# 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:** 6
**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 1, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/101 "2009-11-01T20:09:15Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > First off, the pig is knocked out. What about Kosher slaughterhouses? Not that they’d be killing a pig there but the questions remains. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/102 "2009-11-01T20:10:29Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > A dog can anticipate pain. Go to a shelter and find a dog that has been abused. Without actually hurting the animal certain things you do towards it will make it cringe (fearful) or run away or perhaps become aggressive. If it was just a program how would a dog learn to associate certain things with pain? More, it needs to think ahead and decide that in the past action-X hurt, there is action-X again, I want to avoid that. > > The dog absolutely is making a connection about undesirable things. It has a memory of _suffering_ and as such will avoid suffering in the future if it can. If it was just a programmed response this shouldn’t happen. > > I doubt if you poked a sea cucumber it would manage the same feat when you come around again to poke it. Oh you would be surprised. _Aplysia californica_, a mollusk, is studied by neuroscientists to learn about fear and memory at the simplest level. Specifically they study its gill withdrawal reflex when it is lightly touched. This reflex is capable of several different kinds of ‘learning’, from habituation to sensitization to associative learning. Without getting too deep into it, yes, very simple neural circuits are actually at the heart of the kind of learning and fear conditioning you see in all animals. The very same circuits and behaviors are at work in our own brains, in the amygdala and other places. Of course it’s orders of magnitude more complicated, but the basics are simple. Eric Kandel at Columbia University won the Nobel Prize in 2000 for this exact kind of research. ---
**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 1, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/103 "2009-11-01T20:10:33Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > First off, the pig is knocked out. 2nd, a lot of people fish and eat their catch so I don’t know where this is coming from. I’m saying the meat providing industry tends to ‘prettify’ what it does, and the vast majority of meat eaters choose to remain ignorant of how their food ends up on its plate. But if it was really as natural to butcher animals as some would have us believe, we’d be besieged by cooking programmes where the cow was killed live on screen to prove its freshness and diy shows on how to cut and prepare a carcass. ---
**Author:** ![wierdaaron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eada6e/32.png) [@wierdaaron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wierdaaron)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/104 "2009-11-01T20:12:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > People who hunt deer are able to stock a freezer with a season’s worth of meat, not a day. And where I live, deer are too plentiful and destroy crops and cause traffic accidents because of a lack of hunting animals. We can either reintroduce wolves and mountain lions, or feed off them ourselves. Between the gun and the permits and the car mounts and the camo and the fuel, it’d probably be cheaper to just buy a freezer’s worth of meat if that’s the concern. I don’t think a measurable amount of people hunt for the meat, they hunt to hunt, and the meat is just a bonus. And my above post is kind of specific to cultures like ours where everything is plentiful. Naturally, if you live in the bush somewhere, the situation is different. The fact that veganism is even an option is such a luxury that thousands of years worth of ancestors wouldn’t even be able to consider the possibility. Also, video games and sneakers with lights in them. ---
**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 1, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/105 "2009-11-01T20:22:15Z")
> [@Mojo\_Pin](#): > > Oh you would be surprised. _Aplysia californica_, a mollusk, is studied by neuroscientists to learn about fear and memory at the simplest level. Good grief… > [@](#): > > Whether animals can feel pain has been a controversial issue for many years. Animals and humans share similar mechanisms of pain detection, have similar areas of the brain involved in processing pain and show similar pain behaviours, but it is notoriously difficult to assess how animals actually experience pain. > > Pain can be considered to have two components: (1) physical hurt or discomfort caused by injury or disease; and (2) emotional suffering. Most people would agree that animals are capable of feeling pain according to the first definition. But it is less clear whether they also feel emotional pain. > > \ > > However, one area of great importance for pain perception in humans is the cortex and its relative size decreases as we descend the evolutionary tree. For instance, in relative terms, the cortex gets smaller going from humans, through primates, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibia and finally to fish, which possess only a rudimentary cortex. > > Behaviour > Other animals show reflex responses similar to our own. For example, when we accidentally touch a hot iron we respond almost immediately by retracting our hand. There is a lag period following this when no adverse sensations are felt but, if left untreated, the burn begins to throb and we alter our behaviour to guard the affected area. > > Other animals respond to painful damage in a similar way. Their responses comprise several behavioural and physiological changes: they eat less food, their normal behaviour is disrupted, their social behaviour