The ethics of hunting

[JimC]

Remember, that the context of this discussion is the virtues, or otherwise, of hunting as sport today, rather than hunting out of necessity, either today or in the past.

The two blur into each other, to an extent. For example, a deer hunter in the Australian bush clearly enjoys the hunt as a sport, but typically brings home the venison carcass, which may make a very useful contribution to his domestic economy; not perhaps vital, but valuable. In addition, it is an ecological necessity that this introduced species have its population limited due to the damage it causes to the bush at high population densities. Such examples are towards the "ethically reasonable" end of the spectrum of reasons for hunting.

[Seth]

You are confusing the acquisition of knowledge and understanding with a biological process which transforms the compliment of heritable genetic traits in a population over time.

I'm not confusing anything at all, I'm saying that the acquisition of knowledge and understanding is a biological process which transforms the compliment of heritable genetic traits in a population over time. Cogito ergo sum.

If you wish to suggest that hunting for the pleasure of hunting has an impact on the genome of the human population please provide some appropriate evidence.

The evidence is clear: The pleasure of hunting is proof positive that the genome of the human population has changed over time so that humans take pleasure in hunting.

Remember, that the context of this discussion is the virtues, or otherwise, of hunting as sport today, rather than hunting out of necessity, either today or in the past.

And what I'm saying is that ethics has nothing whatever to do with the urge to hunt or the pleasure taken from hunting. Both are genetically programmed into the human genome by millions of years of adaptation and therefore those urges and pleasures are, just like the urge to procreate that includes the pleasure involved, are ethically neutral and entirely biologically appropriate and evolutionarily useful.

The Darwinian dead-ends in the human population are those who have neither the urge (nor the ability) to hunt nor take pleasure in hunting because they have become prey species instead of predator species and as a result are much more likely to be killed before they pass on their genetic material under circumstances where hunting is necessary to survival, which is an important factor in the development of the human species to date. The human proficiency at hunting is in large part responsible for our evolution to the top of the food chain and the development of our intelligence as a species. What's happening now is devolution of certain segments of the human population into helpless prey species who are substantially less adapted than most any other mammal prey species to being preyed upon or even providing for themselves insofar as the basic needs of life are concerned, like hunting, gathering, processing food, finding water, building shelter or even starting a fire. Probably a majority of people in first-world countries are no longer fit to survive for even a few weeks absent the infrastructure of modernity to feed it to them out of the end of a pipe.

The good news is that upon the collapse of civilization, or even the temporary interruption of that infrastructure, they will quickly die of thirst and starvation, which will cut off that particularly useless branch of the human genome, leaving the planet to those of us who are adapted to changing ecological conditions.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Both are genetically programmed into the human genome by millions of years of adaptation and therefore those urges and pleasures are, just like the urge to procreate that includes the pleasure involved, are ethically neutral and entirely biologically appropriate and evolutionarily useful.

I agree that the potential to enjoy hunting may have a genetic component via natural selection in our ancestors evolutionary past. To that extent, it is reasonable to say that hunting was "entirely biologically appropriate and evolutionarily useful". As well, the potential to take pleasure in the hunt is ethically neutral. However, any given decision to hunt in the modern world is a matter of situational ethics. Whether the hunted animals are endangered species or ecological pests, whether use is being made of the dead animal for food and a range of other considerations put any given example of hunting on an ethical spectrum. Taking pleasure in hunting is not an issue in itself, but neither is it an automatic justification for hunting.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Both are genetically programmed into the human genome by millions of years of adaptation and therefore those urges and pleasures are, just like the urge to procreate that includes the pleasure involved, are ethically neutral and entirely biologically appropriate and evolutionarily useful.

I agree that the potential to enjoy hunting may have a genetic component via natural selection in our ancestors evolutionary past. To that extent, it is reasonable to say that hunting was "entirely biologically appropriate and evolutionarily useful". As well, the potential to take pleasure in the hunt is ethically neutral. However, any given decision to hunt in the modern world is a matter of situational ethics. Whether the hunted animals are endangered species or ecological pests, whether use is being made of the dead animal for food and a range of other considerations put any given example of hunting on an ethical spectrum. Taking pleasure in hunting is not an issue in itself, but neither is it an automatic justification for hunting.

I would agree. the issue of "ethics" is unique to humans, although there is some evidence that other animals also have ethical structures, including dogs, who have demonstrated "fair play" ethical structures.

The question becomes whether "ethics" is also a biological imperative or simply a matter of individual conscience.

I would suggest that "ethics" is also a biological imperative that serves evolution. As you mention, the ethics of hunting an endangered species is unique to the understanding of the potential future consequences of the extinction of that creature. Lions don't have any ethical dilemma with killing the cubs of a rival male even though doing so decreases the number of viable individuals in the pride. So one might conclude that lion ethics value the genetic material of the dominant male over that of a non-dominant male, which seems on the surface to be reasonable if the genetic drive is to improve the evolutionary position of lions by always favoring the dominant male.

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.

[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?

[jamest]

Hunting ain't hugging. Technological development ain't a biological process.

Indeed, and you're wrong. Technological development is most certainly the result of a biological process, which is why biologically superior human beings develop technology to adjust for their biological shortcomings, which is why we're the apex predators on the planet.

Just a note to inform you that you've contradicted yourself here. IF technological development is a biological process, then how can humans have biological shortcomings? Clearly, you're obviously struggling to distinguish between the physical and mental properties of an organism, because the umbrella term 'biological processes' obviously doesn't cut it.

[jamest]

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.

[Brian Peacock]

Well, you can always absent yourself from offering an opinion on that basis if you like, but if we took your approach to the limit not only would we probably end up either doing nothing or whatever we wanted - regardless of the consequences in each case - but would also probably consider it pointless thinking anything about anything.

[JimC]

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...

[JimC]

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?

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...

[JimC]

Ian, this concerns this post: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 7#p1619437

This is a reminder that this post contravenes our policy on personal attacks. Please desist in future.

[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.

[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.

[Seth]

Hunting ain't hugging. Technological development ain't a biological process.

Indeed, and you're wrong. Technological development is most certainly the result of a biological process, which is why biologically superior human beings develop technology to adjust for their biological shortcomings, which is why we're the apex predators on the planet.

Just a note to inform you that you've contradicted yourself here. IF technological development is a biological process, then how can humans have biological shortcomings? Clearly, you're obviously struggling to distinguish between the physical and mental properties of an organism, because the umbrella term 'biological processes' obviously doesn't cut it.

Nobody suggested that humans, their biology or their technology are perfect. They are merely better than such developments by other creatures. And the mental properties of an organism are physical properties of the organism...evolved physical properties in fact. Your mistake is in assuming that just because humans use technology that somehow it's "artificial" or "unnatural" and not the obvious result of genetic programming through evolution. Even birds are known to use tools, which is "technology." We're just better at it than any other creature.

[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.

Pretty much.

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!!!

Isn't it just!

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.

My point exactly.