Hunting? Immoral?

[Wannabe Yogi]

do they have free range farming in your country?

Hi Pegg,

Sorry about this comment.

Sorry but you have no idea of what you are talking about.

It was rude.

 

[dallas1125]

I want to add that I think a number of humans are naturally sensitive to the killing of animals from a young age. I've come across quite a few people who are vegetarian because they saw an animal die when they were young and it greatly traumatised them.

One particular friend of mine was about 8/9 years old. Her dad took her fishing. It was just seeing the fish struggle in the boat until it suffocated to death that traumatised her for life. She is now in her mid 20s.

When I was a kid, there were a few incidents where I'd make a new friend, inform them that meat came from animals and then found out that those kids were refusing to eat the meat their parents made at home. More than once I was no longer allowed to associate with those children any more.

Those people who enjoy hunting have often been taken out to hunt since they were very young. I think there is a level of desensitisation to killing. It occurs just as well in humans who for their entire life are involved in killing humans.

So I find it very, very interesting that many humans apparently have a natural aversion to killing animals. It is my belief, from the above related experiences, that our attitudes toward animals and killing/hunting in our adult life are greatly attributed to desensitisation (and cultural/religious beliefs and education of course) OR, for those who have no experience in animal death and buy all their meat from stores, it is greatly attributed to lack of experience/ignorance.

Very possible that desensitizing helps but if that was the case wouldn't the first time I went with my dad (9 Yrs old) have had the same effect on me when my dad shot an elk then gutted it in front of me? I actually helped gut it too.

 

[Pegg]

Hi Pegg,

Sorry about this comment.



It was rude.

nah its fine.... i posted a little later that i was being naive to believe that our regulations, which are supposed to lessen the animals suffering, are always going to be followed by slaughter houses.

you guys have got me pondering vegetarianism...

 

[Madhuri]

Very possible that desensitizing helps but if that was the case wouldn't the first time I went with my dad (9 Yrs old) have had the same effect on me when my dad shot an elk then gutted it in front of me? I actually helped gut it too.

Maybe. But if your dad was into hunting before then, you'd have been exposed to that hunting/killing culture in other forms. Like maybe the heads of animals hung in the house? Hearing your peers talking about it positively? Hearing hunting stories? Maybe even being brought up with certain beliefs about animals, like that they don't have souls? Or that they aren't sentient? That they aren't intelligent like humans?

All these things would contribute to desensitisation.

 

[dallas1125]

Maybe. But if your dad was into hunting before then, you'd have been exposed to that hunting/killing culture in other forms. Like maybe the heads of animals hung in the house?

He only recently acquired the head. We never had any type of animal part hanging around until then.

Hearing your peers talking about it positively?

Possibly but as little kids, you dont talk about hunting. You do that when you get to high school.

Hearing hunting stories?

Possibly

Maybe even being brought up with certain beliefs about animals, like that they don't have souls?

I believe they have souls. I believe that they will be in heaven too.

Or that they aren't sentient? That they aren't intelligent like humans?

Well they aren't as intelligent as us but they are definitely sentient.

All these things would contribute to desensitisation.

Agreed, we will probably never know though...

 

[Rakhel]

Most states allow hunting in an order to keep populations of certain animals down. Louisiana and Arkansas both allow the hunting of alligators, but only so much per hunter. Just recently New Jersey allowed the hunting of black bears, again, only so many per hunter. And even at that, these animals could only be hunted with a particular type of weapon.
The reasoning was to protect the human population from getting hurt.

As for hunting for food. There are parts of this world where is is hard to grow soy beans, so they hunt. Fish will not nourish them so they hunt whale. Are they being unethical? No. Are they morally right in doing so? yes

 

[Madhuri]

As for hunting for food. There are parts of this world where is is hard to grow soy beans, so they hunt. Fish will not nourish them so they hunt whale. Are they being unethical? No. Are they morally right in doing so? yes

I agree. Morality is never black and white.

 

[dallas1125]

I agree. Morality is never black and white.

I dont think anything is ever black and white.

 

[Madhuri]

I dont think anything is ever black and white.

Absolutely! It's always strange meeting someone who sees the world only in black and white.

 

[Revoltingest]

To animal lovers' dismay
I'd venture that hunting's OK
Since morals are relative
I'll very much leeway give
as long as it ain't me that's prey.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So this is my first thread around here (I think.) Hope I do well!

I am a huge hunter but I do have my own set of morals I follow when I hunt.

1. I eat what I kill.
2. I give the game a fair chance.
3. I only use myself and dogs.
A. The only time I use vehicles is to transfer big game after I kill it.

Am I acting immorally when I hunt animals?

I kinda see how point number 1 deals with morality, but what about 2, 3 and 4? I don't really see how they're relevant to the morality of what you're doing.

...with one possible exception: what do you mean by "I give the game a fair chance"? If this implies that you purposely make yourself less effective than you could be, then IMO, this could affect the morality of your hunting if it means that you're more likely to just wound the animal instead of kill it, or if it means that the animal is more likely to have a prolonged death instead of a quick one.

Isnt hunting more moral than eating cows that have been breed and massively slaughtered?

I'm not sure, but I do think that if a person eats meat, it's a bit hypocritical of them having a problem with killing animals... unless there are other factors at play besides just the taking of animal life.

Also, its a healthier option to hunt. You get exercise from the hunt plus the food you get is extremely lean, even more so than the extra lean you can buy in stores.

