# Resolved: Hunting is immoral. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 1, 2009, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930 "2009-11-01T11:36:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/241 "2009-11-04T05:06:45Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Ultimately when I look at the killing of an animal by a human being I’m looking at a single act which results in no harm to another person, so I do not see how it is a significant moral issue. > > I can see certain situations in which it could become a moral issue. If a human kills an animal that is the rightful property of another human, that is immoral. > > If a human gets pleasure from the kill, or from the eating, and since no person is harmed, I can’t see how it is _immoral_. I won’t go as far as to say it is _moral_, but it isn’t immoral. Is setting a stray cat on fire immoral? How about [shooting an arrow through a cat’s head](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/10/04/2009-10-04_meow_cat_shot_with_arrow.html) (pic at the link…cat lived…somehow). ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/242 "2009-11-04T06:31:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Is setting a stray cat on fire immoral? How about [shooting an arrow through a cat’s head](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/10/04/2009-10-04_meow_cat_shot_with_arrow.html) (pic at the link…cat lived…somehow). How about poisoning a mouse with anticoagulant and letting it bleed to death internally over days? Immoral? How about dragging a plough through a nest of mice and amputating the limbs of some and leaving others to suffocate? Immoral? There are lots of horrific deaths involved in a vegetarian diet too. Heck, lets talk about the horrific deaths that result from the coal mining that enables you to use your internet connection. Are those moral? Is it moral to take pleasure from something that results in such hideous deaths? Look the fact is that animals are gonna die horrific deaths in order for us to eat. And far, far more animals die far, far more painfully to produce soybeans than die to produce wild venison or grass fed beef. So if these deaths are a serious moral issue then you should be getting your protein from hunted game or grass fed beef, which results in just a single, rapid death, rather than from soy which results in dozens of slow deaths. If animal suffering is really the issue then vegetarianism is provably not the most ethical diet. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/243 "2009-11-04T06:34:06Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > How about poisoning a mouse with anticoagulant and letting it bleed to death internally over days? Immoral? > > How about dragging a plough through a nest of mice and amputating the limbs of some and leaving others to suffocate? Immoral? > > There are lots of horrific deaths involved in a vegetarian diet too. > > Heck, lets talk about the horrific deaths that result from the coal mining that enables you to use your internet connection. Are those moral? Is it moral to take pleasure from something that results in such hideous deaths? > > Look the fact is that animals are gonna die horrific deaths in order for us to eat. And far, far more animals die far, far more painfully to produce soybeans than die to produce wild venison or grass fed beef. > > So if these deaths are a serious moral issue then you should be getting your protein from hunted game or grass fed beef, which results in just a single, rapid death, rather than from soy which results in dozens of slow deaths. > > If animal suffering is really the issue then vegetarianism is provably not the most ethical diet. Fine but you didn’t answer the question. He seemed to be taking a stance that killing an animal is never immoral unless it is someone else’s property. I wanted to establish if that was what he was saying by providing some examples. ETA: And for the millionth time I am NOT a vegetarian nor do I argue…ever…for a vegetarian diet. Indeed earlier in the thread I pointed out to a vegetarian that farming for his vegetables kills many animals. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/244 "2009-11-04T06:42:43Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Fine but you didn’t answer the question. > > He seemed to be taking a stance that killing an animal is never immoral unless it is someone else’s property. I’ve given this a lot of thought over the years, and logically it’s hard to justify how it could be immoral, or at least any more immoral than using the internet. I personally find torture to be abhorrent and repulsive, I believe peopel who do such things are mentally sick and I would never associate with somebody who did such a thing. But \*that \* certainly doesn’t make it immoral. Lots of people feel exactly the same way about homosexuality or miscegenation, and that doesn’t make those things immoral either. > [@](#): > > ETA: And for the millionth time I am NOT a vegetarian nor do I argue…ever…for a vegetarian diet. For the… , um, first time, I never implied that you were. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/245 "2009-11-04T11:17:29Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I don’t believe that scientists know enough about our eating habits 30,000 years ago, let alone 2 million, as Cecil states. If you won’t believe the evidence I can’t help you. All I can do is point out that there is no debate on this issue in the scientific community. > [@](#): > > Did they order them from ACME Inc? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/246 "2009-11-04T12:06:31Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > If you won’t believe the evidence I can’t help you. All I can do is point out that there is no debate on this issue in the scientific community. There wasn’t one official reference link in Cecil’s article, so where is this “scientific community” you speak of? > [@Blake](#): > > 😕 If you are talking about cro-magnon and neanderthalis usage of weapons, I’d be more inclined to believe they were developed to defend against each other than for hunting, unless you have scientific evidence to prove otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Bagaboo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aca169/32.png) [@Bagaboo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bagaboo)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/247 "2009-11-04T13:08:02Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So righteous. > > I never said you cannot go hunting. In my view taking pleasure in killing is messed up. The issues with the factory raised meat industry need addressing but it does not change that observation. My first kill of large game wasn’t pleasent when I was young, now I am indifferent, I’ve become habituated over time. Its part of the process, other aspects of hunting I do enjoy. A worker at a slaughterhouse becomes habituated to doing the same on a daily basis, although I hear some people can’t deal with that very well either. To be honest killing animals day in and day out is probably the last job I’d want. So what’s the difference ? Emotions aside about the act, the animal ends up in my fridge. Ultimately thats why I hunt, to eat. Something we all have to do on a daily basis in order to live. Glad to hear you enjoyed your ribs. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/248 "2009-11-04T14:21:55Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > If you are talking about cro-magnon and neanderthalis usage of weapons, I’d be more inclined to believe they were developed to defend against each other than for hunting, unless you have scientific evidence to prove otherwise. The criminal mind reveals itself again. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/249 "2009-11-04T14:36:36Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > The criminal mind reveals itself again. Wrong topic; start another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/250 "2009-11-04T14:42:41Z")
Hunting is clearly not immoral. > **[Definition of IMMORAL](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immoral)** > > not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles… See the full definition If society moves to change it’s position it might become immoral but it certainly isn’t as of right now. You can equate this to slavery if you wish. Until it came to prominence that slavery might be detrimental to the slave’s well being no one thought it was immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/251 "2009-11-04T14:51:21Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Is setting a stray cat on fire immoral? How about [shooting an arrow through a cat’s head](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/10/04/2009-10-04_meow_cat_shot_with_arrow.html) (pic at the link…cat lived…somehow). No, it isn’t. Is it reprehensible to me on an individual level? Of course, but not immoral. If the cat was owned by another person and the offender did these things, then it is immoral because the person was damaging the property of someone else, inflicting harm on them. In case I didn’t make it clear enough in my post, I don’t believe animals are people and don’t weigh them in moral decision making. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/252 "2009-11-04T14:51:56Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Hunting is clearly not immoral. > > [IMMORAL Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immoral) > > If society moves to change it’s position it might become immoral but it certainly isn’t as of right now. > > You can equate this to slavery if you wish. Until it came to prominence that slavery might be detrimental to the slave’s well being no one thought it was immoral. I think we’ve moved on to _should it be immoral_, now. Slavery wasn’t deemed immoral at the time because it was within the law - but no-one will deny now that it **should** have been seen as immoral and have been against the law, because the laws allowing it were wrong. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/253 "2009-11-04T14:55:04Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > No, it isn’t. Is it reprehensible to me on an individual level? Of course, but not immoral. > > If the cat was owned by another person and the offender did these things, then it is immoral because the person was damaging the property of someone else, inflicting harm on them. > > In case I didn’t make it clear enough in my post, I don’t believe animals are people and don’t weigh them in moral decision making. Animals don’t have to be people - they just have to be recognised as a sentient species. There’s a little bit about it in wikipedia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience). ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/254 "2009-11-04T14:59:04Z")
