The subject of the second photo is a person cooking meat on a grill. The dead cow from which the meat came is not the main subject.
The first photo shows a hunter and the animal she just killed. The dead giraffe and the person who killed it are the main subject of the photo.
Why is this ethically significant?
You said you couldn’t see a rational difference between the two photos. That’s what I was addressing.
No: I don’t see an ethically relevant difference. I see plenty of differences (e.g., one has a man and one has a woman). I don’t see an ethically relevant difference.
Edit: I see that earlier I did phrase this as “rational difference.” I apologize if somehow that was confusing; I think my emphasis on ethical differences has been pretty clear, but if somehow it wasn’t, please understand that I concede there are “rational differences,” if by that phrase you think I mean things like the clothes the subjects are wearing, the species involved, etc.
I intended to ask about ethically relevant differences.
Edit: Never mind, didn’t see the next reply.
No, I thought you meant the main subject of the photo. The other details (clothing, sex etc.) are irrelevant.
The main subject of the photo is relevant.
Here you go. You may close this thread now.
The rest of my quote was relevant too.
Yes, of course. What do you understand by “meat eating”? Environment is not just head count.
If you are including western societies then the answer is that livestock and meat industries are not directly part of the environment, understood as wild conservation habitats and the balance necessary to sustain natural ecosystems.
There is a lot to criticize the meat industry for and I’m all for hitting their wallet but that’s another conversation.
This is GD material when you get into human diet, vegetarianism, human overpopulation and simple economics. Here I don’t think I could discuss it without being insulting, which is not my goal.
Because if fulfilling an important and healty need, why not do it in a satisfying way? Or because eating the meat doesn’t disrespect the sacrifice made by the killed prey animal? Or simply the value judgement that unlike people who enjoy eating, people who enjoy dead giraffe corpses are amoral assholes?
Nevermind that.
It’s easy and convenient to argue with the “ick factor”. Hypocrisy, hardy har har.
I think empathy is a fundamental characteristic of a healthy human being. I hate cruelty on defenseless animals, to the point of leaving me berserk sometimes. However in the context of hunting food animals for me empathy just means: do it responsibly and ethically taking all the necessary steps to minimize suffering. And if someone doesn’t reach that ideal goal for some reason but recognizes it, it’s not hypocrisy to point out where others are failing too.
I’m not into killing animals for meat but I would do it if necessary. I have the luxury of someone doing it for me so I can spend my time reading books or whatever instead. I don’t waste my time considering if someone enjoys this act of killing where they are behaving in the exact the same way that I would otherwise. There are also things that I think I would enjoy about hunting. The outdoors for example, or taking part in group activity.
To elaborate on this point: a pack of african wild dogs will just tear their prey apart while it is alive. It’s gruesome and hella cruel. But they have no other means available to take down necessary prey. It’s part of a natural cycle which didn’t happen “by design” and there’s beauty in that picture. Obviously by beauty I’m not referring to the suffering of prey animals. But the wilderness is beautiful despite its danger (and cruelty to our modern sensibilities - mine too). Compare and contrast to taking a high power rifle and shooting a helpless endangered (or not) animal from 200 meters away and then taking a fucking picture or tusk or hand. How much more stupid and cruel and wasteful can this get?
While I would enjoy a long back and forth about this subject, the easy counter argument is that if Chimpanzees (meat eating omnivores) had rifles, their population would blow up and they would wipe the forest baren and starve to death. Simple tragedy of the commons effect. The answer to this problem is not “stop eating meat”.
Not quite. I didn’t say anything about how people “should” feel or how they “should” derive pleasure. I said we are all in a different place on the empathy spectrum, and I personally cannot relate to someone who enjoys killing because they are too far away from me on the spectrum. It’s not about feeling superior, it’s just the way we are wired. Not everyone on the low end of the spectrum will be violent or criminal, but it increases the propensity because they sincerely do not feel or relate to the suffering of others in the same way as someone more empathic.
And I didn’t say that meat eaters who condemn trophy hunters could not be hypocrites, just that dismissing it as hypocrisy isn’t an adequate explanation or beneficial to a discussion. The Samuel Johnson quote highlights the reasoning behind my view.
Plus, it’s a logical fallacy to presume that because they eat meat, their argument about trophy hunters is invalid (the same mistake made in the OP). The source of the argument is irrelevant to the question of whether or not trophy hunting is moral or ethical.
The reason that so many people feel conflicted and appear to be hypocritical about this question is because there is no easy answer for it. Again, how many times have we had this debate without resolution? How can people not be conflicted or hypocritical if they aren’t sure what is moral or ethical in this situation?
I’ve basically been a vegetarian for the last 15 years. I don’t preach, I don’t judge, I don’t feel superior; it’s a personal decision. I’m a good eater, I like the taste of meat, but the thought of the animal providing it reduces my pleasure to the degree that it’s not worth it for me to indulge, although I do on rare occasions (mostly holdays and to avoid people needing to fuss over me). I don’t delude myself that it makes much of a difference, or that meat eating will end in my lifetime, and I don’t believe it is even a feasible goal. But I do think we can do better, for the animals and the environmental impact.
I think a lot of people are either so removed from the process they can’t relate to the suffering, or feel that they are powerless to change it, so they might as well eat the already dead animals packaged in the store or placed in front of them on the table. IMO, reducing that to simple hypocrisy doesn’t work for such a complex problem.
