Is it Morally Wrong to Hunt and Kill an Elephant for Sport?

[keith99]

Fine with me as long as axe, sword and spear are all that are used.

Oh and equal numbers and rogue male elephants only.

 

[Bradskii]

Fine with me as long as axe, sword and spear are all that are used.

Oh and equal numbers and rogue male elephants only.

Put that NRA guy in an arena with a spear and an angry elephant and I'd pay good money to watch that.

 

[Estrid]

This question is brought on by this story on NPR (includes graphic video):
Video Leaks Of NRA's Wayne LaPierre Missing His Mark On Elephant Hunt

Given that we know that elephants are incredibly social, intelligent, and emotional animals which even mourn the death of fellow elephants, is it okay to kill them for sport?

EDIT: I did a very confusing job with the naming of the thread and poll question. Sorry. I have great shame.

First question being, is ever OK to kill an elephant?

I'd say, "seldom" but sure, there must be circumstances
that make it necessary.

Given that an elephant must be killed, is it of
any great moment just what was the attitude of
the person who kills it, provided it is done with
the least pain and fear for the animal.

Also-
One could pay a government agent to kill
the animal.

Or, one could let some fat loathsome Dallas
Oilman pay $100,000 to shoot it.
The money goes to feed the poor, or maybe goes
to elephant conservation.
Which is more ethical?

I think the "sportsman's" attitude and personal
ethics are entirely immaterial.

 

[Bradskii]

First question being, is ever OK to kill an elephant?

I'd say, "seldom" but sure, there must be circumstances
that make it necessary.

Given that an elephant must be killed, is it of
any great moment just what was the attitude of
the person who kills it, provided it is done with
the least pain and fear for the animal.

Also-
One could pay a government agent to kill
the animal.

Or, one could let some fat loathsome Dallas
Oilman pay $100,000 to shoot it.
The money goes to feed the poor, or maybe goes
to elephant conservation.
Which is more ethical?

I think the "sportsman's" attitude and personal
ethics are entirely immaterial.

I think the problem is the lack of respect shown in this instance.

 

[Estrid]

I think the problem is the lack of respect shown in this instance.

Is lack of respect immoral?

 

[Bradskii]

Is lack of respect immoral?

It's a failing. Whether it's immoral..? I'm not sure. Maybe consider these two options:

A: You need to show it some respect.
B: I don't think it deserves it. It's only an elephant.

A: You need to show it some respect.
B: I don't care if it deserves it. I'm going to shoot it anyway.

I think the first is a failing - a lack of empathy perhaps. The second is immoral.

 

[apogee]

OK for a start I'd suggest losing the phrase 'morally' wrong because it doesn't add anything, and I'd suggest swapping the word sport for recreational purposes, because that's what this is.

Is it wrong to hunt and kill an elephant for recreational purposes?

Killing sounds a bit extreme and implies a degree of success that might not occur and elephants are quite specific to a class of hunters that have access to far more resources than most...so rather than being overly extreme and asking...

Is it wrong to hunt and kill an elephant for recreational purposes?

lets go with...

Is it wrong to terrify another creature for recreational purposes?
Is it wrong to disrupt the peace of another creature for recreational purposes?
Is it wrong to traumatise another creature for recreational purposes?
Is it wrong to inflict pain / distress on another creature for recreational purposes?
Is it wrong to injure another creature for recreational purposes?
Is it wrong to maim another creature for recreational purposes?


I think that some might say that none of the above is 'wrong', but I don't think that there are many that would say that any of it, is 'right'.

So then the question then would be, is it necessary? and if the answer is, "no it isn't" then my question would be "then why do it"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Put that NRA guy in an arena with a spear and an angry elephant and I'd pay good money to watch that.

Only if the elephant then gets to keep a part of the NRA guy as a trophy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dlamberth]

Is lack of respect immoral?

YES!!!

 

[Ray Glenn]

Sarcasm

it is only morally and ethical when it is an Alabama Fan.