is suppressed and they may adopt unusual behaviour patterns (typically, highly repetitive or stereotyped behaviours, such as rocking to and fro), they may emit characteristic distress calls, and they experience respiratory and cardiovascular changes, as well as inflammation and release of stress hormones. > > As these responses are complex and coordinated, it is likely that the brain is involved and they are more than just simple reflexes. > > Although comparatively simple, fish have recently been shown to possess sensory neurons that are sensitive to damaging stimuli and are physiologically identical to human nociceptors. Fish show several responses to a painful event: they adopt guarding behaviours, become unresponsive to external stimuli and their respiration increases. These responses disappear when the fish are given morphine – evidence that they are, mechanistically at least, directly analogous to pain responses in more complex animals. > > \ > > Higher vertebrates show even more significant signs of consciousness. Robert Hanna has suggested that animals may be conscious but that this is not as developed as human consciousness. Many argue, however, that consciousness is fundamentally dependent on language, something no other animal has yet been convincingly shown to possess. In contrast, Peter Singer, a bioethicist who has championed animal rights for many years, suggests that consciousness is not even the key issue: just because animals have smaller brains, or are ‘less conscious’ than humans, this does not mean that they are not capable of feeling pain. After all, says Singer, we do not assume that newborn infants, people suffering from neurodegenerative brain diseases or people with learning disabilities experience less pain than we would. > > \ > > In conclusion, it is currently impossible to prove whether animals are capable of emotional pain, but it is equally impossible to disprove it. The debate is largely a moral one, and comes down to personal perspectives. > > Many hunters and anglers adopt the opinion that animals are physiologically dissimilar to us, are not conscious and so do not experience ‘suffering’ akin to human pain. The scientific evidence, however, shows that animals have the hard wiring to perceive and react to sensory pain and injury, and at least some of the brain structures that process pain in humans. > > If one accepts that animals experience some kind of suffering when they are injured, then it is inevitable that a fox during a hunt, or a fish during angling, is going to have some form of pain inflicted upon it. > > SOURCE: [Home | Wellcome](http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/culture2.html) ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/106 "2009-11-01T20:22:29Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > Why does introspection suddenly make this set of brain cells different from any other mechanistic phenomenon? Where is this “meaning?” The answer is that the meaning exists only in the emergent patterns of certain introspective brains which imbue external occurrences (such as the observed responses of other brains) with internal significance. The fact that some of the other observed brains are capable of a similar level of rationalization doesn’t seem particularly important to me. They’re _both_ still just rocks rolling down a hill. This line of argument leads nowhere. However, > [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > I disagree that there is any such distinction, and I find it hard to sustain the notion that any such thing can be advanced without resorting to mysticism or religion. I will try to help you understand the distinction, specifically between cognition and consciousness. This is essentially the difference between responding to pain behaviorally and \*feeling \*pain. The fact that cognition can occur without consciousness is almost self evident: (how many times do I have to use this stupid example) think of when you are reading something, very narrowly involved in that one thing consciously, and somebody calls your name. Your attention will immediately shift to it, which brings up the question–how? The fact is any sensory input triggers lower level circuits in the brain, but it is only when those inputs are carried into working memory that they are consciously experienced and synthesized. So lower level cognition is always going on about countless inputs, and when one is deemed important enough, your working memory (attention) is directed to it. Therefore you do not need to always be aware of every sound that touches your eardrums. This shows a separation between cognition and consciousness. Hell, think of when you reach out to catch a ball. You do not consciously direct every muscle. That happens at a lower level. From what little I know of the brain, I think that animals like dogs operate almost entirely on this level. ---
**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 1, 2009, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/107 "2009-11-01T20:27:49Z")
**Mojo Pin** : I am curious if you have ever been around injured animals? If not go to a veterinary emergency care center and sit in the waiting room for a few hours. It’d take a scarily detached mindset for a person to witness the obvious suffering of the animals being brought in and think they are not really experiencing pain. ETA: If you had a beloved pet that was dying from (say) cancer and the animal clearly was exhibiting that it was in pain would you refuse to euthanize your pet figuring it is not actually suffering and, since you like having it around, you’ll just let the pet motor along till it drops dead of its own accord? ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/108 "2009-11-01T20:39:44Z")
> [@Mojo\_Pin](#): > > …The fact is any sensory input triggers lower level circuits in the brain, but it is only when those inputs are carried into working memory that they are consciously experienced and synthesized. So lower level cognition is always going on about countless inputs, and when one is deemed important enough, your working memory (attention) is directed to it. Therefore you do not need to always be aware of every sound that touches your eardrums. This shows a separation between cognition and consciousness. Hell, think of when you reach out to catch a ball. You do not consciously direct every muscle. That happens at a lower level. From what little I know of the brain, I think that animals like dogs operate almost entirely on this level. That’s not really what I was talking about, so if that’s all you meant, I don’t disagree to that extent. But to me this is a distinction without a difference: both of these levels are purely mechanistic stimulus-response cycles whose operation is completely determined by chemical processes. Neither level has any objective value. My argument is that to operate as human beings, we have to consistently anthropomorphize each other, since the processes going on in other brains, however beautifully complex they may be, don’t have any direct value or meaning to us. As individuals we give the suffering of other creatures meaning, and this meaning doesn’t come from the intrinsic nature of their brains but from the responses that exist in ours. I’m not trying to say that your way of viewing the suffering of animals (to wit, by concluding that it doesn’t exist) is inherently _invalid_. That would be massively hypocritical of me, since my whole point rests on the subjective nature of meaning and value. I’m just pointing out that it seems to me that you’re arguing as though there is some kind of _objective_ way of saying that animals do not suffer which cannot be equally applied to human beings. I think that this is either a flawed line of reasoning, or else it leads to a definition of “suffering” which is not meaningful to most people. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/109 "2009-11-01T20:53:29Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Good grief… Honestly, I feel like I’m banging my head against a wall. If you think that vastly simplified wishy washy nonspeak that you quoted really is in any way a rebuttal to what I’ve said, I hardly know what else to say. [QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole] I am curious if you have ever been around injured animals? If not go to a veterinary emergency care center and sit in the waiting room for a few hours. It’d take a scarily detached mindset for a person to witness the obvious suffering of the animals being brought in and think they are not really experiencing pain. ETA: If you had a beloved pet that was dying from (say) cancer and the animal clearly was exhibiting that it was in pain would you refuse to euthanize your pet figuring it is not actually suffering and, since you like having it around, you’ll just let the pet motor along till it drops dead of its own accord? [/QUOTE] Full disclosure, I f’ing love animals, yes I even raised two dogs through puppyhood (both are at my grandma’s now) and my grandma’s half wild housecat just had babies under her roof and I spent all of last weekend dangerously close to cute overdose. Seeing my grandma interact with her cat, I know that it is possible for humans to even experience real love for an animal. However, I think that there is another kind of scientific enjoyment to be had in recognizing the beautiful biological machinery in their little heads, and understanding to some tiny degree how they work. I know that there is plenty of subjective human joy and sadness to be found in interacting with animals, but I’m not inclined to anthropomorphizing them to any degree. Now I would not enjoy seeing an animal “suffer” very much because such displays so effectively evoke empathy from me, but if I were pressed, I would still come down on the side of them not really suffering subjectively. [QUOTE=Stealth Potato] That’s not really what I was talking about, so if that’s all you meant, I don’t disagree to that extent. But to me this is a distinction without a difference: both of these levels are purely mechanistic stimulus-response cycles whose operation is completely determined by chemical processes. Neither level has any objective value. My argument is that to operate as human beings, we have to consistently anthropomorphize each other, since the processes going on in other brains, however beautifully complex they may be, don’t have any direct value or meaning to us. As individuals we give the suffering of other creatures meaning, and this meaning doesn’t come from the intrinsic nature of their brains but from the responses that exist in ours. I’m not trying to say that your way of viewing the suffering of animals (to wit, by concluding that it doesn’t exist) is inherently invalid. That would be massively hypocritical of me, since my whole point rests on the subjective nature of meaning and value. I’m just pointing out that it seems to me that you’re arguing as though there is some kind of objective way of saying that animals do not suffer which cannot be equally applied to human beings. I think that this is either a flawed line of reasoning, or else it leads to a definition of “suffering” which is not meaningful to most people. [/QUOTE] I’m glad we’re sort of on the same page now. Still, the anthropomorphizing of other humans jives with my understanding of reality, while the same for animals does not. So my entire purpose these past few hours has been to try and convince anyone anthropomorphizing animals based on their behavior that such thinking may be flawed. If I succeed in doing so one less human will feel too much needless pain over animals that themselves aren’t feeling pain (imo). e: I just now thought of what this part really said _“I’m just pointing out that it seems to me that you’re arguing as though there is some kind of objective way of saying that animals do not suffer which cannot be equally applied to human beings. I think that this is either a flawed line of reasoning, or else it leads to a definition of “suffering” which is not meaningful to most people.”_ My proposed standard of determining whether animals suffer, whether they have the same neural circuits with which humans are currently understood to consciously suffer, is I think a clear enough standard and does not by definition also apply to people. ---
