Resolved: Hunting is immoral.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Whack-a-Mole

[Hunters] hunt for fun.

Do you know this by means of your mutant telepathic powers, or do you wander about the woods during hunting season looking for guys with rifles giggling? If the latter, please remember to wear bright colors as I would not wish for you to be shot accidentally.

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.

I don’t think the dead cattle, swine, and sheep actually care how efficiently their carcasses are used. Were they capable of ratiociation and verbalization, I daresay they’d ask, in the most vehement possible way, to be spared the entire experience. It is their inability to engage in those two activities that makes killing them excusable.

Moreover, what does it matter how efficiently the carcass is used? Suppose a person is killed so that his organs may be harvested; his kidneys go to two different people, his liver is cut in half and used on two more, his heart goes to a fifth, and his blood goes to several others. We’ve saved a dozen human lives at the expense of one. Unless the dead person is Spider-Man, that’s probably a much more “efficient” use of his body than anything he could have done had he lived. But we still find that morally repugnant, because what makes the dead person a meaningful moral object in his personhood, not how cleverly we can use his body.

[Milossarian]

@Whack-a-Mole

Getting shot and killed is painful. You seem to want to pretty it up and make it sound better than it is.

I agree sadism may be too strong inasmuch as the hunter does not try to torture the animal. **Nevertheless the purpose is the kill. ** Getting killed is painful. Getting hurt in football is not a foregone conclusion. Getting hurt when shot is a foregone conclusion. The hunter is killing for fun (usually).

That’s an overly simplistic answer. Hunting’s appeal is in communing with nature, getting out of the house and hanging out with your buddies, and participating in the most fundamental transaction of life. We’ve hunted since we’ve existed.

There are tens of thousands of years of human history, and a whole lot of natural predation involving other animals, that seem to point to the fact that killing animals to eat them is not improper or immoral.

[ivan_astikov]

@Revenant_Threshold

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.

That is exactly how I feel about it. I never claimed I was perfect, did I?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Milossarian

There are tens of thousands of years of human history, and a whole lot of natural predation involving other animals, that seem to point to the fact that killing animals to eat them is not improper or immoral.

There are tens of thousands of years of plenty of things. War, slavery, all that general jazz. And I would say that we should hold ourselves to higher standards than other animals.

[ivan_astikov]

@Milossarian

That’s an overly simplistic answer. Hunting’s appeal is in communing with nature, getting out of the house and hanging out with your buddies, and participating in the most fundamental transaction of life. **We’ve hunted since we’ve existed.
**
There are tens of thousands of years of human history, and a whole lot of natural predation involving other animals, that seem to point to the fact that killing animals to eat them is not improper or immoral.

Do you have a cite for the bolded bit? Did we always have weapons to hunt with too?

[Blake]

@ivan_astikov

Do you have a cite for the bolded bit?

Will Cecil Adams suffice?

Did we always have weapons to hunt with too?

Oh hell yeah. Hunting weapons long predate H. sapiens.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

Do you know this by means of your mutant telepathic powers, or do you wander about the woods during hunting season looking for guys with rifles giggling? If the latter, please remember to wear bright colors as I would not wish for you to be shot accidentally.

This is off the rails…not least the implied threat I might get shot.

I think it is more than reasonable to assume hunters are out there for fun. Either it is fun or they simply must do it for sustenance (which I already stipulated being ok with). To suppose the hunters go out and just have an awful time is absurd on the face of it. Why would anyone willingly participate in something they hated doing when they could stay at home and find something else to do?

I don’t think the dead cattle, swine, and sheep actually care how efficiently their carcasses are used. Were they capable of ratiociation and verbalization, I daresay they’d ask, in the most vehement possible way, to be spared the entire experience. It is their inability to engage in those two activities that makes killing them excusable.

Moreover, what does it matter how efficiently the carcass is used? Suppose a person is killed so that his organs may be harvested; his kidneys go to two different people, his liver is cut in half and used on two more, his heart goes to a fifth, and his blood goes to several others. We’ve saved a dozen human lives at the expense of one. Unless the dead person is Spider-Man, that’s probably a much more “efficient” use of his body than anything he could have done had he lived. But we still find that morally repugnant, because what makes the dead person a meaningful moral object in his personhood, not how cleverly we can use his body.

