Hunting? Immoral?

[Nerthus]

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.

Absolutely! Many people seem to think/ argue that the only way to get essential vitamins is through meat, when it isn't that way at all.

 

[Rakhel]

I am not saying that everyone has to eat meat. What I am saying is that to call someone immoral because meat may be their only source of food is immoral in itself

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Interesting - kinda like "catch and release" fishing: the experience of the sport without killing the animal.

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

This rang a bell in my head: commercial meat is inspected for diseases and parasites. Hunted meat probably isn't inspected in most cases... definitely not by an official inspector, anyway. A quick Googling suggests to me that hunted meat does carry with it a risk of infection: bacteria or parasites from the animal can be passed on to humans (or other animals, such as hunting dogs) during handling or eating. I suppose this would be another effect that should be taken into account when weighing the morality of hunting. Anyone know how significant an issue this is?

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

Tis in the nature of moral relativism.
The hunted object to being hunted.
It isn't fair, but it makes perfect sense.

 

[outhouse]

its fine to hunt! enjoy meat is delicious!!!

anyone against hunting doesnt understand nature and animals and I suggest you talk to your local fish and game officer as to why hunting is needed to maintain the health of the animal population.

then you'd suddenly develop an objection to hunting?

Nope we would start hunting little green men with a smile.

Anyone know how significant an issue this is?

its only bad if gut shot, and you dont clean it out quickly. The bacteria will ruin the meat.

theres always a few parasites and a few worms that are cut out.

now if you go out and shoot a real old jack rabbit or any other real old and weak animal, you should be prepared to not eat it as that meat will be riddled with worms and
parasites.

What I am saying is that to call someone immoral because meat may be their only source of food is immoral in itself

true

it is very moral to hunt and eat meat its our nature and its instinct

 

[dust1n]

I didn't even know morality and eating went on hand and hand. If hunting is immoral, then human kind has a huge burden of the past.

 

[Father Heathen]

Because the human definition and understanding of morality is not one based in what is or is not natural. Morality concerns the suffering and happiness of others. If we based morals on simply what is or is not natural, then many of our ideas would be different.

For example, rape is very natural in the animal kingdom. Even amongst humans, rape was normal in many societies throughout history.

Killing other humans is natural. Even eating other humans is natural. We stopped doing that when we became 'civilised'- ie/ created social rules that excluded such activities.

Abortion, cloning, medication, synthetic limbs, contemporary forms of contraception, prolonging life in hospital by artificially means (tubes that control breathing etc.) are all unnatural.

What I am saying is, this world is one filled with suffering and pain. As selfish creatures who strive for survival, we are naturally capable and driven to cause such suffering to others for our own gain. Morality is something that has developed within us that makes us think twice about acting on our selfish whims. So we control ourselves.

So we try not to rape and kill and hurt others. In most cultures, people have been taught to look at animals as something inferior (Ie/ according to Christianity and in ancient Greek understandings, animals do not have souls and were created for man to feast upon. These histories and civilisations are the basis for our contemporary western cultures and have influenced our views on animals). We humans have done this in so many cases- for example, racism, sexism etc. And so we treat that other race or species with less care.

Looking at a human being or another animal with equality is a choice, and one that generally emerges through education. Most vegetarians choose to acknowledge that most animals experience pain and suffering as humans do, and so we extend our moral consideration to those animals as well.

What is natural is not necessarily what is moral. If that were not the case, then we'd feel nothing wrong about hunting and eating our fellow man.

Some silly comparisons there. Do you honestly think a human can commit rape and cold blooded murder and not have something emotionally and psychologically wrong with them? But hunting prey for sustenance is a healthy, normal biological drive and function. And of course human culture isn't a gauge for something being natural or healthy, as human culture is often the exact opposite. I never suggested that it was. Neither did I suggest that something being unnatural was immoral.

 

[dust1n]

I'm pretty sure everything is natural. I mean... it is Nature, afterall.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm pretty sure everything is natural. I mean... it is Nature, afterall.

When I use "natural" in the argument, I'm referring to biology in particular.

 

[Father Heathen]

But anyway, I'm all for minimizing needless suffering and waste, and I don't criticize anyone for choosing to go vegan or vegetarianism. I can respect that. What I don't respect is the moralistic condemnation and condescension, especially when it's based solely on personal emotions. It reminds me of those religious prudes who see sexuality as being immoral and shameful despite the fact that it's actually something quite natural, normal and healthy.

 

[Sententia]

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?

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

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.

Is it wrong to hunt animals?
Is it wrong to eat them?

I would have to consider this. Its been a popular argument of mine to examine ones teeth and then consider what you should morally consume... the obvious rebuttal is as omnivores should it not be each other and if not then why not each other but rather cows and deer and why is that considered not each other?

We are all mammals.... I do consider you 2cd reason odd though... Why do you mention this?

You said you hunt with a gun or bow. No animal I know of besides humans has discovered a bow or a gun so not sure how its fair that you get to use one and they do not. If you waited in a tree naked and then jumped down on a deer and slayed it bare handed I would consider that more fair but I am not sure how using a gun or a bow at range is a fair chance for a deer? (Are the deer aware you are hunting them and also actively hunting you? Are they equipped in a similar manner?)