 

[Estrid]

OK for a start I'd suggest losing the phrase 'morally' wrong because it doesn't add anything, and I'd suggest swapping the word sport for recreational purposes, because that's what this is.

Is it wrong to hunt and kill an elephant for recreational purposes?

Killing sounds a bit extreme and implies a degree of success that might not occur and elephants are quite specific to a class of hunters that have access to far more resources than most...so rather than being overly extreme and asking...

Is it wrong to hunt and kill an elephant for recreational purposes?

lets go with...

Is it wrong to terrify another creature for recreational purposes?
Is it wrong to disrupt the peace of another creature for recreational purposes?
Is it wrong to traumatise another creature for recreational purposes?
Is it wrong to inflict pain / distress on another creature for recreational purposes?
Is it wrong to injure another creature for recreational purposes?
Is it wrong to maim another creature for recreational purposes?


I think that some might say that none of the above is 'wrong', but I don't think that there are many that would say that any of it, is 'right'.

So then the question then would be, is it necessary? and if the answer is, "no it isn't" then my question would be "then why do it"?

Oz, they say is currently having a plague of
(European) mice.
Cane toads and housecats are another plague
with extinction of a great many native species
a coming reality.

If someone is entertained by killing such creatures
he is a sinner, if he feeds them he is approved by
PITA, if govt agents kill them by most humane ways
tax money can buy, they are moral.

 

[Tanj]

Oz, they say is currently having a plague of
(European) mice.
Cane toads and housecats are another plague
with extinction of a great many native species
a coming reality.

If someone is entertained by killing such creatures
he is a sinner, if he feeds them he is approved by
PITA, if govt agents kill them by most humane ways
tax money can buy, they are moral.

We're just saying it, are we?

https://twitter.com/cameronwilson/status/1403508180810833921

 

[EmethAlethia]

We were originally put on this planet to have a relationship with God, and "tend" the garden. After the flood, with some exceptions, all animals were given to us for "food". First question, even if the elephant was hunted for "sport", was the elephant used to feed the people? If so, no question that from a biblical standpoint, all the ducks are in a row.

From an endangered species perspective, what are the odds of chickens and cows becoming an endangered species? Answer, can't happen. Why? We use them as a major food source. If there were cultures that raised elephants "for food" the elephants would be thriving in those areas.

"Whatever is not from faith is sin." That said, are there any commands in scripture that preclude the killing of animals for any reason at all? There are commands to kill any animal that has tasted the blood of men/killed men. But where there is no command we can either assume God had no formal stand on the issue, or we can create something and teach as doctrines the precepts of men.

But there's the rub. Have you gathered all of the passages where the word animal(s) are used? Have you studied it through? If feelings are more important than truth, go with those. Otherwise, why not do a study and alter your beliefs to fit the truth?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

We were originally put on this planet to have a relationship with God, and "tend" the garden. After the flood, with some exceptions, all animals were given to us for "food". First question, even if the elephant was hunted for "sport", was the elephant used to feed the people? If so, no question that from a biblical standpoint, all the ducks are in a row.

From an endangered species perspective, what are the odds of chickens and cows becoming an endangered species? Answer, can't happen. Why? We use them as a major food source. If there were cultures that raised elephants "for food" the elephants would be thriving in those areas.

"Whatever is not from faith is sin." That said, are there any commands in scripture that preclude the killing of animals for any reason at all? There are commands to kill any animal that has tasted the blood of men/killed men. But where there is no command we can either assume God had no formal stand on the issue, or we can create something and teach as doctrines the precepts of men.

But there's the rub. Have you gathered all of the passages where the word animal(s) are used? Have you studied it through? If feelings are more important than truth, go with those. Otherwise, why not do a study and alter your beliefs to fit the truth?

You typed a lot of things and somehow managed to avoid an answer to the actual question.

I want to ask you, is there something wrong with getting your jollies from killing intelligent creatures for the sake of killing? That's it. Rather than food, or materials, if someone's reason for killing an elephant is that they find joy in taking its life, is there not something morally amiss with this person?

