You’re the one deciding what you’d kill based on whether you could become emotionally attached to it.
I would argue that the existence of worse things to do doesn’t make a more reasonable thing moral.
Although the whole hating what other people like thing is very tempting. I know I certainly prefer when I can simply dismiss other’s arguments as unreasonably and dishonestly motivated.
This is absurd.
By that token we should be ok with pedophiles because they apparently enjoy the act it should be of no concern that we find it repulsive. :rolleyes:
You completely ignore the moral aspect in your overly broad assertion. We are debating the morality of hunting here. It is not about me (or others) deciding whether we personally like it or not.
No, it is exactly about you personally not liking it. Because you dislike it, you wish to declare it immoral despite it being a common human activity throughout our history as a species. You’ve come up with nothing convincing, unless you count you repeatedly referring to hunters as “sadists” as convincing.
First off all participants in a football game are willing participants.
I have played football with friends (full tackle) and was hurt only once (and that was a freak occurrence…long story). Enduring pain is not a foregone conclusion of playing football. The game is not about inflicting pain. Pain is just a possible side effect of playing.
There are many things we do which might bring us pain. Driving you might get in a car accident which could hurt a lot. Hell, just walking you might stub a toe or twist an ankle. Nevertheless we choose to do these things and accept the risk. None of them are about trying to get hurt or hurt someone else.
I feel safe in saying no living creature wakes up hoping someone will take shots at it.
The evasion occurring here is that since a hunter does not set out to cause pain it is ok. But that is a dodge isn’t it? It is a rationalization to make them feel better about the act. The bottom line is getting shot HURTS! Period. The hunter is doing something that, if successful, will result in the infliction of pain and/or death. There is no way around it. It is part and parcel of the act. They are inextricable.
Now, hunters may say (as above) that they seek a clean and quick kill and I believe this is true in most cases. Nevertheless they can in no way guarantee a clean and quick kill everytime (even if they are excellent marksmen, which not all are, the unexpected can always happen with the animal moving at the last moment or whatever). Even a clean and quick kill results in death. Pretty sure the animal is not happy with that. Do we distinguish if a human is killed instantly as opposed to suffering first or do we just go with the fact that being dead = bad?
No, it isn’t. You clearly have not been reading the thread else you could not make that claim.
Hunting throughout history has been for survival (by-and-large). I have said hunting for sustenance is fine. I have no problem with that. If you are Grizzly Adams living in the remote wilderness and need to hunt for your survival then knock yourself out.
Most hunters in the United States (these days) do so for recreation. They are killing something for fun. Period. Even eating the result of their kill does not change this.
Surely it’s unfair to judge the honesty of his posts by how convincing you find them? Rather, it should be how convincing he finds them.
Perhaps you will read this post for content.
I addressed the morality of hunting in my post. You seem to have missed it.
Cort postulated that hunting for population control is moral, but hunting for fun is not. As I pointed out, most hunting in the US achieves the end of population control, and is done by those who find the process fun. Is hunting therefore moral, or immoral?
Regards,
Shodan
Other options exist such as deer contraceptives. Kidjanot…
Not to mention humans create a problem whose solution is to kill to alleviate it? Nice trick that.
(bolding mine)
Persons who only eat meat purchased at the butcher shop and grocery store are also engaging in beahvior which will cause pain to other creatures for their own pleasure. They are simply not facing up to it. Admittedly I am not a telepath (nor wish to be), but I’m fairly certain that the proportion of cattle, swine, and sheep who volunteer to be slaughtered for our steak, ham, and mutton is quite minuscule. Zero percent, in fact.
I can respect a person who criticizes hunting and does not herself eat meat. My best friend and her husband hold that position, and are entirely consistent about it. But opining that hunting for food is immoral while eating store-bought meat is, at beast, being purposefully ignorant of the consequenes of one’s actions, and is, at worst, offensively hypocrtical.
I’d also add that is population control is the desired purpose then restrict it to wildlife management folk (Park Rangers and such) only. They will also be more likely to opt for killing the weak and infirm (much as mother nature would do it with natural predators) rather than hunters hoping to bag a 12-point buck in its prime who we would hope lives to pass on the good genes.
Only if one does not accept that eating store-bought meat is immoral. I eat it, yet I opine that both hunting for meat and eating store-bought meat are immoral. Am I purposefully ignorant or offensively hypocritical?
(bolding mine)
Read the thread.
I have never said hunting/killing for sustenance is immoral. I am fine with it.
I dispute that most hunters in the US are doing so for sustenance. They may well eat what they kill but I bet their pantries are well stocked and if for some reason they did not go hunting they would have no problem feeding themselves.
They hunt for fun.
Further, slaughterhouses use darn close to 100% of the animal. I have personally been through a slaughterhouse. Nothing goes to waste. Not the hooves. Not the blood. Not anything. It is a far more efficient use of the killed animal than any hunter makes of their kill field dressing it.
My moral judgments do not apply to the undead. You’re supposed to know that. It’s in the Rhymer FAQ, right under the Is he serious about raining fiery death on Cardiff? section.
The annual Rhymer clan hunt is coming up later this month, as I may have mentioned when last this topic came up. Suppose my cousin’s freezer gives out and he decides to give away the excess venison to his neighbors. Waht is the moral difference between his neighbors eating that meat versus eating meat they bought at Kroger’s?
The way I see store-bought meat and any other animal product that is foisted on me daily, is that the animal is already suffering or has suffered, so the least I can do is see it wasn’t in vain. I’m not going to go out and kill anything myself to satisfy the desires I was brought up with, and if there were suddenly no more meat products, I’m certain I’d manage, considering how little meat I do eat.
ps. if loss of a healthy life can be claimed as “suffering” for humans, I need convincing why it shouldn’t be classed as suffering for lesser-conscious creatures.
I personally feel a “like” toward deer, and a “dislike” toward mice and rats. HOWEVER, I would eat venison way way before I would eat red hot rats on a stick. And I have eaten venison. I still prefer a nicely marbled beef steak, but that’s just my taste.
I would argue that the immorality arising from eating store-bought meat is not because of the meat that you are eating, but rather, by eating it you provide support and reason for further animals to be killed.
Hey, it’s not like I promote eating meat, so I can sleep easily regarding my ‘support and reason’.
To Godwinise the thread:
Berlin, 1940:
The way I see gold from fillings taken from Jews or houses, clothes or any other product that is foisted on me daily, is that the Jew is already suffering or has suffered, so the least I can do is see it wasn’t in vain. I’m not going to go out and kill a Jew myself to satisfy the desires I was brought up with, and if there were suddenly no more Jewish property, I’m certain I’d manage, considering how little Jewish property I do own.
Do you see now how this argument is totally flawed? The fact that an immoral act has been committed doesn’t make it ethical to profit from it, much less to tacitly and financially encourage further such acts. The idea that you are somehow helping the Jew or the animal that is suffering or dead by ensuring that the suffering wasn’t in vain is one of the most spurious attempts at self-serving rationalisation that I have ever heard.
Well, I eat meat myself, so it’s not like I can really castigate you for sleeping easily. But that doesn’t mean we’re not being immoral by doing so, even if there are more immoral things we could do.