# Why is fishing socially acceptable but hunting is not (or less so?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 3, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554 "2014-05-03T01:57:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/61 "2014-05-03T17:07:39Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Yeah, I don’t see that happening here. That’s conspiracist woo, if they haven’t banned hunting guns in places like Britain which is one of the more extreme anti-gun countries in Europe (which itself is anti-gun), I wouldn’t hold my breath for it happening in America anytime in our lifetime or even in the next 200 years. It’s no conspiracy, the Gov works to ban anything that doesn’t lead to obedient consumption and tax revenue. The anti-gunners openly work to ban guns … no big secret. The Republicans scoop up the hicks for the votes. The leaders on either side are fearful of an armed populace. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/62 "2014-05-03T18:06:02Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The concept that we “lose a part of our humanity” when we kill an animal is what triggered that. That wasn’t actually what I said. There is a time and a place for killing and right ways and wrong ways of doing it. My belief is that becoming desensitized to death and/or suffering – of any creature – and treating it as a casual occurrence equivalent to making a cup of coffee – ultimately robs us of the empathy that is part of what makes us human. This is not an argument against hunting _per se_, which I’ve already said is just something I personally dislike but which I’m not going to be judgmental about – but if you want to interpret this as an argument that it’s wrong to kill for no good reason just because you _enjoy_ killing, then damn right it is! > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Animals don’t exist in ethics, they are irrelevant to ethical decision making. That’s so wrong that I’m sure you couldn’t have meant it the way it sounds. Ethics and the moral principles that they imply exist in any context where sentient beings are capable of suffering. I’m sure you didn’t really mean to say that there are no ethical considerations in how we treat animals, but such an assertion would be not just self-evidently wrong, but a little bit disturbing. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/63 "2014-05-03T18:44:20Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I see, you misunderstood my argument that hunting connects us more with humanity’s natural behavior as an individualist argument–which it was not. Humans are not individualist animals, we’re social animals. Like all social animals there are certainly some lone wolfs in our species, but they are outside the norm. Sometimes expressed by just living in really rural areas and trying to go into town as minimally as possible, up to people that are basically modern day hermits and try to live entirely off the land. But that’s not what I’m talking about, that’s just a modern expression of what has always been a minority behavior. As I said before, I got what you were saying. I’m not attributing my own reaction to you directly. ---
**Author:** ![vontsira](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/51bf81/32.png) [@vontsira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vontsira)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/64 "2014-05-03T18:49:56Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I actually wouldn’t say that I’ve seen much organized opposition to hunting. Some people have an aversion to it, but that’s not the same thing. Some people have an aversion to eating raw fish or to going camping, but I don’t know that it’s the same as those things being “socially unacceptable.” Where I do see actual, legitimate opposition to hunting it’s almost always based on animal rights arguments.\*\*I believe that’s what did fox hunting in over in Britain, as it was seen as a cruel blood sport.\*\*I think you guys are imagining any significant opposition to hunting (at least in the United States) based on gun control politics. To a large extent, yes – re fox hunting, and hunting other animals with packs of hounds: the torment visited on the quarry being seen as slower and longer-drawn-out than (hopefully) quick dispatching by means of a gun. It’s reckoned by many, though (as mentioned in my earlier post) that there was and is also an element of class warfare in this issue. Suspectably, the motivation of a good many anti-hunting militants is dislike of toffs as much as, or more than, love of animals – though these folk would be unlikely to bluntly admit that, and in numerous instances could well be unaware of it. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/65 "2014-05-03T18:55:46Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That wasn’t actually what I said. There is a time and a place for killing and right ways and wrong ways of doing it. My belief is that becoming desensitized to death and/or suffering – of any creature – and treating it as a casual occurrence equivalent to making a cup of coffee – ultimately robs us of the empathy that is part of what makes us human. This is not an argument against hunting _per se_, which I’ve already said is just something I personally dislike but which I’m not going to be judgmental about – but if you want to interpret this as an argument that it’s wrong to kill for no good reason just because you _enjoy_ killing, then damn right it is! Well, in the context of your story I’m not sure how the park ranger serves as a good example. I doubt he enjoyed having to kill that bear, especially since he was there specifically to try and capture it. I reject the concept there is any problem at all with taking pleasure in killing an animal. We evolved to hunt and kill animals as part of our survival instinct (and also to forage and gather foods from plants), what do you think the reaction was to a cro-magnon man who, with a team from his group successfully killed a mammoth or something in the dead of winter when food was getting scarce? I imagine “euphoria” just about gets it right. We’re tapping into that when we hunt, and there’s no shame or wrong in it. > [@](#): > > That’s so wrong that I’m sure you couldn’t have meant it the way it sounds. Ethics and the moral principles that they imply exist in any context where sentient beings are capable of suffering. I’m sure you didn’t really mean to say that there are no ethical considerations in how we treat animals, but such an assertion would be not just self-evidently wrong, but a little bit disturbing. Animals can be given no ethical consideration because they are outside of ethics. Sentience is a meaningless, subjective term that can be applied to bacterium, amoeba, even plant life depending on how you construct it. All that we know for sure is that humans are capable of suffering and are self aware to a significant degree that they can make ethical decisions. For that reason ethics must be concerned with how actions impact other humans, but it cannot be concerned with how actions impact animals–because they are at best an unknown and at worst demonstrably unethical and lacking in all important aspects of humanity that lead us to regard them ethical consideration. I’ve made this argument in other threads, the only way animals enter into ethics is as they relate to humans. Animals themselves are to be afforded no direct ethical consideration. If I go onto my neighbor’s property and butcher his entire herd of sheep, I’ve committed an ethical wrong. But not because I’ve harmed the sheep, but rather because I’ve harmed my neighbor by destroying his property which he had paid for, made investments in, and from which he was expecting a return come shearing time. I would also argue someone who tortures animals is committing an ethical wrong but only in the context that they are debasing themselves in an unseemly way…in essence it’s an ethical wrong committed against one’s self. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/66 "2014-05-03T19:19:26Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Why? Ethics involves morality, what is immoral about killing an animal? Why do you reckon we have animal cruelty laws on the books, if animals existed in a moral vacuum ? Hunting for sheer sport is most definitely unethical. It boils down to inflicting pain for the hell of it. Why would it be morally wrong to do so to a human, but not to another sentient mammal ? Hunting for food when food is readily available is also somewhat unethical - you might half-miss the animal and let it die slow. You might be killing the caregiver of any number of young that’ll starve to death. You might scare the bejeezus of your quarry. And none of it is necessary. Any number of morally relevant things that are dealt away by slaughterhouses. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/67 "2014-05-03T19:29:45Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Animals can be given no ethical consideration because they are outside of ethics. Sentience is a meaningless, subjective term that can be applied to bacterium, amoeba, even plant life depending on how you construct it. All that we know for sure is that humans are capable of suffering and are self aware to a significant degree that they can make ethical decisions. For that reason ethics must be concerned with how actions impact other humans, but it cannot be concerned with how actions impact animals–because they are at best an unknown and at worst demonstrably unethical and lacking in all important aspects of humanity that lead us to regard them ethical consideration. > > I’ve made this argument in other threads, the only way animals enter into ethics is as they relate to humans. Animals themselves are to be afforded no direct ethical consideration. If I go onto my neighbor’s property and butcher his entire herd of sheep, I’ve committed an ethical wrong. But not because I’ve harmed the sheep, but rather because I’ve harmed my neighbor by destroying his property which he had paid for, made investments in, and from which he was expecting a return come shearing time. > > I would also argue someone who tortures animals is committing an ethical wrong but only in the context that they are debasing themselves in an unseemly way…in essence it’s an ethical wrong committed against one’s self. That is an insidious amount of mysticism and circular logic. If you describe suffering as “something only humans can experience” then, yeah, a suffering animal is not really suffering in your book. If you say that, say, wolves that sacrifice themselves for the good of the pack are not really ethical because that’s just instinct then… are you saying that our instincts are somewhat different? Magical, maybe? ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/68 "2014-05-03T19:35:48Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I reject the concept there is any problem at all with taking pleasure in killing an animal. We evolved to hunt and kill animals as part of our survival instinct (and also to forage and gather foods from plants), what do you think the reaction was to a cro-magnon man who, with a team from his group successfully killed a mammoth or something in the dead of winter when food was getting scarce? I imagine “euphoria” just about gets it right. We’re tapping into that when we hunt, and there’s no shame or wrong in it. I mean this strictly within the context of this conversation … if we were Cro-Magnon men 40,000 years ago, and I took offense at something you said … and proceeded to crush your skull with a club, I would be tapping into my ape-like instincts, instincts that provided for my line’s survival and evolution. I’d do a little victory dance and drag your woman off by the hair. I gather you wouldn’t object to me (in the present) “tapping into that” and feeling the Euphoria. “I reject the concept there is any problem at all with taking pleasure in killing …” Really? ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/69 "2014-05-03T19:37:16Z")
I heard that Wharton business school graduates in their first entry-level positions mourn the fact that Wharton didn’t offer a class in bird hunting. Look, I eat meat, so there’s no way I’m going to claim any moral superiority over those who hunt meat that they eat. Why don’t I hunt or fish myself? Probably because my father never did. Because his father never did either. I suspect hunting/fishing is the sort of thing fathers teach their sons. Oh, and I’m unclear about whether shooting an animal is a kosher killing too. I lived in a city with “metropolitan parks” that had deer herds. At one point, too many neighbors were complaining about deers from one park wandering into THEIR yards and eating their gardens. And the deer/motor vehicle interactions. So they brought out the naturalists and wildlife management people to do a survey. They discovered the herd was diseased and malnourished. Mostly because although the park could support a deer herd of 180 animals or so, the population was about 350. So they started culling the herd. They tried catch and release but deer don’t take well to being moved. So just the staff and hired hunters did the shooting and the meat was donated to food pantries. End result? A healthier herd, less damaged park, and people with food in their stomachs. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/70 "2014-05-03T20:05:54Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Which justifies why we could morally justify hunting back then. Today we absolutely can be here without hunting. So doing so becomes morally questionable. > > And you certainly can be human without killing animals, I’m not sure how asserting the opposite makes any sense. Yeah, except we all kill animals, all the time. We live within an ecosystem of competitive pressures, and the actions we take directly impact the animals around us. A new housing development probably kills dozens of mice and other small rodents. Every time I drive the highway in summer I create a veritable insect genocide on my windshield. Roadkill abounds. Wind turbines kill birds. And of course, all animals do this to each other as well, even when they aren’t hunting each other. A new beaver dam can drown thousands of animals caught napping by the flood. When deer graze the land, they can destroy the substrate the houses thousands of rodents. If you prefer store-bought meat to wild game that’s fine, but it doesn’t make you any more moral than a hunter. Those cattle farms and pig farms cause the deaths of many wild animals. Even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re eating food that came from a farm that dug up countless homes of cute furry animals to plant the crop you are eating. And if those animals were unlucky, they wound up as mulch in the tines of a cultivator. Anyway, I think one of the things some people find distasteful about hunting is how personal it is - you stalk an animal, then target it and shoot it while it’s going about its own business. Fishing is more random, generally, unless you are spear fishing. I don’t know if this is a good analogy, but consider the difference between someone who drops a bomb on a target in a war, vs an agent who hunts down a high value target and cuts his throat. We’re likely to respond much more viscerally and negatively to the assassin, but the first person undoubtedly killed more people and was more likely to kill innocents or non-combatants. He just did it impersonally. Or, we could just blame Disney. Bambi’s mom made us all feel bad. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/71 "2014-05-03T20:14:44Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Or, we could just blame Disney. Bambi’s mom made us all feel bad. But when Bambi meets Godzilla, it’s just the law of the jungle. > **[Bambi Meets Godzilla](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi_Meets_Godzilla)** > > Bambi Meets Godzilla is a 1969 black-and-white animated short student film produced entirely by Marv Newland. Less than two minutes long, the film is seen as a classic of animation; it was listed #38 in the book The 50 Greatest Cartoons (1994). > The opening credits, consisting of roles filled by Newland himself, scroll over an image of the fawn Bambi serenely grazing on a field of grass and flowers while the Chicago Symphony Orchestra's recording of William Tell's Ranz des Vaches plays in the ... ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/72 "2014-05-03T20:18:46Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Yeah, except we all kill animals, all the time. We live within an ecosystem of competitive pressures, and the actions we take directly impact the animals around us. A new housing development probably kills dozens of mice and other small rodents. Every time I drive the highway in summer I create a veritable insect genocide on my windshield. Roadkill abounds. Wind turbines kill birds. > And of course, all animals do this to each other as well, even when they aren’t hunting each other. A new beaver dam can drown thousands of animals caught napping by the flood. When deer graze the land, they can destroy the substrate the houses thousands of rodents. I suppose so, but none of that is deliberately designed \*to \*cause or result in that death and suffering. Nor is the pain doled out “for the hell of it”. > [@](#): > > If you prefer store-bought meat to wild game that’s fine, but it doesn’t make you any more moral than a hunter. Those cattle farms and pig farms cause the deaths of many wild animals. Even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re eating food that came from a farm that dug up countless homes of cute furry animals to plant the crop you are eating. And if those animals were unlucky, they wound up as mulch in the tines of a cultivator. Eh, meat eating is definitely dark ethically speaking, I’ll admit (ask me about living with a semi-militant vegan :)). But mmmbacon. Put that in the hypocrisy/inconsistent principles/arbitrary lines in the sand column. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/73 "2014-05-03T20:19:49Z")
Again, I find that many people in this thread tends to consider that all animals hold the same intrinsic value. That, say, a bear is exactly as deserving or undeserving of empathy as a fish. That is surprising to me, since very obviously there are orders of magnitude in the complexity of their respective nervous systems. Anybody cares to explain? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/74 "2014-05-03T20:28:26Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I actually disagree, I know/hear a lot about the gun control crowd in America and I wouldn’t say they are generally opposed to hunting. In fact, in the United States most gun control types that are in the mainstream are fine with rifles or shotguns that can hold a limited capacity of rounds as these are primarily used for hunting. It’s the “military looking” rifles with high capacity and handguns that seem to have their attention and those are mostly not associated with hunting. I think your assessment is correct. The gun control folks have attempted to drive a wedge between people with hunting rifles and those military looking rifles. But I have rarely heard anyone from the gun control side of the debate call for an end to hunting. Maybe some of them feel that way on a personal level but if they went after hunting they’re likely to drive away the gun owners who do support their cause. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/75 "2014-05-03T20:28:40Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > I heard that Wharton business school graduates in their first entry-level positions mourn the fact that Wharton didn’t offer a class in bird hunting. 😕 There must be some meme that I missed? > [@](#): > > Look, I eat meat, so there’s no way I’m going to claim any moral superiority over those who hunt meat that they eat. Why don’t I hunt or fish myself? Probably because my father never did. Because his father never did either. I suspect hunting/fishing is the sort of thing fathers teach their sons. Oh, and I’m unclear about whether shooting an animal is a kosher killing too. My dad never taught me, but a friend did. I guess my dad did hunt, or at least shoot rabbits, and crows for bounty, back in the day where you could carry a rifle in Oakland no problem (!). IANA Jew, but isn’t cutting the throat the only way to make meat kosher? (among other reasons) Maybe if you made a very clean neck shot. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/76 "2014-05-03T20:32:04Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > Again, I find that many people in this thread tends to consider that all animals hold the same intrinsic value. That, say, a bear is exactly as deserving or undeserving of empathy as a fish. > > That is surprising to me, since very obviously there are orders of magnitude in the complexity of their respective nervous systems. Anybody cares to explain? Sure. Cute talking fish like “Charlie the Tuna” or “Nemo” are off limits. Also cute or smart-ass talking bears, like Smokey, Yogi, or Boo-boo. You can kill anything else, Martin Hyde said so … it’s euphoric. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/77 "2014-05-03T20:44:03Z")