Watch the video. These are wealthy folks. They aren't there because they require nourishment. The glee they seem to experience from the act of killing an elephant is unsettling at the very least.

 

[EmethAlethia]

Y

I want to ask you, is there something wrong with getting your jollies from killing intelligent creatures for the sake of killing? That's it. Rather than food, or materials, if someone's reason for killing an elephant is that they find joy in taking its life, is there not something morally amiss with this person?

Watch the video. These are wealthy folks. They aren't there because they require nourishment. The glee they seem to experience from the act of killing an elephant is unsettling at the very least.

You use the words "morally wrong". Who defines what is right and wrong. What passage(s) do you use to take your "Moral" stand? If you have no passages that state, it is wrong to kill an animal "unless" ... then we can take a "moral stand" on something. Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men or nullifying the word of God to hold fast to what we want to believe, or distorting it to our own destruction even though we can twist it to make it seem to support our views is, according to scripture "morally wrong".

Where God is silent, taking a dogmatic stand elevates your feelings and beliefs to the point of doctrine. Whatever is not from faith is sin. So it is obviously sin for you.

Is it morally wrong to kill rats and mice, even for sport? Is it morally wrong to kill birds that make a mess on your porch? If we aren't going to use scripture, do we turn to you for our doctrines and beliefs?

All it takes is one passage that tells us when we shouldn't kill animals and wee can make a moral stand on that point. Until that happens, at best, we can state, for me it would be morally wrong, because I do not have the faith that says it is acceptable even though God doesn't make those restrictions.

Just so you are aware, when I was young a friends dad went on an expedition. He was allowed to shoot an elephant. He was not allowed to keep any portion of it. The tribes in the area feasted for a week, the hide was tanned ... even the bones were used for the tribes. Yes, the tribes also made money for the permits to do the hunt. Yes the elephant to be killed was marked out because of his/her age. Did he kill the elephant for sport? Yes. Did he pay a lot of money that was used for bringing in doctors and dentists and medical supplies? Yes. Morally wrong?

1Co 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 7 For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? ...

Is it morally wrong to go beyond what is written and take a stand where God does not, and be dogmatic about it? Yes. It is a direct violation of a command written in scripture.

Mat 15:8 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 9 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"

So would you teach that hunting anything not specifically mentioned as a sin in scripture, for sport is sin for those who do it? Like I say, I get your "feelings". Seeming right doesn't make it so. Seeming wrong doesn't make it so. We have the word of God to tell us the opinions of God. Filling in for Him because we believe Hi silence is an oversight is to elevate ourselves to the position of equality with God. Personally, I, for "moral" reasons, really try to avoid that.

 

[Bradskii]

You use the words "morally wrong". Who defines what is right and wrong. What passage(s) do you use to take your "Moral" stand? If you have no passages that state, it is wrong to kill an animal "unless" ... then we can take a "moral stand" on something. Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men or nullifying the word of God to hold fast to what we want to believe, or distorting it to our own destruction even though we can twist it to make it seem to support our views is, according to scripture "morally wrong".

Where God is silent, taking a dogmatic stand elevates your feelings and beliefs to the point of doctrine. Whatever is not from faith is sin. So it is obviously sin for you.

Is it morally wrong to kill rats and mice, even for sport? Is it morally wrong to kill birds that make a mess on your porch? If we aren't going to use scripture, do we turn to you for our doctrines and beliefs?

All it takes is one passage that tells us when we shouldn't kill animals and wee can make a moral stand on that point. Until that happens, at best, we can state, for me it would be morally wrong, because I do not have the faith that says it is acceptable even though God doesn't make those restrictions.

