Necessity.
I honestly don’t know if getting hurt when shot is a foregone conclusion. If I fired a round of .308 directly into your brain, I don’t know if it would hurt or not. Not trying to be difficult here, but I just don’t know…
But that’s beside the point, anyway. I am willing to accept that getting the kill, the purpose of hunting, inflicts pain the overwhelming majority of times. But getting tackled inflicts pain the overwhelming majority of times. I think your argument is weakened by conflating pain and death. Oppose hunting because it involves killing for pleasure. Leave the pain side out of it, because there is no pleasure involved in that, it is a side effect.
Now, an alternative would be not to oppose the killing, but to say that the pain inevitably inflicted as part of the killing makes it unacceptable. But then it gets much harder to distinguish between a hunter and someone who kills a domesticated animal. I don’t know which suffers more pain - a shot deer or a cow in a modern slaughterhouse. I do know the deer tastes better, but again that is beside the point.
The hunter is hunting for fun. The killing may be one aspect of it, but I do not think you have shown that it is the primary reason that hunters hunt, so much as it is a result (much like inflicting pain is a result of playing football). I posit that if you could recreate the rest of the results in a truly realistic simulation (being able to exercise stealth and execute a skillful shot against a target that can escape from you, and be rewarded with delicious meat), most hunters could care less if an animal was killed or not.
That’s a start I suppose but there seems to be some problems with that answer.
I don’t understand why eating the flesh of a cow that someone else killed is morally superior to eating the flesh of a deer that I killed myself. If you’re fine with me eating a steak to survive then why would be begrudge me for eating a deer for the same purpose? It can’t be because I need the cow to survive whereas I don’t need the deer. Because we can all live perfectly fine as vegetarians or vegans. So necessity isn’t really a valid reason to declare one moral and the other immoral.
The obvious difference between footballers, and hunters and their prey, is that the footballers can choose to take part or not.
Can you explain to me how this, which I already mentioned, is in anyway relevant to a discussion of whether participating in an activity that necessarily inflicts pain, but where the pain is not the desired objective?
It barely is relevant, but it was someone else who brought football into the conversation. A better sporting analogy would have been boxing, where two ‘hunters’ are tracking each other, but at least both have been warned of the risks and take part willingly.
If you want to challenge yourself, hunt each other.
Yes, I brought it into the conversation. Specifically as a response to something that necessarily causes pain making the participant a sadist. Not to do with the overall morality of hunting. Nor to do with whether it is a challenge or not.
Hunting is useful in training people in using firearms. You can I suppose shoot at targets, but live targets is something very different.
So, your point is, footballers cause pain in the process of transporting a funny-shaped ball from one end to the other, but this doesn’t make them sadists, and hunters cause no pain in their preliminaries and merely try to dispatch their target ‘cleanly’, hence, they aren’t sadists either?
I think that point needs a little work on it.
Whack-a-mole, if you have ever been happy after swatting a particularly annoying mosquito, or after spraying a centipede with Black Flag and watching the too-many-leggéd bastard wither and twitch, then you must either consider yourself a sadist or a hypocrite.
Do you claim to never have gotten any satisfaction from killing any living being? Never pulled a weed? Swatted a mosquito? Set mouse traps? Smashed a spider? Gotten over a bacterial infection?
Yes, these are all different in some way from shooting a deer. But if the answer to any of the above questions is “yes”, then, as the punchline goes, “We’ve already determined that, madame - now we’re just haggling over the price.”
Hunting is not immoral.
The human species likely wouldn’t exist today if not for killing of animals for food. I enjoy the way a steak, chicken and pork tastes. In this thread the arguement is that do animals suffer ? They probably can, so what. Life for all beings on this planet goes through suffering emotional and physical. I’ve been hunting since I was old enough to do it, I enjoy hunting yes. Deer and moose taste good. It fills my fridge.
When I hunt I will only take a clear shot that I know will drop the animal immediately. For a couple of reasons, I dont want it getting away, I dont want it wounded and most importantly I dont want it to suffer.
I applaud people with a strong sense of morality, people that push their idea of morality upon others by using guilt however is wrong. Most vegans turn to that lifestyle upon their own accord. The success rate of going after meat eaters in hope to recruit them to their way of life is probably as great as trying to convert a Muslim to Judism.
Like it or not humans are part of the food cylce as well, there are plenty of animals out there that would eat us in a second. Its part of the cycle of life for earth and probably other parts of the universe out there.
Happy Hunting.
Other than the mouse, I wouldn’t object to the deaths of any of those creatures, because I can’t imagine myself developing an emotional attachment to any of them.
Oh…it’s clear now. It’s only wrong if it is species you like.
Other people seem to understand what I was saying. I am not sure what you don’t understand about it, nor do I massively care.
I didn’t see that this point had been addressed.
Most of the population control in the USA of species like white tail deer and so forth comes from sport hunting. Most of the sport hunters hunt for fun and for food. Therefore, hunting in the US is either moral or immoral, or both.
Or as I suspect, what is considered immoral by anti-hunting folks is pleasure. It is immoral to hunt because you enjoy the hunt, and enjoy eating the meat. Some people can’t stand to see anyone else enjoy something unless they enjoy it too.
“If I don’t enjoy it, you shouldn’t either”.
Regards,
Shodan
There is a crucial difference here:
In all these cases these things have come to me and in many are attacking me. Mosquitos are arguably the most dangerous creature on the planet. It wants to feed on me. I have no compunction swatting it. A mouse may bring disease, it may be chewing holes in my house and so on. A bacteria is trying to make me sick (besides which my body fights of its own accord…I am not choosing the fight). A spider may be a threat depending on type and FTR I actually try to capture and release the things (they are good outside eating other insects). I would opt for a live trap for the mouse too.
The weed I will argue price with you. It has no central nervous system (nor does the bacteria). I cannot cause the weed pain.
In no case do I seek out any of the above to kill them.
Try this. In general we say killing another human is bad. However, if some guy breaks into your house threatening you and your family we do not find killing that guy in defense to be an immoral act.
This is it, right here.
Yes, that’s my argument exactly. How astute of you!
Not really. If the purpose of the football game is to score points and win the game but a side effect (that might greatly increase winning) is to cause pain, are they sadists or winners?
Hunters (while I would disagree with you about the bottom line of hunting = killing) is a means to an end. I personally don’t know nor have I heard of them killing just to sate some desire to “kill”
Much like fishing, fishing is still fishing even if you don’t catch a damn thing.