Resolved: Hunting is immoral.

I’m one of the few hunters on this board who will acknowledge that killing is part of the experience. When I got hunting and don’t kill something I come home a little disappointed though I generally still had a good time. Morally speaking, what’s the difference between killing an animal in a slaughterhouse for pay and killing an animal for recreational reasons?

I think that my position is in no way mutually exclusive with yours. The learning and pain association you describe does not necessitate a conscious experience of pain. In fact, in the animal kingdom that is the exception rather than the rule. I already brought up the Aplysia californica, a mollusk which exhibits rudimentary memory that make up the building blocks of the complex behavior you describe. The fact that animals exhibit self preserving behavior, even quite complex, in no way proves that it is conscious of that behavior. It is clear from studies of the brain that such behavior can arise sans consciousness.

There is a word for your version: Sadism

The person in the slaughterhouse is (probably) not killing animals for fun.

You’ve thrown the word sadism around pretty freely in this thread. Perhaps it’d seem less like you were just trying to be insulting if you’d explain exactly which definition of the word you mean.

I think the only thing “Resolved” here is that you wish to impose your beliefs on everyone else.

You want to be a vegetarian, fine, more power to you. However, doing so does not give you some kind of moral high ground with which to judge others. As with the general population, you’ll find a wide spectrum of personalities and traits in the hunting population as well. Some I would gladly share a hunting opportunity, others - not so much.

I think the vast majority wish for nothing more than their actions resulting swift clean kills. Personally, I enjoy the bountiful rewards of my efforts year round. In fact, I just enjoyed some grilled venison steaks for dinner last night.

I’ll be returning to the woods for season opener this weekend to replenish our freezer, hopefully.

You still haven’t answered the question. Morally, what is the difference between killing for fun and killing for profit? Calling one sadism doesn’t really answer the question.

Not sure I can buy the distinction here. While the slaughterhouse employee is not killing for his own pleasure, he is killing for mine. When I buy a ribeye, I am buying it for reasons of pleasure. I enjoy eating it. There are plenty of non-meat alternatives I could replace it with (tofu, beans or hotdogs spring to mind) but I prefer the rib-eye.

And I don’t think sadism involves obtaining pleasre from the kill. It is about obtaining enjoyment from the infliction of pain or suffering. I have not met a hunter who seeks to inflict higher levels of suffering - a sadist would cut shoot the animal, to have it die slowly. All the hunters I know seek to minimize the suffering involved with the animal. Now, you may not agree with them killing for recreational reasons, but you are wrong to call it sadism.

Sure…

So, hunter goes out to kill something and derives pleasure from that act (I will take as given that getting shot and killed is painful).

Why would you presume this? If anything, working in a slaughterhouse might be the dream job for “sadists”.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that many hunters hunt primarily for the thrill of taking a life. I expect that thrill is more derived from the expert execution of skills in a situation where a mistake can result in no payoff, and enjoyment also derived from the observation of nature and the satisfaction of being able to provide for yourself directly. I reckon that if a holodeck actually existed, most hunters would enjoy a realistic simulation of hunting where nothing real was actually killed as much as a real hunt. Would you consider enjoying a hunting simulation sadistic? If so, what do you consider the people who enjoy playing video games where you shoot humans?

I also agree that it is likely that hunted animals suffer less than both commercial farm animals and wild animals that die of natural causes. The only negative that a hunter may do is cut the animal’s life short - but slaughterhouses guarantee that. I am not a hunter myself, but I do not think that what they do is sadistic or immoral.

You aren’t understanding sadism. Playing football involves inflicting pain. Football players are not sadists. Why? Because the pleasure does not derive from the pain, even though the pain infliction is unavoidable.

Similarly a hunter, even ignoring the fact that every hunter that I know has the goal of minimizing the pain suffered by the animal consistent with killing it, is not gaining pleasure from the pain.

Calling hunting sadism may make it easier for you to oppose it, but it is just incorrect.

While you may enjoy your steak you eat to survive. I am fine with that and do not begrudge it any more than I begrudge a lion killing an antelope for dinner.

Sadist may go too far in that I agree most hunters are not out there to torture an animal and would prefer a clean, quick kill. Nevertheless they are engaging in a behavior that they know will cause pain to another creature for their own pleasure. While the hunter may hope for a clean, quick kill they know full well that a very real chance of just wounding the animal exists. Plus, quick or not, I think most will agree that getting killed is not pleasant.

Football is not about pain at all. You may get hurt playing football but in no way is infliction of pain the purpose of the sport.

“Minimizing” pain somehow makes inflicting it ok? Pretty sure getting shot sucks. No two ways about it.

The hunter is out there to KILL something. Why you dance around this I do not know. They may enjoy the outdoors, enjoy hanging with their friends as well but those things can be had without shooting something. Their purpose is to kill. They are killing for their own enjoyment. This is an unavoidable aspect to hunting and couching it in prettier terms does not change it.

After reading the three pages of this discussion, I don’t think I’ve been convinced to change a thing for myself. I used to hunt, and I have nothing against it. I still have an interest in fishing. I eat veggies, fish, meat, cookies, whatever. I fail to see where there is any sort of “morality” in the type of food we eat. As far as hunted meat or store bought meat, the only difference is in who did the killing. It’s a bogus issue.

And inflicting pain is not the purpose of hunting. The kill is. Those are very different things. Every hunter I know would take no pain instant kill over a painful one.

The pain is an inevitable side effect of hunting, as it is of football. The two are of course very different in that the animal receiving the pain in hunting didn’t sign up for that, but the point still stands.

No, minimizing pain means it isn’t sadism. Sadists don’t minimize pain, they enjoy it. As I said, you can morally oppose hunting without making the incorrect assumption that it is about sadism, which is insulting to both hunters and sadists.

How have I danced around this? The purpose is the kill. Correct. Which is different to the purpose beign to inflict pain. Hence it isn’t about sadism.

And as I said before, eating the ribeye is about having something killed for my enjoyment. I don’t eat steak to survive. I eat steak because it tastes good. For survival purposes, for me, it is an inefficient choice. But it provides me with pleasure, and so I have the animal killed. Now once again, we do have somewhat of a difference - that the killing itself is not part of the pleasure. Not sure it makes a difference to Bessie, though.

If hunters were sadists wouldn’t they bring tasers instead of rifles?

If it is a natural inclination, does that point to evolution at work? Why would we suppress something that is an inherent trait? I don’t see any undue suffering happening in order for me to eat meat.

The bolding is mine. I know a whole bunch of Safety’s that would disagree with you.

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).

You still haven’t addressed something. What is the moral difference between killing for profit in a slaughterhouse and killing for fun in the woods?

That would make them sadists then yes?

And it remains that the purpose of football is to move the ball down the field and score points. The purpose of hunting is to put a bullet in some living thing and kill it. Rather big difference.