When Francis Bacon is advocating vegetarianism, face it, you are on shaky ground. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/255 "2009-11-04T15:45:33Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Animals don’t have to be people - they just have to be recognised as a sentient species. There’s a little bit about it in wikipedia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience). I don’t think you can make relevant moral decisions based on “sentience”, since I don’t think any society will ever have a universally accepted means of determining what is and isn’t sentient. Furthermore I can think of many situations in which a human being may lack sentience but certain actions towards said human being would be immoral. What we can say definitively is whether or not something is human, and human morality should only deal with the ethics of actions as they relate to other humans. All the other species on Earth have demonstrated nothing to me to suggest they are ethical or part of our ethical system. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/256 "2009-11-04T15:46:40Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > When Francis Bacon is advocating vegetarianism, face it, you are on shaky ground. I tend not to take seriously people who commit such glaring [logical fallacies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/257 "2009-11-04T16:08:00Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I don’t think you can make relevant moral decisions based on “sentience”, since I don’t think any society will ever have a universally accepted means of determining what is and isn’t sentient. > > Furthermore I can think of many situations in which a human being may lack sentience but certain actions towards said human being would be immoral. > > What we can say definitively is whether or not something is human, and human morality should only deal with the ethics of actions as they relate to other humans. All the other species on Earth have demonstrated nothing to me to suggest they are ethical or part of our ethical system. Amazing…self serving dodges to redefine a term are just that…dodges. > [@](#): > > Main Entry: sen·tient > Pronunciation: \ˈsen(t)-sh(ē-)ənt, ˈsen-tē-ənt > Function: adjective > Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel > Date: 1632 > > 1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions \ > 2 : aware > 3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling > > SOURCE: [SENTIENT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient) Clearly animals meet that definition with ease on all counts. And if something cannot participate in our moral system that means we cannot be immoral towards them? What about a child or profoundly retarded person? They cannot participate in our moral system in any meaningful way as it is beyond them the same as it is beyond your dog. So by your reckoning we can treat them any way we please. I reject that to be moral means it is a reciprocal relationship. That if something cannot come to an agreement with you on a moral framework that you are then off the hook completely. As I said, children do not come to this agreement with you and it is absurd to think you cannot be immoral towards a child. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/258 "2009-11-04T16:26:48Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Amazing…self serving dodges to redefine a term are just that…dodges. I’m just using the term for sentience that I’m most familiar with in terms of animal rights, to quote Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain. Animal-rights advocates typically argue that any sentient being is entitled at a minimum to the right not to be subjected to unnecessary suffering, though they may differ on what other rights (e.g., the right to life) may be entailed by simple sentience. I’ve toyed around in enough philosophy classes in my day to say with some degree of confidence that animal rights is an “old issue” in philosophy, especially because it generates a lot of debate in a classroom and a lot of modern day philosophers have written about it extensively. The ability to experience pleasure of pain is, in my experience, always a key part of the definition. The definition you quoted is so broad and vague as to be more or less useless; and of course it is dramatically more self-serving for you to quote such drivel than me using my definition of sentience. In fact, I never explicitly defined it I simply said that it is subjective, and I guess to counter that you’ve copied and pasted a definition from a single source and we are to assume that as “authoritative.” That isn’t how debate works. > [@](#): > > Clearly animals meet that definition with ease on all counts. Despite the self-serving nature of your quote, this still isn’t true. For example “aware”, and “finely sensitive in perception or feeling” could be argued about for pages and pages as they are _subjective_ definitions. > [@](#): > > And if something cannot participate in our moral system that means we cannot be immoral towards them? What about a child or profoundly retarded person? They cannot participate in our moral system in any meaningful way as it is beyond them the same as it is beyond your dog. So by your reckoning we can treat them any way we please. Did you actually read my post, check what I said: > [@](#): > > Furthermore I can think of many situations in which a human being may lack sentience but certain actions towards said human being would be immoral. Given that I said that in plain English I can only presume that you missed it or that you have extremely poor reading