**Author:** ![Tarwater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de0a6/32.png) [@Tarwater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tarwater)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/110 "2009-11-01T20:59:53Z")
> [@wierdaaron](#): > > Between the gun and the permits and the car mounts and the camo and the fuel, it’d probably be cheaper to just buy a freezer’s worth of meat if that’s the concern. I don’t think a measurable amount of people hunt for the meat, they hunt to hunt, and the meat is just a bonus. No, it’s still cheaper to hunt. You’re also wrong about their not being a measurable number of people who hunt for meat. I grew up in rural Montana, and a significant number of hunters I knew did it for the food and not, as you would say, for the hunt. ---
**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 1, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/111 "2009-11-01T21:06:38Z")
> [@Mojo\_Pin](#): > > Honestly, I feel like I’m banging my head against a wall. If you think that vastly simplified wishy washy nonspeak that you quoted really is in any way a rebuttal to what I’ve said, I hardly know what else to say. Honestly what you have provided so far is some sort of philosophical babble with little to no grounding in reality. I’ve seen your type before. Since the topic is pretty much unprovable one way or the other you feel safe in making assertions with a pseudo understanding of science to make it all look good. You may have noted you are pretty much alone in your assessment here and while that may not “prove” you are wrong this board has some pretty sharp people. No one but you is buying it which in my experience with these folk is a strong indictment to your premise. Your response here is a classic dodge. If the stuff was wishy washy then take it to task and point out its shortcomings. Do you deny that animals exhibit the same behavioral patterns as humans when they are in pain (beyond reacting to avoid the pain but the same behavioral reactions afterwards)? If you do not deny it how do you explain it? Why aren’t babies lumped in with this? Retarded people? Their mental capacity is far below that of a grown/normal human and arguably below that of a dog in some cases. ---
**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 1, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/112 "2009-11-01T21:08:30Z")
> [@Tarwater](#): > > No, it’s still cheaper to hunt. You’re also wrong about their not being a measurable number of people who hunt for meat. I grew up in rural Montana, and a significant number of hunters I knew did it for the food and not, as you would say, for the hunt. FTR: If people are in an area where they cannot get meat at a market (or are too poor or otherwise unable to buy food) then hunting for your own subsistence is fine. To me it is no different than a wolf running down a deer for its dinner. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/113 "2009-11-01T21:15:08Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Most threads are better helped by ignoring drive-by snark. > As most threads are better helped by not posting drive-by snark. > [/Modding] Actually, mine was a valid question. Writing a Witnessing-style OP (with witnessing-style follow-up posts) and tacking on a “discuss” is a tad disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![Cort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/77aa72/32.png) [@Cort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cort)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/114 "2009-11-01T21:21:41Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Actually, mine was a valid question. Writing a Witnessing-style OP (with witnessing-style follow-up posts) and tacking on a “discuss” is a tad disingenuous. Well, _I’ve_ actually been fucking discussing shit! What have _you_ done, except take three content free dumps into the thread and try to derail the conversation? Bellend. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/115 "2009-11-01T21:23:04Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Honestly what you have provided so far is some sort of philosophical babble with little to no grounding in reality. I’ve seen your type before. Since the topic is pretty much unprovable one way or the other you feel safe in making assertions with a pseudo understanding of science to make it all look good. You may have noted you are pretty much alone in your assessment here and while that may not “prove” you are wrong this board has some pretty sharp people. No one but you is buying it which in my experience with these folk is a strong indictment to your premise. > > Your response here is a classic dodge. If the stuff was wishy washy then take it to task and point out its shortcomings. Do you deny that animals exhibit the same behavioral patterns as humans when they are in pain (beyond reacting to avoid the pain but the same behavioral reactions afterwards)? If you do not deny it how do you explain it? > > Why aren’t babies lumped in with this? Retarded people? Their mental capacity is far below that of a grown/normal human and arguably below that of a dog in some cases. Really I’m just a little deflated that all my efforts for the past however many hours have had no persuasive effect. e: if this post is you ‘calling me out’ or something, I have to admit I’m frustrated, but I have no real desire to take you up on it. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/116 "2009-11-01T21:32:56Z")
