Why is fishing socially acceptable but hunting is not (or less so?)

[wolfpup]

@Martin_Hyde

Sentience certainly has a few clear meanings conversationally or in a dictionary, but relating that meaning to animals is 100% subjective. There is no objective rule, and under any definitions of sentience I’ve ever heard it could include all living creatures or exclude almost all living creatures (including many humans.) It’s a nonsense term for making ethical decisions.

This argument is put to rest simply by the observation that the more evolved animals experience fear, pain, pleasure, and emotions analogous to our own. That’s it – end of story. The end.

In any rational world, what more is there to say? This is not a subject of debate; it’s a consequence of the objective facts of basic physiology. As I said before, dogs, horses, and so on – along with many, many other animals that we don’t choose to domesticate – experience fear, pain, pleasure, and other sensations that are identifiable with evolved living creatures. The idea that ethics doesn’t enter into it is reprehensible and downright disturbing.

@Martin_Hyde

“The only thing”, that makes it entirely subjective…

By introducing the “ameoba” into this discussion it is you, in fact, who have wandered into the absurd. What I said was that there is a gray area where it’s no longer clear whether a creature is, in fact, sentient. You chose to draw the line at anything that isn’t “human” – meaning “exactly like me”. That’s even more absurd than your hypothetical of amoebas being sentinent. Just because the dividing line is blurred doesn’t justify reaching extreme conclusions on either side of it – you’ve basically said that any living being that isn’t exactly like you couldn’t possibly be sentient or feel fear or pain.

Would you like to tell me that my dog isn’t sentient? Sure, there is a superficial tendency among many of us to anthropomorphize animals, but that’s not what I mean. We and all our fellow creatures on this planet are profoundly connected; we share a common history of evolution, and the differences between us are only those of degree. To anthropomorphize our pets is of course childish. As a wise man once said, to pretend that a dog is human-like does a disservice both to humans and to dogs; it diminishes both, it diminishes the reality that each has a distinct view of life, death, and the qualities of its own existence. Neither a dog – nor a wild deer or a wolf – has a human perspective on life and death, but they do have their own, born of exactly the same evolutionary biology as ours.

I would remind you that your ridiculous and abhorrent original assertion was that ethics has no place in the animal kingdom. There are at least some people who know and understand animals, those who have been truly close to them and have come to an intimate understanding of them – how they think, and react, and the things they value. Animal perceptions which, just like own, reflect the wisdom of our long, long evolutionary histories and the wisdom of time. I count myself among those who have had the experience of being close to such animals, and feel that we are truly privileged for the experience. Much of modern philosophy comes from the observation that caring or not caring about things is based on having a history, and that this history shapes our thinking and hence the truths of which we are aware, and your history, my friend, seems to be very shallow indeed.

@Shagnasty

Hunting is not only a perfectly reasonable activity, it is also a vital component of wildlife management and hunters are doing everyone a favor by engaging in their sport … We need more, not fewer hunters in many areas. Lawful hunters are always doing everyone a favor …

Sure, but hunting, and the encroachment of human habitats, has also – and continues to – contribute to the decimation of species. From the loss of African wildlife and the extinction of the passenger pigeon to the depletion of fisheries and decimation of the ocean ecosystem, over-hunting, over-fishing, and encroachment on habitats is driving many species to extinction. Hunting isn’t always bad, of course, but it obviously is when in excess, and as someone already pointed out, it’s ridiculous to put all types of hunting under the same umbrella. It’s utterly absurd to cast hunters as some sort of altruistic saviours of the ecosystem when their boundless greed has wrought such huge destruction.

@SirGalahad

When my mother lived in France during the Nazi occupation, the Germans came and took their food, their hunting guns, and their young men. If someone powerful enough wants to take your gun, they will.

That’s a terrific argument for banning Germans, too. But then, none of us really want to make asinine irrelevant analogies, do we?

[SirGalahad]

@wolfpup

That’s a terrific argument for banning Germans, too. But then, none of us really want to make asinine irrelevant analogies, do we?

Wait, it’s asinine to notice that powerful authoritarians tend to disarm anyone they see as subjects and/or enemies? Talk about not learning from history. When they come for you, who’ll be asinine then, hum?

I agree with you about Hyde being disturbing. What’s with the creepy “animals shouldn’t be treated ethically” stuff?

[thelurkinghorror]

@wolfpup

Sure, but hunting, and the encroachment of human habitats, has also – and continues to – contribute to the decimation of species. From the loss of African wildlife and the extinction of the passenger pigeon to the depletion of fisheries and decimation of the ocean ecosystem, over-hunting, over-fishing, and encroachment on habitats is driving many species to extinction. Hunting isn’t always bad, of course, but it obviously is when in excess, and as someone already pointed out, it’s ridiculous to put all types of hunting under the same umbrella. It’s utterly absurd to cast hunters as some sort of altruistic saviours of the ecosystem when their boundless greed has wrought such huge destruction.

