Hunting? Immoral?

[outhouse]

I like to fish. I hardly ever eat the fish I catch, so I release them. I feel the same way about hunting. When my freezer gets low on venison, I may take another deer in season. There is a big difference between responsible animal management and participating in a blood thirsty sport.

If animal numbers where low, it would be unwise to hunt something to extinction. If animal numbers are high, it would be unwise not to reduce the herd. All animals are going to die, I support proper animal management that is compassionate.

As far as applying this to humans, I do not support taking extra measures to keep someone alive after a certain point in their life, especially if they where in pain.

I feel the same way about myself as I do my dog. If he where to get hit by a car and was in extreme pain, which would be better, to take a half hour ride to the vet and put him down or end it right then and there?

Same for me, if I am in pain, don't keep me alive for months just because you can not bear the thought of losing me. Put me down.

I don't support these farm factories activities. They are not respecting the animals in life or death. There is nothing wrong in harvesting animals or humans for that matter if it is done properly.

excellent reply

I think I feel much the same way.

 

[Father Heathen]

Mestemia's question is intriguing. What withholds us from preying on other humans? What qualities do humans have that other animals do not, that inhibit our harvesting them as we do other animals?

Sapience. However there are many people I would rather kill before I had to kill a dog.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Sapience. However there are many people I would rather kill before I had to kill a dog.

We agree.

 

[McBell]

Sapience.

Seems to me that it depends upon what exactly you mean by sapience.

If you mean the understanding that if you kill humans other humans will punish you for it, then I agree.

If you mean sapience in that it is not right to kill another human, I have to disagree.

However there are many people I would rather kill before I had to kill a dog.

I also have that list.

 

[Katzpur]

I also have that list.

As do I.

 

[Father Heathen]

Seems to me that it depends upon what exactly you mean by sapience.

If you mean the understanding that if you kill humans other humans will punish you for it, then I agree.

If you mean sapience in that it is not right to kill another human, I have to disagree.

I mean sapience as having sense of self, conscience and the ability of judgment and reason.

 

[McBell]

I mean sapience as having sense of self, conscience and the ability of judgment and reason.

I can agree with that.

 

[Valjean]

I mean sapience as having sense of self, conscience and the ability of judgment and reason.

That's a tautology, FH. You're just defining humans. We all agree humans are sapient.

Do you extend moral consideration to sapient non-humans? Do you withhold it from children, mentally challenged or senile people? Would it be OK for en extremely intelligent person to withhold it from those with average IQs?

I'm still not grasping why it's OK to exploit or abuse those whose mind works differently from a human's.

 

[Father Heathen]

All I can say is that if eating meat is evil, then I guess I'm evil.

 

[Penumbra]

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 view hunting as the least immoral type of killing and eating animals. It's much preferable to factory farms.

I still view it as immoral in most cases, though. (The cases of exception would be when someone lives in an area where they cannot physically and economically attain a healthy diet that doesn't involve animals, or if they come to a justified conclusion that the alternatives lead to more suffering than the hunting.)

Since most humans with reasonable economic means can have healthy diets that don't include animal bodies, the decision to inflict pain and suffering, or in the most ideal case, simply quick death, is due to desiring pleasure. If a person decides to inflict violence on a creature for the purpose of experiencing certain pleasures, I view that as immoral.

I think he meant that you cannot live off of just veggies, fruits, and nuts without supplements.

Without supplements? Maybe he meant it was not healthy to do it without supplements...

A vegetarian diet is completely viable without supplements.

A complete vegan typically requires supplements due to the cleanliness of their food (and therefore the lack of B12).

 

[Penumbra]

What I'm saying is that humans are natural omnivores and animals (of which we are) consuming one another is a natural part of the food chain. How can nature be immoral?

There are lots of things in nature that, at best, are sickeningly amoral. And those things, when performed by humans who are aware of the suffering they can cause, are often considered immoral (such as raping, or restricting the freedoms of others, or getting a bunch of men together to go kill everyone on a piece of land and claim it as their own, and so forth.)

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.

Hunting prey for sustenance is a healthy, normal biological drive and function. That much is true. But when sustenance is available and affordable without killing animals or inflicting suffering on them, then the killing and suffering is for the sake of attaining pleasure. It would then fall into the realm where reason is a more appropriate determination of morality than simply biological drives.

 

[Reverend Rick]

There are lots of things in nature that, at best, are sickeningly amoral. And those things, when performed by humans who are aware of the suffering they can cause, are often considered immoral (such as raping, or restricting the freedoms of others, or getting a bunch of men together to go kill everyone on a piece of land and claim it as their own, and so forth.)