I'm not sure that the exercise of hunting really factors into the morality of it. You can hike in the woods without hunting. Also, I don't think that exercise is necessarily a big part of hunting. As you alluded to, a lot of people just use ATVs to get out where they're going, and I'm no hunter, but it seems to me there's not a lot of exercise involved in sitting in a blind for a few hours at a stretch.

Most states allow hunting in an order to keep populations of certain animals down. Louisiana and Arkansas both allow the hunting of alligators, but only so much per hunter. Just recently New Jersey allowed the hunting of black bears, again, only so many per hunter. And even at that, these animals could only be hunted with a particular type of weapon.
The reasoning was to protect the human population from getting hurt.

You bring up a good point: overpopulation has negative consequences of its own. If the alternative to hunting is that a large number of animals will starve to death, then this factors into the morality of hunting as well.

Hunting for food, to "cull the herd" to regulate your resources in land or water, or to protect your family/livestock is one thing. Hunting for sport is something I can't justify.

Those categories aren't mutually exclusive, though. When you have a government agency controlling numbers of licences/tags and individual hunters doing what they want within the limits of the law, hunting one animal can serve two purposes. From the regulatory agency's point of view, it doesn't really matter what the hunter's motivation is as long as the population targets are met.

 

[dallas1125]

I kinda see how point number 1 deals with morality, but what about 2, 3 and 4? I don't really see how they're relevant to the morality of what you're doing.

I dont either, just giving information.

...with one possible exception: what do you mean by "I give the game a fair chance"? If this implies that you purposely make yourself less effective than you could be, then IMO, this could affect the morality of your hunting if it means that you're more likely to just wound the animal instead of kill it, or if it means that the animal is more likely to have a prolonged death instead of a quick one.

It means that I dont use a helicopter to fly around and snipe them. Something that Sarah Palin does. I am opposed to that.

I'm not sure, but I do think that if a person eats meat, it's a bit hypocritical of them having a problem with killing animals... unless there are other factors at play besides just the taking of animal life.

Maybe

I'm not sure that the exercise of hunting really factors into the morality of it. You can hike in the woods without hunting. Also, I don't think that exercise is necessarily a big part of hunting. As you alluded to, a lot of people just use ATVs to get out where they're going, and I'm no hunter, but it seems to me there's not a lot of exercise involved in sitting in a blind for a few hours at a stretch.

I only use an ATV to drag an elk off the mountain. Other than that I hike. Usually im with my little brother so I shoot it, then he goes and gets the ATV or i do and we haul it off.

You bring up a good point: overpopulation has negative consequences of its own. If the alternative to hunting is that a large number of animals will starve to death, then this factors into the morality of hunting as well.

Did you ever hear of the science experiment where they proved that a point exists where the environment cannot handle the whole population.

 

[Valjean]

To animal lovers' dismay
I'd venture that hunting's OK
Since morals are relative
I'll very much leeway give
as long as it ain't me that's prey.

LOL.
So if little green men came down and started harvesting humans (sustainably, of course, and only free-range specimens), then you'd suddenly develop an objection to hunting?

 

[Nooj]

dallas1125, do you always kill your prey after hunting it? Why/why not?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/dallas1125-26752.html

 

[dallas1125]

dallas1125, do you always kill your prey after hunting it? Why/why not?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/dallas1125-26752.html

Sorry, im confused about this question....

 

[Nooj]

So lets say you're using a gun, and after hunting a deer for a few hours, you've got a deer in your sights. I know of hunters who let their prey go sometimes. Do you?

 

[dallas1125]

Depends upon a lot of factors but I dont do it out of compassion.

I do think I am desensitized because I cannot feel compassion...I cant remember the last time I did something because I felt bad for someone or something....

 

[Nooj]

Depends upon a lot of factors but I dont do it out of compassion.

I do think I am desensitized because I cannot feel compassion...I cant remember the last time I did something because I felt bad for someone or something....

Not compassion. Just because they didn't feel like killing something that day. I mean hunting for sport is different from hunting for need. Hunters who need to kill prey for food will take that opportunity no matter what, whereas hunters who like the experience of hunting don't need to kill. If you don't need to kill, you don't have to kill. Even if you have the opportunity.

Doing something because you felt bad for someone is more like pity I'd say. I think of compassion as a lot like love. Anywho, who can make a definite statement either way. Emotions are pretty nebulous things. And does it really matter if you kill or don't kill with love in your heart? The end result is the same. As for your first post, it's up to you whether you think you're doing the right thing.

 

[dallas1125]

Not compassion. Just because they didn't feel like killing something that day. I mean hunting for sport is different from hunting for need. Hunters who need to kill prey for food will take that opportunity no matter what, whereas hunters who like the experience of hunting don't need to kill. If you don't need to kill, you don't have to kill. Even if you have the opportunity.

Yes, but humans are omnivores. We get some essential vitamins and minerals from meat. So what meat is alright to eat?

Doing something because you felt bad for someone is more like pity I'd say. I think of compassion as a lot like love. Anywho, who can make a definite statement either way. Emotions are pretty nebulous things. And does it really matter if you kill or don't kill with love in your heart? The end result is the same. As for your first post, it's up to you whether you think you're doing the right thing.

Who knows, I try to ignore emotions in my life.

 

[Madhuri]

Yes, but humans are omnivores. We get some essential vitamins and minerals from meat. So what meat is alright to eat?

But you can get those essential vitamins from non-meat sources as well. Which is why a person can be vegetarian their entire life and be perfectly healthy.