiots know that pigs are actually quite cleanly creatures, given the choice. They have a reputation of wallowing in muck only because that's how they are confined. The widespread keeping of pigs as housepets is proof of this, which anyone but an ignoramus would know.

[mistermack]

Person's other than idiots know that pigs are actually quite cleanly creatures, given the choice. They have a reputation of wallowing in muck only because that's how they are confined. The widespread keeping of pigs as housepets is proof of this, which anyone but an ignoramus would know.

You clearly know fuck-all about pigs. Wild pigs wallow in muck because they like it. And they carry tape worms.

If you’re at all familiar with the Bible you’ll probably remember that in it God specifically instructed His people not to eat pork and shellfish. Many people are surprised to find this out, but in the Old Testament God warned us that the pig was an unclean animal–a scavenger and not to be eaten (Check out Leviticus 11).

Why You Should Avoid Pork

No matter how you think about it, pigs are a rather dirty animal. They are considered the scavengers of the farm (created to eliminate any waste on the farm), often eating anything they can find. This includes not only bugs, insects, and whatever leftover scraps they find laying around, but also their own feces, as well as the dead carcasses of sick animals, including their own young.

[Seth]

Person's other than idiots know that pigs are actually quite cleanly creatures, given the choice. They have a reputation of wallowing in muck only because that's how they are confined. The widespread keeping of pigs as housepets is proof of this, which anyone but an ignoramus would know.

You clearly know fuck-all about pigs. Wild pigs wallow in muck because they like it. And they carry tape worms.

It's nice and cool in the muck. Given something nice and cool to wallow in besides muck, they will. And humans carry tapeworms too. So what?

If you’re at all familiar with the Bible you’ll probably remember that in it God specifically instructed His people not to eat pork and shellfish. Many people are surprised to find this out, but in the Old Testament God warned us that the pig was an unclean animal–a scavenger and not to be eaten (Check out Leviticus 11).

Why You Should Avoid Pork

No matter how you think about it, pigs are a rather dirty animal. They are considered the scavengers of the farm (created to eliminate any waste on the farm), often eating anything they can find. This includes not only bugs, insects, and whatever leftover scraps they find laying around, but also their own feces, as well as the dead carcasses of sick animals, including their own young.

[/quote]

Wu's pigs did yeoman service in Deadwood...

Anyway, the biblical proscription against eating pork was perfectly reasonable at the time because nobody knew what trichinosis was or how to avoid it. Not a problem now, and thus BACON!

And I must add that every pig I've ever known personally is much smarter than most Atheists I've met personally...and far more personable too.

[Hermit]

More proof that what Seth keeps ranting on about is true: If only the lion was carrying a gun...

The lion was carrying teeth and claws and was an experienced predator fully capable of killing the hunter and all his companions.

Never take teeth to a gunfight.

[JimC]