Hunting prey for sustenance is a healthy, normal biological drive and function. That much is true. But when sustenance is available and affordable without killing animals or inflicting suffering on them, then the killing and suffering is for the sake of attaining pleasure. It would then fall into the realm where reason is a more appropriate determination of morality than simply biological drives.

You forgot one important function of hunting. To keep a herd healthy.

Lets say a family of deer on an island are living an ideal life and the island has habitat for 100 deer. If the herd increased to 150 or two hundred, all the deer would suffer a slow death of starvation.

In this instance harvesting half of the herd would be more humane even if the blood thirsty hunters enjoyed the kill.

 

[dallas1125]

You forgot one important function of hunting. To keep a herd healthy.

Lets say a family of deer on an island are living an ideal life and the island has habitat for 100 deer. If the herd increased to 150 or two hundred, all the deer would suffer a slow death of starvation.

In this instance harvesting half of the herd would be more humane even if the blood thirsty hunters enjoyed the kill.

Kaibab Plateua?

 

[Father Heathen]

Let's say an animal is already slain and slaughtered. Would it be more immoral to consume its flesh or to allow its flesh to go to complete waste?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

All I can say is that if eating meat is evil, then I guess I'm evil.

What about factory farming and fishing?

Is it ok to engage in behavior for personal pleasure that is clearly destroying our planet. Is it ok to eat shrimp that has been netted at the expense of many life forms that are going extinct because of it. Should we sit down and enjoy seafood that in 50 years the oceans will be striped of life to the point all commercial fishing will end because all the game fish will be gone in such numbers that there will be no more fishing.

Is it ok that 1/3 of the useable land is used for production of meat. People are starving, forests are burnt, and the planet is warming. Can you see the problem? Is this worth the price of a cheap Hot dog.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Let's say an animal is already slain and slaughtered. Would it be more immoral to consume its flesh or to allow its flesh to go to complete waste?

I see no reason that I should eat it.

The Buddhists of old said it is ok for monks to eat it as long as it was not killed for them.

I am unwilling to call people who eat meat evil. Giving it up is my little thing I do to be kind to others.

 

[Mathematician]

Avoid distorted and unneccesary inflictions of pain to the best degree possible.

Hunting for sustenance is far better than what occurs behind the scenes of most food production plants, as indicated above. Seems little different than the thrill and appreciation one gets when driving a manual. You feel less removed from the process.

I don't know if consumption of meat is ethically sound or night - despite my affection for turkey, sushi, and shell fish I can't surmount much of a defense - but it'll probably stay like other pleasurable activities such as drinking that really no longer are completely necessary per se.

 

[Penumbra]

You forgot one important function of hunting. To keep a herd healthy.

Lets say a family of deer on an island are living an ideal life and the island has habitat for 100 deer. If the herd increased to 150 or two hundred, all the deer would suffer a slow death of starvation.

If the hunter was doing the hunting specifically to reduce total suffering, then one could put forth a logical argument that he is moral.

Who's to say that it's the most optimal solution, though? Providing an artificial solution to the problem each year seems as though it would get in the way of nature finding an equilibrium.

In this instance harvesting half of the herd would be more humane even if the blood thirsty hunters enjoyed the kill.

This argument was fairly sound until this point. If a person does something for immoral reasons, but it turns out that some good came from it, then it doesn't vindicate them or make them moral.

Let's say an animal is already slain and slaughtered. Would it be more immoral to consume its flesh or to allow its flesh to go to complete waste?

It depends on the reason for its slaughter.

If someone slaughtered it, and another person helps them consume it, then they are promoting the killing of the animal and giving them reason to do it again.

As a teenager, my father would offer me meat to try to get me to eat it. "Look Lyn, it's already here. It's already dead and on the table." If I were to regularly eat it in that situation, then he would be justified in continuing to purchase the meat and therefore assist in factory farming. If, on the other hand, I decided to not eat it, then he would quickly realize that if he keeps purchasing that amount of meat, he's going to waste it. So eventually less meat is purchased.

 

[Valjean]

The most overpopulated animal is, arguably, us.
Is it OK to cull our herd? Would it be wrong to let the culled individuals go to waste?

 

[dallas1125]

The most overpopulated animal is, arguably, us.

Without a doubt.

Is it OK to cull our herd? Would it be wrong to let the culled individuals go to waste?

Usualy the predators dont eat their own species. Problem is that we have no predator.

Time for an alien invasion?:icon_twis

Im personaly happy that im at the top of the food chain...