comprehension ability. I don’t understand why you would go on and on about how I’m saying you can’t act in an immoral manner towards a child or a retarded person when I _specifically say_: “a human being may lack sentience but certain actions towards said human being would be immoral.” When I typed that I had the specific thought of profoundly disabled persons, people in persistent vegetative states and et cetera. > [@](#): > > I reject that to be moral means it is a reciprocal relationship. That if something cannot come to an agreement with you on a moral framework that you are then off the hook completely. As I said, children do not come to this agreement with you and it is absurd to think you cannot be immoral towards a child. That’s hilarious, remember this isn’t Junior High, just because you end your post in a resounding criticism of something _I never said_ does not mean we have to accept that I actually said it. Especially when anyone who can read can scroll up and see that you’re not only refuting me on a point _I never made_, you’re refuting me on a point I already covered and explained before you ever posted. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/259 "2009-11-04T17:07:13Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I’m just using the term for sentience that I’m most familiar with in terms of animal rights, to quote Wikipedia: > > I’ve toyed around in enough philosophy classes in my day to say with some degree of confidence that animal rights is an “old issue” in philosophy, especially because it generates a lot of debate in a classroom and a lot of modern day philosophers have written about it extensively. The ability to experience pleasure of pain is, in my experience, always a key part of the definition. The definition you quoted is so broad and vague as to be more or less useless; and of course it is dramatically more self-serving for you to quote such drivel than me using my definition of sentience. In fact, I never explicitly defined it I simply said that it is subjective, and I guess to counter that you’ve copied and pasted a definition from a single source and we are to assume that as “authoritative.” That isn’t how debate works. You are taking me to task for the dictionary definition of a word that you wish to redefine for your own purposes? That is rich. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “sentient” as: “[able to perceive or feel things.](http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sentient?view=uk)” If you have issue with an overly broad definition then take it up with the folks who write dictionaries. Sorry if you have a problem with that but it is not up to you to redefine the English language to suit your purposes. If you mean something more explicit then it is incumbent upon you to spell that out. In the philosophy of animal rights they are basing “sentience” on the dictionary definition of the term. The philosophy comes in on debating what implications that has for us. Clearly and without doubt animals are sentient. If you want to argue they are just clever automatons then you can make the same argument about humans and all morality goes out the window. > [@](#): > > Despite the self-serving nature of your quote, this still isn’t true. For example “aware”, and “finely sensitive in perception or feeling” could be argued about for pages and pages as they are _subjective_ definitions. I see no debate there. Clearly animals are aware. Clearly they are finely sensitive in perception and feeling. > [@](#): > > Given that I said that in plain English I can only presume that you missed it or that you have extremely poor reading comprehension ability. I don’t understand why you would go on and on about how I’m saying you can’t act in an immoral manner towards a child or a retarded person when I _specifically say_: “a human being may lack sentience but certain actions towards said human being would be immoral.” When I typed that I had the specific thought of profoundly disabled persons, people in persistent vegetative states and et cetera. > > That’s hilarious, remember this isn’t Junior High, just because you end your post in a resounding criticism of something _I never said_ does not mean we have to accept that I actually said it. Especially when anyone who can read can scroll up and see that you’re not only refuting me on a point _I never made_, you’re refuting me on a point I already covered and explained before you ever posted. So, is sentience important or are you moving the goalposts? It is important as regards animals, not important as regards humans? Nor does it change the question of whether you can act in an immoral manner towards something which does not partake, at all, in any moral consideration? ---
**Author:** ![Starrman10](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@Starrman10](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starrman10)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/260 "2009-11-04T18:08:37Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > - They display intelligence as we do (dogs are considered to have an equivalent intelligence to that of a human two year-old and two year olds can certainly suffer) Cite? I have a 2 year old daughter and a dog - I really don’t think it is even close. I can train the dog to do all kinds of things, but my 2 year old has a complex language, can do puzzles, imagine herself as a princess and count to 10. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930.md?page=14)