The point is if killing an animal is to be done to provide sustenance for humans then it is best to make the most use of it. I presume you have seen stories on the Japanese catching sharks for shark-fin soup. They slice the fin off and toss the rest of the animal overboard (which is a death sentence for the shark). I think most people find that reprehensible where they would not fuss so much if the whole shark was used for food and leather (or whatever).

There is a spectrum here. I have said I am fine with using animals for food. I have noted earlier that modern farming can be devastating to wildlife and is in no way bloodless. We need to eat to survive. I do not begrudge a lion its kill for the same reason.

Most hunters in the US do not need to hunt to survive. Context is everything. For instance we would say it is wrong for you to full-on body tackle some random dude on the street. We are fine with a full-on body tackle in football though. We say it is wrong to kill a human. We are fine if you kill someone who breaks into your house to do you and your family harm.

It is the context and in this the hunters are killing for their personal pleasure of killing something. If they just wanted to be out in nature they can do so without a gun. If they want to hang with their buddies there are myriad options available. If they want to stalk an animal they can do it without killing it. They can even “shoot” it with a camera. If they want to test their marksmanship they can do so at a range or skeet shooting and so on. In the end they want to put a bullet in an animal and kill it for little more reason than it is fun to them.

[Scumpup]

In the end they want to put a bullet in an animal and kill it for little more reason than it is fun to them.

If we accept this as true for sake of discussion, then it still remains that we are talking about the death of an animal. You don’t like that your hypothetical “fun hunter” enjoys it; nothing more.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Milossarian

That’s an overly simplistic answer. Hunting’s appeal is in communing with nature, getting out of the house and hanging out with your buddies, and participating in the most fundamental transaction of life. We’ve hunted since we’ve existed.

There are tens of thousands of years of human history, and a whole lot of natural predation involving other animals, that seem to point to the fact that killing animals to eat them is not improper or immoral.

What…some sort of racial memory? I missed that racial memory myself.

Because our ancestors did it makes it ok today how? Our ancestors did lots of things we would not do today. I fail to see how this is an argument one way or another.

Further, our ancestors mostly hunted for sustenance.

As just mentioned there are lots and lots and lots of ways to hang with your buddies and go commune with nature that do not involve killing anything.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Scumpup

If we accept this as true for sake of discussion, then it still remains that we are talking about the death of an animal. You don’t like that your hypothetical “fun hunter” enjoys it; nothing more.

As noted above it is the context. I like seeing the big hit in a football game. I do not like seeing someone tackle grandma on the street. That the tackler finds it “fun” in both cases changes nothing of my making a distinction that tackling grandma was a cruel thing to do.

I am surprised you miss this rather obvious point.

[ivan_astikov]

@Blake

Will Cecil Adams suffice?

I don’t believe that scientists know enough about our eating habits 30,000 years ago, let alone 2 million, as Cecil states.

@Blake

Oh hell yeah. Hunting weapons long predate H. sapiens.

Did they order them from ACME Inc?

[valleyofthedolls]

I certainly have no quarrel with hunting for sustenance (and if there’s fun and communing with nature for the people out hunting for food, then all the better). If done properly, it’s certainly a better life and death than factory farming and is better for the environment.

But trophy hunters (and fishing)? How do people feel about that? And of hunters who leave behind wounded prey?

[Scumpup]

I’ve been making a sincere effort to see your side of this, believe it or not.
If you find the killing of animals distasteful, that doesn’t make you either morally superior or inferior.
It’s simply how you are. There is some combination of factors about you that causes you to have that emotional reaction.
My background is such that I don’t have that reaction. I would say torturing an animal is immoral. “Canned hunts” for captive game as seen on some game farms is arguably closer to your point and I provisionally would agree with it. A quick, clean kill of an animal that is then consumed? I don’t think so.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@valleyofthedolls

But trophy hunters (and fishing)? How do people feel about that? And of hunters who leave behind wounded prey?

Add in “canned hunts”.