I guess my heart is forever bleeding because I think fish flopping around and silently gasping for air is pretty fucked up. I never said anything to my late grandad when he took me fishing though, didn’t want him to think I was a pussy. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/78 "2014-05-03T21:15:46Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 1. What’s wrong with [etc.]… > > Hunting to me is almost like an act of truth or honesty, in that you’re asserting yourself as a human and not hiding behind layers of industrial food production. I was speaking of perception, not necessarily reality. I agree that killing your own food reveals the reality that what you see in a supermarket comes from an animal that _someone_ killed. I don’t hunt, myself, (nor fish – except for the occasional crabbing) but I know that I’m eating a dead thing. (I call pork ‘deadpig’, for example.) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/79 "2014-05-03T22:14:45Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > Again, I find that many people in this thread tends to consider that all animals hold the same intrinsic value. That, say, a bear is exactly as deserving or undeserving of empathy as a fish. > > That is surprising to me, since very obviously there are orders of magnitude in the complexity of their respective nervous systems. Anybody cares to explain? I agree that it’s a logical way to look at things, but I don’t think this is an issue based in logic. An Octopus is probably smarter than a mouse. There are some cute mammals that have minimal brains. I think we react to these things on a more visceral level. Fish are generally pretty primitive creatures. They behave more like state machines than thinking animals. Same with most insects. I doubt that there is any real perceptive capabilities in these creatures. I certainly don’t think they have self-awareness. So I don’t really have a problem with hunting and killing them. I don’t feel the same way about dogs, though. Or monkeys. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554/80 "2014-05-03T22:18:59Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Well, in the context of your story I’m not sure how the park ranger serves as a good example. I doubt he enjoyed having to kill that bear, especially since he was there specifically to try and capture it. I wasn’t referring to them; the purpose of my story was to express how intrinsically horrible it was to watch a bear die. But there indisputably are those who do enjoy killing for the sake of killing; you not only admit this yourself, you actually defend them. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Animals can be given no ethical consideration because they are outside of ethics. Sentience is a meaningless, subjective term that can be applied to bacterium, amoeba, even plant life depending on how you construct it. That is utterly ridiculous. Sentience has a very well defined meaning. Are you suggesting that a dog, a horse, or a deer is not sentient because these creatures aren’t human? Are they not capable of feeling fear and pain? The only thing subjective about sentience is where we draw the line and declare that below a certain level of cognitive function a creature can not reasonably be considered sentient, but to suggest that the higher level animals – many of which are actually surprisingly intelligent – aren’t sentient is just ignorance, as others have already pointed out. And you never did answer the question about why we have animal cruelty laws. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I would also argue someone who tortures animals is committing an ethical wrong but only in the context that they are debasing themselves in an unseemly way…in essence it’s an ethical wrong committed against one’s self. I don’t think, after your previous statements, that you have any logical basis whatsoever to make the case that torturing an animal is unethical. You already stated very plainly that ethics and morality have no place in discussions of animals. If there is something “unseemly” about it, then it must also be unethical if I get really mad about something and throw a book against the wall. If not, then according to your logic it must also be OK to throw my dog against the wall in a fit of anger. It isn’t even sentient, according to your values. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean that to be rude, but I just so vehemently disagree with those positions and totally cannot follow that kind of logic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-fishing-socially-acceptable-but-hunting-is-not-or-less-so/687554.md?page=5)