> [@Mojo\_Pin](#): > > I’m glad we’re sort of on the same page now. Still, the anthropomorphizing of other humans jives with my understanding of reality, while the same for animals does not. So my entire purpose these past few hours has been to try and convince anyone anthropomorphizing animals based on their behavior that such thinking may be flawed. If I succeed in doing so one less human will feel too much needless pain over animals that themselves aren’t feeling pain (imo). Ah, but what if _I_ then feel pain because there is now one less human being feeling compassion for the suffering of animals which I regard as being very real? 😉 I guess my whole point is that to me, “suffering” isn’t just about having the mental capacity to reflectively contemplate unfulfilled desire. Merely the behavior of expressing a distressed condition and attempting to move away from it is sufficient, and the more nuanced the responses are, the easier I find it to anthropomorphize. I agree that this has no objective basis in the structure of the brains involved, but then I don’t think that the complexity of my brain makes _my_ experiences (suffering included) any more real than any other interpretation of other physical phenomena. In other words, higher-level consciousness isn’t a necessary part of the package: I can imagine the existence of non-introspective pain, and I would still desire to alleviate it whenever it seemed evident to me. So a dog whimpering because of an injury is “suffering” in my book, and for that matter so is a baby crying because it is hungry, or separated from its mother, or what have you. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/117 "2009-11-01T21:36:34Z")
Immoral? No. Animals are a renewable resource that should be carefully husbanded. No less, no more. If you choose to believe otherwise, run with it. I enjoy hunting. I enjoy the hunt, the kill, and the eating. Despite that, I doubt you’ll find anybody, even my ex-wives, who would characterize me as immoral. Bryan Ekers has the right of it. This is just witnessing. ---
**Author:** ![Cort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/77aa72/32.png) [@Cort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cort)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/118 "2009-11-01T21:39:57Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Immoral? No. Animals are a renewable resource that should be carefully husbanded. No less, no more. If you choose to believe otherwise, run with it. I enjoy hunting. I enjoy the hunt, the kill, and the eating. Despite that, I doubt you’ll find anybody, even my ex-wives, who would characterize me as immoral. Bryan Ekers has the right of it. This is just witnessing. This is pissing me off. How _exactly_ are you people defining ‘witnessing’? ---
**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 1, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/119 "2009-11-01T21:43:13Z")
> [@Mojo\_Pin](#): > > Really I’m just a little deflated that all my efforts for the past however many hours have had no persuasive effect. > > e: if this post is you ‘calling me out’ or something, I have to admit I’m frustrated, but I have no real desire to take you up on it. Capitulation? I asked you to respond to the bits in the article and explain them away. Apparently you are unwilling to do so. Your stance on this topic argues for a decidedly amoral approach to animals. Do with them as we please. Since they cannot suffer by definition you would think setting your cat on fire is just fine. Your cat, it cannot suffer, what is the big deal? It is an offensive notion. Evolution built pain receptors into us and for a good reason and experiencing pain is a fundamental trait. Yet you seem to think evolution treated humans specially on this count and only gave them the ability to suffer. We cannot put ourselves in a dog’s mind to know one way or another. All we have are observations. Those observations indicate that a dog responds to pain largely in the same fashion that a human does. Yet to you this is meaningless. Or it is the dog being a robot and merely mimicking human pain responses, they do not actually experience it. That is a remarkable claim and frankly weird. Why would evolution do it that way? > [@](#): > > Every particle of factual evidence supports the contention that the higher mammalian vertebrates experience pain sensations at least as acute as our own. To say that they feel less because they are lower animals is an absurdity; it can easily be shown that many of their senses are far more acute that ours–visual acuity in certain birds, hearing in most wild animals, and touch in others; these animals depend more than we do today on the sharpest possible awareness of a hostile environment. Apart from the complexity of the cerebral cortex (which does not directly perceive pain) their nervous systems are almost identical to ours and their reactions to pain remarkably similar, though lacking (so far as we know) the philosophical and moral overtones. The emotional element is all too evident, mainly in the form of fear and anger. > > Source: [Do Animals Feel Pain?, by Peter Singer](http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer03.htm#_ftnref3) (cited from Richard Sarjeant, The Spectrum of Pain. (London: Hart Davis, 1969), p. 72.) ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930/120 "2009-11-01T21:53:54Z")
Those who have been calling hunting immoral might better use your word: offensive. The notion offends you that I take pleasure in hunting, killing, and eating animals. What is offensive and what is immoral are not always the same thing. This thread began as witnessing that what offends the OP must be immoral. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-hunting-is-immoral/515930.md?page=7)