Just so you are aware, when I was young a friends dad went on an expedition. He was allowed to shoot an elephant. He was not allowed to keep any portion of it. The tribes in the area feasted for a week, the hide was tanned ... even the bones were used for the tribes. Yes, the tribes also made money for the permits to do the hunt. Yes the elephant to be killed was marked out because of his/her age. Did he kill the elephant for sport? Yes. Did he pay a lot of money that was used for bringing in doctors and dentists and medical supplies? Yes. Morally wrong?

1Co 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 7 For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? ...

Is it morally wrong to go beyond what is written and take a stand where God does not, and be dogmatic about it? Yes. It is a direct violation of a command written in scripture.

Mat 15:8 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 9 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"

So would you teach that hunting anything not specifically mentioned as a sin in scripture, for sport is sin for those who do it? Like I say, I get your "feelings". Seeming right doesn't make it so. Seeming wrong doesn't make it so. We have the word of God to tell us the opinions of God. Filling in for Him because we believe Hi silence is an oversight is to elevate ourselves to the position of equality with God. Personally, I, for "moral" reasons, really try to avoid that.

So...unless 'it is written', how do you personally determine if something is morally objectionable?

 

[EmethAlethia]

So...unless 'it is written', how do you personally determine if something is morally objectionable?

You make up whatever you want. Call that "Morality" and create your own morality from your feelings. Of course everyone else can do that as well resulting in tons of clashing moralities with no foundation in fact. It's morally wrong to go bowling, for example. It's morally wrong for you not to buy me dinner, sounds like a good one. Make it up as you go... or we can stick to the word of God and trust that He knew what is moral, what is not, and what really doesn't make a hill of beans difference from an eternal perspective. If you can't trust God then I guess the only one you can trust is yourself.

 

[Hazelelponi]

This question is brought on by this story on NPR (includes graphic video):
Video Leaks Of NRA's Wayne LaPierre Missing His Mark On Elephant Hunt

Given that we know that elephants are incredibly social, intelligent, and emotional animals which even mourn the death of fellow elephants, is it okay to kill them for sport?

EDIT: I did a very confusing job with the naming of the thread and poll question. Sorry. I have great shame.

I don't think it's okay to kill anything "for sport".

Generally modern hunting acts as population management in animal populations that have few natural predators in their areas of habitat (often chased away/killed off by human populations), as well as food for the hunter and his family.

if either of those two things aren't occurring, hunting is unjust - imho.

I never let my boys kill anything they didn't eat, and I never let them kill an at risk population.

I don't know if people eat elephants to be honest (not my part of the world), but the visual the term "for sport" brings to mind isn't food for the hunter, and as such, I'd call it wrong.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Killing an elephant is not the same as killing a pig. Elephants are incredibly intelligent, social, and emotional animals that seem to be capable of grieving. It's like equating going fishing with killing dolphins. No, I'm afraid it's not the same.

Emotional animals? All animals are "emotional" animals yet have always been eaten as food. They have a social dynamic, even if you don't understand what that dynamic is.

I raised cows and they're nothing but great big dogs, including giving you "kisses" and running to meet you when they "miss" you or think you may have food or a treat. ..

Yet, we kill them for food regularly. Most animals have a social dynamic and are, as such, emotional animals.

 

[Bradskii]

You make up whatever you want. Call that "Morality" and create your own morality from your feelings. Of course everyone else can do that as well resulting in tons of clashing moralities with no foundation in fact. It's morally wrong to go bowling, for example. It's morally wrong for you not to buy me dinner, sounds like a good one. Make it up as you go... or we can stick to the word of God and trust that He knew what is moral, what is not, and what really doesn't make a hill of beans difference from an eternal perspective. If you can't trust God then I guess the only one you can trust is yourself.

But there are almost an infinite number of acts that you could do that might be considered right or wrong to some degree. And a very finite number of things that are actually scripturally covered. And for those there are different interpretations held by different people.

I'm assuming that each of those people make a personal decision as to whether their particular interpretation is correct. As they do on the multitude of every day scenarios that they encounter when they have to make a moral decision which isn't covered by scripture.

Do you do the same as they do? Do you feel that your interpretation is correct?