Is hunting moral?

[RDKirk]

I get that
-and-
that is why I don't post on deer forums

'Cause if they don't know, let's not tell them.

 

[keith99]

An animal who is penned should have a fighting chance too. The farmer (or whoever) should have to catch and kill it with their bare hands.

So we are all going to be eating a lot more chicken!

 

[RDKirk]

Hunting is moral so long as the hunt is fair. No guns should be allowed - they give the hunter an unfair advantage. The most that a hunter can ethically be armed with is a knife.

Knives went out of style for hunting...well, as far as we can tell, knives were never a primary weapon for hunting. Putting the blade on the end of a shaft came in pretty much the same thought as chipping out blades in the first place.

"Ethically?" That's absurd. Please give me your ethical argument. Be sure to state first the ethical system you're using--such as Utilitarian--so the validity of your argument can be logically determined.

 

[RDKirk]

So we are all going to be eating a lot more chicken!

My grandmother had the coolest technique. As a chicken walked past her, she'd suddenly reach down, grab it by the head, and then snap it like a bullwhip. The body would flip off in one direction...and then she'd drop the head to the ground.

 

[keith99]

Knives went out of style for hunting...well, as far as we can tell, knives were never a primary weapon for hunting. Putting the blade on the end of a shaft came in pretty much the same thought as chipping out blades in the first place.

"Ethically?" That's absurd. Please give me your ethical argument. Be sure to state first the ethical system you're using--such as Utilitarian--so the validity of your argument can be logically determined.

Some here seem to think minimal weapons make a hunt ethical.

The puppies are gone, but I still remember them.

If we go back 10 or 15 years and I for some reason needed to I could have gone hunting with nothing but a knife and the puppies and brought home a deer. (Look up Presa Canario).

If I needed to of course I'd consider such a hunt ethical. If I did it 'for sport' I would see it as extreme needless cruelty. But honestly not much different from being run down by wolves of a pack of feral dogs. By and large dying at the hand of a human is a fair bit better than by any other predator.

 

[smithed64]

I agree with one post here.
It's neither moral or immoral.

For something to be immoral, then you would have to have one moral agent doing something immoral against another moral agent.

Animals, don't have morals. They don't know the difference between right and wrong. They just exist. Whens the last time you seen a deer, protesting for it's moral right to survive?

God, gives us permission to hunt.

1And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2“The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. 3“Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

Do I agree with wasteful hunting? No. If you hunt, you hunt what you can eat and then go home. Was raised to keep what I kill and eat it all. Give thanks to God for that kill and for Him providing the animal. But never waste.

 

[Nithavela]

knowing the perfected praise of a baby sees me furious at abortion.
They might be crying on the outside, but on the inside they got their little bodies rocking and rolling.

wha?

 

[Nithavela]

we are killing babies
-and-
you are worried about hunting?

I'm not killing any babies.

In fact, I never killed my baby this entire week.

 

[Crusader05]

A firearm is unfair to the prey. Gives the hunter too much power and is therefore immoral. For the hunt to be ethical, the prey must have a reasonable chance of escape if not fighting back and as a result doing the hunter in.

Having gone hunting and went home empty handed I can tell you the animal have every advantage. We hunters are going into their home turf, their arena. They have every advantage of sense over humans. They also have the advantage of instinct, they know when something is up and will avoid any situation they think is a danger.

Even with a firearm the hunter has to account for wind, distance and other elements that can effect the bullet. Many hunters embrace the challenge of bow hunting or hunting with a muzzleloading rifle.

 

[Nithavela]

Having gone hunting and went home empty handed I can tell you the animal have every advantage. We hunters are going into their home turf, their arena. They have every advantage of sense over humans. They also have the advantage of instinct, they know when something is up and will avoid any situation they think is a danger.

Even with a firearm the hunter has to account for wind, distance and other elements that can effect the bullet. Many hunters embrace the challenge of bow hunting or hunting with a muzzleloading rifle.

Also, giving the animal a chance to escape after wounding them with a bow and arrow or spear or what have you (and damning it to a slow death by bleeding out or wound infection) can't be more moral than a clean kill.

Stuff isn't moral because it's more caveman style, what kind of moral system is that?

 

[angela4God]

An animal who is penned should have a fighting chance too. The farmer (or whoever) should have to catch and kill it with their bare hands.

Thank you, Kiterius, for your reply and sharing your outlook.

 

[Crusader05]

Also, giving the animal a chance to escape after wounding them with a bow and arrow or spear or what have you (and damning it to a slow death by bleeding out or wound infection) can't be more moral than a clean kill.

Stuff isn't moral because it's more caveman style, what kind of moral system is that?

Exactly, ethical hunters aim for a quick kill. You achieve a quick kill by aiming into the vital areas, this can be done with a bow and arrow as well as a rifle. Sometimes it might require an extra shot too.