Still not sure why any of that warrants such vitriol from you, and please don’t feed me that garbage about my being condescending or patronizing; no one can beat you at that game, and no one is reading that in my posts but you. What is it that really pushed your buttons? The part about low empathy being a negative character trait? That’s really the only critical statement in my posts. I must admit, your assertion that it doesn’t bother you at all gives me pause, but it seems obvious by now that we cannot easily relate to each other, in spite of being in agreement on many issues.
Then don’t be condescending or patronizing. I have no interest in discussing things further with you if you can’t keep yourself from acting that way. Depersonalize things and I’ll talk with you. And no, I’m not claiming anything about whether I was personal. If you want to keep talking with me, figure out how not to be such a condescending asshole, and I’ll talk. Otherwise, bye bye.
Going back to the OP, I have no problem with shaming and mocking this ridiculous person. In fact, I think I might go and open a Twitter account to do just that. The rest I don’t necessarily agree with, but actions have consequences after she very publicly put herself out there. None of it falls on Ricky Gervais.
She also might think about investing into some birth control. She spawned eight times already? Must be rough to find time to seek and shoot all those sick and elderly bears.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Meat-eating devastates the rainforest, poisons rivers, and drives climate change, for a real quick start. Trophy farming doesn’t come anywhere near causing this level of environmental devastation. (edit: and here I’m including even the very limited ecosystem issues you might be addressing when you talk about “wild conservation habitats”, although I’m not rea`lly clear on what that phrase means).
I don’t care about the “sacrifice” the animal made, for reasons given earlier in the thread. I think that’s a poor way of viewing the situation. And while eating is an important and healthy need, eating meat is not. It’s perfectly possible for a modern middle-class human to live a vegan lifestyle and be healthy. Eating meat instead of beans is done for personal pleasure.
I’ve read this several times and am really having trouble figuring out what point you’re making here. Yes, you have the luxury of having someone else do your killing for you–but remember, you also have the luxury of eating meat in the first place. You and I don’t need to do that. We do it because it’s pleasurable for us to do so, and we’ve decided that any suffering it causes animals is outweighed by our desire for pleasure. That’s the context in which I’m viewing this trophy hunter.
I agree “sacrifice” is a poor way to phrase it. That’s fair. I considered that and you latching on to it but didn’t find a better phrasing on the fly. The meaning is taking a life in a non wasteful way or serving a non vacuous purpose.
An important point I neglected to mention here is that trophy hunting is usually distorted by some selective trait relating to the fittest elements of a species. Although not in this case apparently.
So it seems to me your whole line of reasoning is that meat is a luxury item like chocolate. So is trophy hunting. So it’s fine and dandy to kill any animal for glamour shots with carcasses. Or wear fur?
If I understood you correctly. In that case I’ll skip the snarky insults because it’s late and I’m tired. Cheers.
Instead of “fine and dandy” please consider “ethically equivalent”.
My views:
I see no problem in general with meat-eating.
I see no problem specifically with a group of people killing a non-endangered animal for food.
I think it’s really fucked up to make a sport of and enjoy killing an animal, regardless of why you’re doing it, but it’s legal and people do it and it doesn’t really harm anyone.
I think it’s super fucked up to post a picture of yourself smiling next to the animal you’ve just killed, but it’s legal and people do it and it doesn’t really harm anyone.
I think it’s fucked up that people like Rebecca Francis or Justine Sacco are publicly shamed on the internet for doing something that is legal and didn’t really harm anyone.
Twitter and the mob mentality it creates is frightening.
Ricky Gervais used to be fat. Now he is fit and he has taken up boxing. Good for him. He also spends a good chunk of his act fat-shaming people who are still fat. He is a huge asshole.
That’s close–and “ethically equivalent” is closer. I’m not sure why eating meat is better than killing animals for the thrill of the hunt: what ethical system, what ethical axioms, would lead to such a result?
For me, I tend to think that you’re responsible for the foreseeable outcomes of your choices, and that the various interests of entities out there with interests ought, all things considered, be respected. My equivalence-drawing between these two things springs from thsoe starting points.
I’m surprised that this is so, but I haven’t actually seen much of his actual act. Do you have any examples?
Nevermind, I googled it.
What is wrong with you? Do you imagine you’re fooling anyone with this little show you’re putting on?
Anyone who is reading our exchanges (and you know there are a few since you’ve already inspired ridicule, thanks so much!) can see that there was nothing in my posts that inspired your vitriol that was condescending, or patronizing, or any of the other lies you childishly included in your passive aggressive remarks about me in your replies to other posters. Nothing. And you know it.
Gratuitous ad hominems, well poisoning, lies, and even now you still insist on continuing this charade that you were somehow offended by my posts for reasons you refuse to cite beyond baseless insinuations. And you tell me to not get personal? Do you really have so little self awareness?
IIRC, this isn’t the first time you’ve pulled this kind of stunt with other posters, to save face because your apparently fragile self image was somehow threatened by… who knows what. I’ll remember this thread in case you ever again try to dishonestly shit on my - or some other unfortunate person’s - posts and character.
Short of that, I have no problem avoiding you, as long as you do the same, and keep my name out of your fucking mouth.
This thread about taking cheesecake photos with dead animals has taken an ugly turn.