Maybe it’s a modern definition, but I’d describe hunting as harvesting of animals under population controlling restrictions like (may vary by region):
[ul]
[li]Limited seasons (weeks/days that it is legal, sometimes by zone)[/li][li]Daily limits/possession for smaller animals[/li][li]Tags (usually max 1 per year, and their not guaranteed) for larger mammals and turkeys[/li][li]Other limits, like removing a wing and giving it to DoW for certain species (grouse?)[/li][/ul]

Poaching is “shooting an animal outside these guidelines, whether taking too many or out of season,” and is illegal. Hunting is done under DoW/state guidance and they may close areas if the populations are in danger. But the vast majority of these species are “Least Concern.” All I can think of is that Sage Grouse are “Near Threatened” (tighter limits) and California Bighorn are “Endangered” (which is generally considered a lifetime tag, and requires multiple years of trying for it). I’m not saying that it’s a perfect system, but I don’t think it works in the way that you say, at least in the United States.

Hell, in some areas they encourage you to kill invasive species. Like telling you to behead a pike even if you don’t plan on keeping it, or others like walking catfish

[Hector_St_Clare]

I can’t understand the thought processes of people who object to deer hunting, honestly.

[ExTank]

@Der_Trihs

It’s like lobsters. Sure, some people are offended at the idea of boiling lobsters alive; but imagine how much larger the reaction would be if you dropped a live deer into a big vat of boiling water.

On that note, I’ve often wondered exactly how hungry some primitive man had to be to look at a lobster and think, “Food!”

Don’t get me wrong, I like lobster. But if I had never seen one before, or never seen one eaten by someone, I’d be more apt to run away in fear than grab it and try to eat it.

[Martin_Hyde]

@SirGalahad

I’d like a cite that 40,000 years ago, anyone but your blood relatives would care or notice that you were ended by a competitor for your mate.

I also disagree with your assertions regarding the parameters of morality, and the narrow scope of your definition of same.

You won’t get a cite. But all that we know about pre-historic human societies suggests that the concept of “blood relatives” probably did not apply. You were either a member of the tribe or you weren’t. The idea of loyalty to your family unit over all else actually doesn’t make sense in an HG tribe, while loyalty to the tribe as a whole does. Plus, since we suspect HG tribes may have frequently had plural sex partners and there probably wasn’t a clear understanding of what actually was causing pregnancies or the strict relationship between father/mother and child children were raised socially and wouldn’t have been definitively known as anyone’s child. But that’s a generalization.

Anyway, in agricultural societies where property ownership and control of land matters, you have strong familial bonds. Where family > all. In an HG tribe everyone in the tribe has to have some role that advances the tribe as a whole, it’s not entirely certain that there even would be a concept of nuclear blood families and even if there were it wouldn’t be emphasized over the tribe. For that reason, since the whole tribe has to work cooperatively there is no room for tribe members that just randomly murder other tribe members. They would drive the murderer off most likely. It is possible or even probable there were ad hoc ways to solve disputes, perhaps tribal elders would make such decisions or there would be sanctioned fighting, but no way an HG tribe which has to operate on communal trust and cooperation is going to abide people who just murder willy-nilly.

You’re also making assumptions that HG tribes would have the concept of a man “owning” a specific female mate, when that in itself tends to be more reflective of agricultural society values. While I’m sure some HG tribes practiced strict monogamy many anthropologists believed some degree of polygamy was the norm and even some degree of matriarchy may have gone on with many tribes (which undermines the concept of a male fighting another male for “ownership” of a female.)

In an early modern agricultural society (and you still see these in tribal areas of India, Pakistan etc), it is indeed the case that familial disputes are often considered primarily only the concern of the families…with at most a tribal council being there to resolve the most serious disputes. But take away land possession/agriculture and those relationship make no sense, and we can assume humans operate in mostly rational ways even as Cro-Magnons.

[racepug]

I can’t speak for anybody else but A) I associate hunters with “gun nuts,” (which, as you can probably guess, I do NOT view in a positive light) and B) I don’t appreciate “hunters” who kill animals strictly “for the fun of it.” I think that’s disgusting.

Yes, I eat meat. But I’m gradually trying to cut back (WAAAAY back) on it.

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@racepug

I I don’t appreciate “hunters” who kill animals strictly “for the fun of it.” I think that’s disgusting.

I just don’t know very many people like this, and I’d bet you don’t either. I can think of one or two men that I know of who big game hunt in Africa. Otherwise, every single hunter I know, and I know a lot of them, eat everything they shoot.

People love to rail against “the hunter who kills for fun”, but there just aren’t very many hunters out there who meet that description, in my experience.

[Broomstick]

@Martin_Hyde

For that reason, since the whole tribe has to work cooperatively there is no room for tribe members that just randomly murder other tribe members. They would drive the murderer off most likely.