 

[Kiterius]

Having gone hunting and went home empty handed I can tell you the animal have every advantage. We hunters are going into their home turf, their arena. They have every advantage of sense over humans. They also have the advantage of instinct, they know when something is up and will avoid any situation they think is a danger.

Even with a firearm the hunter has to account for wind, distance and other elements that can effect the bullet. Many hunters embrace the challenge of bow hunting or hunting with a muzzleloading rifle.

Too much power on the side of the hunter. For a hunt to be fair and ethical, the hunter and the prey must have an equal chance of dying as a result of the chase.

 

[RDKirk]

Too much power on the side of the hunter. For a hunt to be fair and ethical, the hunter and the prey must have an equal chance of dying as a result of the chase.

Your statements don't sound like those of a person who has actually hunted.

Moreover, as has been explained, "fair and ethical" don't even apply to activities between a moral agent and a non-moral agent.

If you think so, I'd like to see your ethical argument to support that statement. It's not valid merely because you're steadfast in your assertion.

 

[roamer_1]

Too much power on the side of the hunter. For a hunt to be fair and ethical, the hunter and the prey must have an equal chance of dying as a result of the chase.

NONSENSE. Hunting is FOOD. Putting you out in the sticks for a month or so would give you a vastly different perspective.

This same aegis is not placed upon the wolf, or the bear, or the cougar. - they all three are formidable hunters whose weapons offer a very distinct advantage.

It ain't fair. It ain't supposed to be fair.
Ethics in hunting is about being swift and sure - A merciful coup de gras - And using all of the animal... not being wasteful.

 

[RDKirk]

It ain't fair. It ain't supposed to be fair.
Ethics in hunting is about being swift and sure - A merciful coup de gras - And using all of the animal... not being wasteful.

From what does even that derive as "ethical?" I have an argument for it, but as I said before, merely asserting "Ethical! Not ethical!" is not a valid argument.

Which direction would, say, a Utilitarian argument go? If I were the chief of the hunting party for an ancient Aleut tribe, what would be the Utilitarian argument for insisting that we hunt polar bear and blue whale with knives? What would be the Epicurean (hedonist) argument? The Stoic argument? The deontological argument?

 

[Nithavela]

Exactly, ethical hunters aim for a quick kill. You achieve a quick kill by aiming into the vital areas, this can be done with a bow and arrow as well as a rifle. Sometimes it might require an extra shot too.

And every hunter slips up someday, so he should have a dog, or know someone who does, so that the animal can be tracked down.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

I'm always baffled by those who decry the hunting of animals and then in the same breath defend abortion. (Not referring to anyone here; just an observation.)

Do you know people like that in real life? Just wondering, because I know lots of people who are vegan and therefore opposed to hunting yet have never defended abortion in the same breath. I'm pro life, my pro life views simply extend beyond humans to all sentient beings.

 

[roamer_1]

From what does even that derive as "ethical?" I have an argument for it, but as I said before, merely asserting "Ethical! Not ethical!" is not a valid argument.

Which direction would, say, a Utilitarian argument go? If I were the chief of the hunting party for an ancient Aleut tribe, what would be the Utilitarian argument for insisting that we hunt polar bear and blue whale with knives? What would be the Epicurean (hedonist) argument? The Stoic argument? The deontological argument?

Well, to get technical, the 'ethics' of it are wholly couched within the Utilitarian form - from whence it comes. Obtaining food is as utilitarian as it gets, so one need not venture far into philosophy - We hunt with knives because we have nothing better... That would have been as true then as it is today. The moment there is a 'better' that thing will be employed, as a more efficient means to a very necessary end.

This isn't a matter of moral rectitude, except within the necessity, which remains barbaric, and always will (a part of it's undeniable attraction).

But within the necessity, 'one shot, one kill' becomes an ethical goal - Not only is it better for you (the waste of arrows made by hand is fairly obvious, as is the added danger of hunting what is now a wounded animal), but better for the prey (the clean kill, in and of itself)...

And likewise the economy of using every bit of the animal begins, no doubt in utility, but not always so (a buffalo jump comes to mind)... But that too ascends to an ethical position (waste not, want not.. leave the next generation... leave some for the next guy)

A moral sense comes out of all that.

 

[Nithavela]

From what does even that derive as "ethical?" I have an argument for it, but as I said before, merely asserting "Ethical! Not ethical!" is not a valid argument.

From an epicurean perspective, killing quickly has several advantages.

First, it lessens the suffering of the animal itself.
Second, we humans are emphatic creatures and identify with the suffering of another creature, killing it quickly lessens our suffering, too.
Third, an animal in high stress or pain releases stress hormones which make the meat tough and bitter.
And fourth, by not killing an animal quickly, you cause an increased chance of it either escaping (making the excercise pointless) or in the case of dangerous game and less advanced weaponry, attacking and wounding the hunters.