In early December 2003, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney went hunting. He and nine guests spent the day shooting ringneck pheasants and mallard ducks at the exclusive Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier, Pennsylvania. According to local news reports, the Cheney party shot a total of 417 pheasants, and Cheney himself killed 70; the number of ducks dispatched was not disclosed. The birds were collected, plucked, and vacuum-packed by club staff.

<snip>

[T]here are now more than 1,000 so-called “hunting preserves” or “game ranches” on private land in more than 25 states; more than 750 of them are located in Texas. These enterprises offer prospective hunters the opportunity to kill—with rifle, pistol, or bow and arrow—any of hundreds of native or exotic animal species in circumstances that virtually guarantee success. Indeed, several canned-hunting parks advertise a “no kill, no pay” policy, under which the client pays nothing unless he takes home a trophy or a skin (or a vacuum-packed bird). Hunting licenses are usually not required.

<snip>

All canned-hunting parks that specialize in land mammals have a reinforced fence, which prevents the animals from simply walking away, though a small number do manage to overcome this obstacle. (Birds are usually kept in cages until just before they are shot.) Although most parks occupy a few hundred to several thousand acres, the animals in them do not always roam freely over the total area. It is typical for certain kinds of animals to be restricted within much smaller enclosures by fences or other artificial barriers. In some parks, clients with a minimum of skill, energy, or time can kill animals in a fenced enclosure of only a few square yards. For the truly impatient or incompetent hunter, some parks will even sedate the animal or tie it to a stake.

<snip>

Needless to say, canned hunting is an expensive hobby. Most parks charge a fee for each land mammal the client kills; lodging, food, guides, and taxidermy services are usually extra. In the United States, the 777 Ranch, in San Antonio, Texas, charges $2,000 to more than $11,500 to kill a single white-tailed deer (the price depends on the “score” the animal receives on a scale established by the Boone and Crockett Club to rate big-game trophies). And whereas zebras can be shot for only $4,500 each, clients pay $20,000 each for alpine ibex and $50,000 each for cape buffalo. In South Africa, where a well-established hunting industry caters to wealthy European and American tourists, the average cost of shooting a lion in a canned hunt in 2007 was about $50,000.

SOURCE: Fish in a Barrel, Lions in a Cage | Saving Earth | Encyclopedia Britannica

Guess those folk are paying exorbitant sums because killing is no fun for them. :rolleyes:

Note the proliferation of these parks and the money it costs. Apparently it is a thriving industry.

[villa]

@valleyofthedolls

But trophy hunters (and fishing)? How do people feel about that? And of hunters who leave behind wounded prey?

I don’t like trophy hunting, and don’t see the appeal. I’m not sure I would go as far as to call the participants immoral, though I can certainly see how it could go that far. Such as hunting an animal to extinction, for example. Some (controlled) trophu hunting, just like some controlled ivory use, is arguably good for the wellbeing of the species hunted. While admittedly being less good for the wellbeing of the individual animal hunted.

Leaving wounded prey behind is irresponsible and should be avoided. That can cross over into what I would call immoral behavior - deliberately allowing the animal to suffer when it is avoidable.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Scumpup

A quick, clean kill of an animal that is then consumed? I don’t think so.

Historically societies that hunted for sustenance generally only took what they needed to survive.

As noted above Cheney & Co. whacked 417 birds. Is that necessary or killing for fun?

Almost all (I suppose some will always end up in the garbage for one reason or another) the meat taken from slaughterhouses is consumed. Some hunting may be trophy hunting. Some hunting may wound an animal that escapes then suffers, perhaps to succumb later.

I am not eating my burger because I am happy a cow was killed for it. I do not want more cows killed than I can eat (never added it up but I suspect one cow provides about as much meat as I eat in a year…just a guess though on my part but I doubt I personally eat 1,000+ pounds of meat in a year).

[villa]

@Whack-a-Mole

As noted above Cheney & Co. whacked 417 birds. Is that necessary or killing for fun?