Granted I like deer meat. I like beef too. But I was conditioned to like these things... It may not be moral to be a meat eater and its a current consideration of mine. (It could be a conditional answer but if you base it on location, income level and nutritional needs and available nutrition I think you might be able to find a moral answer) Interesting question mate.

 

[dallas1125]

I would have to consider this. Its been a popular argument of mine to examine ones teeth and then consider what you should morally consume... the obvious rebuttal is as omnivores should it not be each other and if not then why not each other but rather cows and deer and why is that considered not each other?

We are all mammals.... I do consider you 2cd reason odd though... Why do you mention this?

You said you hunt with a gun or bow. No animal I know of besides humans has discovered a bow or a gun so not sure how its fair that you get to use one and they do not. If you waited in a tree naked and then jumped down on a deer and slayed it bare handed I would consider that more fair but I am not sure how using a gun or a bow at range is a fair chance for a deer? (Are the deer aware you are hunting them and also actively hunting you? Are they equipped in a similar manner?)

Granted I like deer meat. I like beef too. But I was conditioned to like these things... It may not be moral to be a meat eater and its a current consideration of mine. (It could be a conditional answer but if you base it on location, income level and nutritional needs and available nutrition I think you might be able to find a moral answer) Interesting question mate.

I see what you mean with the bow and the gun. Although this is arguable. We developed a large intelligence by evolution then used it to create a way for us to get the job done. So by using a gun or bow, your arguably using your naturally evolved abilities.

Deer and beef? Hmm, I was never really a fan of either. I really like turkey, and Elk. Venison was just to gamy for me. Plus the fact deer are incredibly stupid...they always forget to:run:

 

[Surya Deva]

I just want to ask a simple question to the OP: Do you absolutely need to hunt for animals or can you cope by eating fruit, nuts and veg? If the latter is the case, then why the need to hunt an animal and cause another living being pain and distress?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You said you hunt with a gun or bow. No animal I know of besides humans has discovered a bow or a gun so not sure how its fair that you get to use one and they do not. If you waited in a tree naked and then jumped down on a deer and slayed it bare handed I would consider that more fair but I am not sure how using a gun or a bow at range is a fair chance for a deer? (Are the deer aware you are hunting them and also actively hunting you? Are they equipped in a similar manner?)

Personally, I don't see how "fairness" increases the morality of hunting.

In fact, I think it might actually be the opposite. IMO, the more moral course of action is the one that minimizes suffering for the animal. In my mind, that probably means using the weapons or techniques that maximize the probability that the animal will die instantaneously on the first shot. If some desire for a "fair fight" also increases the likelihood that an animal will take a long time to die, or that a wounded animal will get away, then I think it's less moral.

Granted I like deer meat. I like beef too. But I was conditioned to like these things... It may not be moral to be a meat eater and its a current consideration of mine. (It could be a conditional answer but if you base it on location, income level and nutritional needs and available nutrition I think you might be able to find a moral answer) Interesting question mate.

I don't know why, but this twigged something in my brain: another issue to consider.

One of the main moral arguments against meat-eating generally is that raising of livestock can be very resource-intensive and environmentally harmful, but I think that hunted meat is exempt from most of these objections. Wild animals don't induce farmers to grow livestock feed instead of crops for humans, they don't cause destruction of rainforest for grazing land, and they aren't raised in "factory farm" conditions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just want to ask a simple question to the OP: Do you absolutely need to hunt for animals or can you cope by eating fruit, nuts and veg? If the latter is the case, then why the need to hunt an animal and cause another living being pain and distress?

Do you think that eating meat that was hunted causes more pain and distress than eating meat bought at a store?

 

[sniper762]

At least today we dont practice the condoned by god (biblical) sacrifice of animals on the altar.

 

[Surya Deva]

Do you think that eating meat that was hunted causes more pain and distress than eating meat bought at a store?

The same applies to meat bought from the store. It still involves the slaughter of an animal. Why is it needed?

 

[Dezzie]

The reasoning was to protect the human population from getting hurt.

True but this got me thinking... Most of you are saying "it's all part of the food chain"... blah, blah, blah... Why kill off an animal that deserves to survive when all it wants to do is eat? If we are part of the food chain, animals should have free range to eat and attack us if they want.

 

[sniper762]

i wonder why god condoned us killing animals in burnt offerings and cutting their throats on the altar?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True but this got me thinking... Most of you are saying "it's all part of the food chain"... blah, blah, blah...

I'm not.

I'm saying that population control, when done properly, can serve a valid purpose and have real ecological benefit, and that hunting can be part of this. That goal is achieved as soon as the animal is dead; whether the hunter gets benefit from the animal by eating it is completely secondary.

Why kill off an animal that deserves to survive when all it wants to do is eat? If we are part of the food chain, animals should have free range to eat and attack us if they want.

Often, it isn't a matter of choosing between survival and death. It's a choice between shooting the animal now or letting it starve slowly over the winter, or a choice between reducing the numbers of an overpopulated predator species now or having its prey population wiped out completely later.