Based on the few remaining HG groups in the world in recent history, their solution to a murderer is not to drive him off but to execute him. Driving him off isn’t good enough because he might come back. They can’t afford to take the chance.

[racepug]

@Llama_Llogophile

I remember a comedian years ago saying that if fish could scream, there would be no fishing. A hook in the lip has got to hurt!

I had this book when I was a kid that attempted to explain many of life’s “mysteries” (I was pretty curious when I was younger). In it I remember that there was a question about fishing (with a fishing pole) and whether or not it hurt the fish. To this day I remember that the response was something along the lines of: “Fish don’t have as many nerve endings in their mouths as humans do so hooking them isn’t nearly as bad as hooking one of us would be.” I took that as gospel but now I’m not sure if that is really true or if that’s just what we all told ourselves to make fishing more palatable.

[SirGalahad]

@Martin_Hyde

You won’t get a cite. But all that we know about pre-historic human societies suggests that the concept of “blood relatives” probably did not apply. You were either a member of the tribe or you weren’t. The idea of loyalty to your family unit over all else actually doesn’t make sense in an HG tribe, while loyalty to the tribe as a whole does. Plus, since we suspect HG tribes may have frequently had plural sex partners and there probably wasn’t a clear understanding of what actually was causing pregnancies or the strict relationship between father/mother and child children were raised socially and wouldn’t have been definitively known as anyone’s child. But that’s a generalization.

Anyway, in agricultural societies where property ownership and control of land matters, you have strong familial bonds. Where family > all. In an HG tribe everyone in the tribe has to have some role that advances the tribe as a whole, it’s not entirely certain that there even would be a concept of nuclear blood families and even if there were it wouldn’t be emphasized over the tribe. For that reason, since the whole tribe has to work cooperatively there is no room for tribe members that just randomly murder other tribe members. They would drive the murderer off most likely. It is possible or even probable there were ad hoc ways to solve disputes, perhaps tribal elders would make such decisions or there would be sanctioned fighting, but no way an HG tribe which has to operate on communal trust and cooperation is going to abide people who just murder willy-nilly.

You’re also making assumptions that HG tribes would have the concept of a man “owning” a specific female mate, when that in itself tends to be more reflective of agricultural society values. While I’m sure some HG tribes practiced strict monogamy many anthropologists believed some degree of polygamy was the norm and even some degree of matriarchy may have gone on with many tribes (which undermines the concept of a male fighting another male for “ownership” of a female.)

In an early modern agricultural society (and you still see these in tribal areas of India, Pakistan etc), it is indeed the case that familial disputes are often considered primarily only the concern of the families…with at most a tribal council being there to resolve the most serious disputes. But take away land possession/agriculture and those relationship make no sense, and we can assume humans operate in mostly rational ways even as Cro-Magnons.

Why won’t I get a cite? It’s been a long time since I studied Anthropology in college, but I seem to remember lots of books and papers on the subject of primitive cultures. If you can’t find cites that support your assertions, then you’re just pontificating. You waste my time. Why, if I had my club …

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Martin_Hyde

3. I think part of what I like about hunting is it strips away the layers of falsehood inherent in modern society. We’re all killers. Humanity lives off the deaths of other species. For the vast majority of humanity, quite literally we eat the dead flesh of animals and in fact have a great love for it. Most of these animals are factory raised, hardly ever touch the ground, can barely move for most of their lives and die on an assembly line.

I can perceive the honesty of hunting and the virtue of honesty.

@Martin_Hyde

Why? Ethics involves morality, what is immoral about killing an animal?

With respect, you need to think harder. Part of what makes us human is our capacity for empathy, a foundational aspect of human intelligence. Empathic creatures understand that hunting another sentient being is morally problematic. So the ancient Greeks made food offerings to the Gods. Native Americans had rituals involving animal spirits, animals they hunted. There would be no need for such activities if the base act didn’t need to be papered over in some way. Saying that hunting is natural is just another variant of that IMHO.

FTR I am a non-hunting omnivore who has no problem with hunters who obey the law.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Drats, double post.

[Chen019]

Presumably because fish live underwater and we don’t empathise as much. Which is incredibly unfair because fish DO suffer when being hooked and pulled up:

When fish are yanked from the water, they begin to suffocate. Their gills often collapse, and their swim bladders can rupture because of the sudden change in pressure. Numerous scientific reports from around the world confirm that fish feel pain. Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and University of Glasgow studied the pain receptors in fish and found that they were strikingly similar to those of mammals; the researchers concluded that “fish do have the capacity for pain perception and suffering.”

[thelurkinghorror]

Thanks for the completely unbiased cite.

[Chen019]

@thelurkinghorror

Thanks for the completely unbiased cite.

Heh, well it is true the nature of their pain and stress has been subject to heated and ongoing scientific debate.

[Omar_Little]

We eat fish and meat. They are both good sources of protein. We eat plants, which are also living things. I have yet to see any argument that has compelled me to stop doing any of those things.