Noting that not all hunters are responsible is a long way from declaring hunting immoral. Just, as you noted, some fisherman throwing sharks back with fins cut off doesn’t make commercial fishing as a whole an immoral activity.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@villa

Noting that not all hunters are responsible is a long way from declaring hunting immoral. Just, as you noted, some fisherman throwing sharks back with fins cut off doesn’t make commercial fishing as a whole an immoral activity.

Well, state wildlife departments post rather detailed bag limits (such as this one from Alabama…PDF).

I am guessing they do that because hunters cannot be relied on to restrict themselves to only a kill or two, taking only what they need and nothing more.

Many here are defending hunting on the basis of a noble hunter. One who reveres nature, is exceptionally careful in taking only guaranteed kill shots and who make the most use of whatever they kill for food and leather and whatnot. Doubtless there are some hunters like that but equally I doubt you can guarantee that is the case for even most of your fellow hunters.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Whack-a-Mole

This is off the rails…not least the implied threat I might get shot.

I don’t do threats of any sort, implied or not, in GD, except occasionally the mocking suggestion of assault by trained bees. At most, it was a reminder to anyone in the woods during hunting season to take appropriate precautions. I’m in favor of not killing humans.

I think it is more than reasonable to assume hunters are out there for fun. Either it is fun or they simply must do it for sustenance (which I already stipulated being ok with). To suppose the hunters go out and just have an awful time is absurd on the face of it. Why would anyone willingly participate in something they hated doing when they could stay at home and find something else to do?

Many aspects of hunting are enjoyable. The killing part is the least enjoyable. No, second least–dressing the kill is least enjoyable, at least for me. Fortunately my cousin is absurdly good at it and likes to do it.

Most hunters in the US do not need to hunt to survive.

And your point is? What makes the death of a wild deer more morally significant than the death of a cow? I would argue, in fact (and I expect others have already done so) that killing the deer is actually a good (or at least necessary) thing, because if deer are not hunted by humans, their populations will grow to the point that many of them starve and die slowly and more painfully–and that situation obtains because of the way that humans have changed their environment. We–human beings, human society–have all but eliminated the predators who would ordinarily keep the corvine population in balance with the available resources.

Context is everything. For instance we would say it is wrong for you to full-on body tackle some random dude on the street.

That would depend on the context. If the random dude is dragging a random dudette into his car while she screams, “Fire, foes, awake!” I think tackling him is right.

We are fine with a full-on body tackle in football though.

Actually I’m not. Football is clearly a perverted practice, the ritual reenactment of war in controlled circumstances that both glorifies the martial mindset and makes it more acceptable that we, as a society, will engage in military adventurism.

Yep, you read that right. There’s a straight line directly from touch football to My Lai.

I’m not serious, of course. I just don’t like football; I don’t understand what people who like watching it get out of it and don’t care to play it myself. But I don’t say that my dislike of it is equivalent to it being morally objectionable, because I have basic reasoning skills.

We say it is wrong to kill a human. We are fine if you kill someone who breaks into your house to do you and your family harm.

It is the context and in this the hunters are killing for their personal pleasure of killing something. If they just wanted to be out in nature they can do so without a gun. If they want to hang with their buddies there are myriad options available. If they want to stalk an animal they can do it without killing it.

Yes, but if I want to EAT that deer I should probably kill it first. Particularly if I want it roasted. I am, again, not telepathic, but I expect that if the deer knew what roasting involved and could talk, it would say, “Hey, kill me before you do all that stuff, okay? Thanks!”

Please explain to me why the deer is more morally significant than the cattle, swine, or sheep in slaughterhouses.

In the end they want to put a bullet in an animal and kill it for little more reason than it is fun to them.

Again, you seem to be drawing conclusions from data obtained from your ass.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

Again, you seem to be drawing conclusions from data obtained from your ass.

Pot meet kettle…

Please explain people hunting because they actually do not like it. Why they cannot “shoot” with a camera if they want proof they were close to the animal. Why they pull the trigger and try to kill the animal when they find it no fun to do so.

I could maybe go with that if it was for sustenance. Shoot the animal or you and your family will starve (that would be the case if I was hunting). Any other reason I find arguing that it is not fun for the hunter is entirely disingenuous.