Is hunting moral?

[Nearly Sane]

Primer on the ethics of hunting.


https://theconversation.com/is-hunting-moral-a-philosopher-unpacks-the-question-68645

[Anchorman]

 Hunting's bothered me for a while. It's all very well having a go at the red jacketed fox assassins - but isn't coarse fishing just as brutal (especially if the perch you've just thrown back in has the scars of umpteen previous hooks in its jaw? It's something that's hard to reconcile at times. Of course, living with a farm twenty yards from my front door, I recognise the need to control vermin by whatever means possible - if that means terriers and a shotgun, then that is what has to be. But the killing of another living creature for sport, rather than the pot, is offensive, as far as I'm concerned. Add to that the fact that many of our country areas are actually wildlife deserts, engineered for grouse and pheasant moors, and that, in Scotland, red deer are at virtual plague proportions to keep the guns of the stalkers happy, and the whole ethical argument has to be put in the mix.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed, Anchorman, I think we often concentrate on the easy targets rather than the ethical grey areas. As in previous conversations I worry though about the whole idea of 'humane' treatment of animals since it revolves around an anthropocentric that can be easily changed to justifications for what might be seen as extreme treatment to others. All we have to do is grade some humans as inferior, just as we effectively grade other animals as inferior to allow us to 'control' their population

[Anchorman]

Sometimes the argument degenerates into one of class, rather than of moral, ethical or environmental concern. A friend of mine will accept road kills (if they are in a reasonablle state); pheasant, grouse, deer, etc, and use them for the pot - and as a sideline, he tans the hides and uses them......and, yes, he lives some distance from his neighbours - thankfully, since he uses 'traditional' tanning methods. Being a geek, he records the amount of kills in the five mile stretch which covers parts of two nieghbouring estates. The amount of red deer kills is telling. In 1995, he had three. By 2000 he had five. By 2010, eleven. By last August (just befor the rutting season, when the hormones kick in and the deer kills on the roads go up) he'd had fourteen. Now, I somehow doubt that red deer stupidity is on the increase. On the other hand, sightings of mature hinds in gardens in my town - sometimes half a mile from the fields, and two miles from the deer estate - have increased. Yes, I know this is unscientific, but it suggests a population rise and a consequent lack of grazing, making deer desperate for food. This is not good for the health of the species as a whole; and usually, only the 'fit' looking 'monarch of the glen' type stags are stalked and shot - meaning inferior stags are left to rut and further weaken the herd. Manmade interference with natural population for simple sport is nothing short of environmental disaster (even if my friend has a surplus of venison and quality hides to boot)

[Shaker]

Of course it isn't.

[Outrider]

Of course it isn't.

I'm more of a 'It depends' man, myself. Actions are neither inherently moral nor immoral, it's motivation that counts. If you hunt for food and raw materials, that's fine. If you hunt for personal amusement, I find that difficult to justify.

O.

[Walter]

I'm more of a 'It depends' man, myself. Actions are neither inherently moral nor immoral, it's motivation that counts. If you hunt for food and raw materials, that's fine. If you hunt for personal amusement, I find that difficult to justify.

O.

exactly right , end of thread .

[Shaker]

I'm more of a 'It depends' man, myself. Actions are neither inherently moral nor immoral, it's motivation that counts. If you hunt for food and raw materials, that's fine. If you hunt for personal amusement, I find that difficult to justify.

O.

But who - certainly in the developed world; obviously there are exceptions elsewhere on the planet - hunts to survive, as a matter of pressing physical necessity?

I don't agree that actions are inherently neutral and are only made moral or otherwise by motivation. It's an extreme example, and hard cases make bad law, but sexual activity between an adult and a minor (say) can never be anything other than immoral even if or when - as is common, I gather - the adult regards it as an expression of love.

[wigginhall]

I actually gave up fishing, not really out of a moral debate with myself, but because it upset me to keep taking hooks out of fish's mouths, and sometimes failing, and having to thrown them back with the hook in.    But I suppose being upset is connected with morals.

Deer are definitely spreading, now we see them running across farmland miles from classic deer territory.   And of course, Muntjacs are all over the place, I usually think it's a big dog, and then realize what it is. 

[Outrider]

But who - certainly in the developed world; obviously there are exceptions elsewhere on the planet - hunts to survive, as a matter of pressing physical necessity?

Absolutely true, but life is complex, and standalone statements wander off to other places in the world and become problematic. In a given context (i.e. the UK) that stands, but as a worldwide principle it doesn't, and there's always going to be someone that comes along with 'but what if you're starving?'

I don't agree that actions are inherently neutral and are only made moral or otherwise by motivation. It's an extreme example, and hard cases make bad law, but sexual activity between an adult and a minor (say) can never be anything other than immoral even if or when - as is common, I gather - the adult regards it as an expression of love.

Ethics is complex - in general it's motivation that counts, but I grant that this situation has its subtleties. Sex, here, isn't itself the problem, it's the impossibility of informed consent; arguably, the moral contravention is the willingness to ignore in search of personal gratification. Otherwise two minors engaging in sexual activity would both be perpetrating a moral wrong, and I'm not sure that's the case.

O.

[SusanDoris]

In a country which has been managed for a thousand years, if not more, there cannot be a situation where hunting of some sort does not happen, otherwise we could not live the lives we do. It is not possible - and I for one certainly would object strongly - for dear little and not so little, and more likely to harm us, native creatures to wander around freely and live as they did originally to survive. I read recently a very interesting book about badgers, giving all aspects of the problem. Okay, they were here first, but whatever the right answer is, it is human management that has to sort things out.

[Nearly Sane]

In a country which has been managed for a thousand years, if not more, there cannot be a situation where hunting of some sort does not happen, otherwise we could not live the lives we do. It is not possible - and I for one certainly would object strongly - for dear little and not so little, and more likely to harm us, native creatures to wander around freely and live as they did originally to survive. I read recently a very interesting book about badgers, giving all aspects of the problem. Okay, they were here first, but whatever the right answer is, it is human management that has to sort things out.

What is the condition being 'sorted out'?

[SusanDoris]

What is the condition being 'sorted out'?

I was thinking in terms of managing the numbers of various species, introduction, and corresponding necessary management of animals such as beavers and wolves. As far as the latter are concerned, I would support anyone who is against such a re-introduction, as no introduced species, as far as I know, has ever been totallycontained and managed in a particular area.

[Nearly Sane]

I was thinking in terms of managing the numbers of various species, introduction, and corresponding necessary management of animals such as beavers and wolves. As far as the latter are concerned, I would support anyone who is against such a re-introduction, as no introduced species, as far as I know, has ever been totallycontained and managed in a particular area.

So managing species and what should happen is judged by what standards?

[Anchorman]

Beavers have now been declared officially re-introduced in Scotland - as have sea eagles, red kites, etc. Sea eagles have been found on grousemoors - poissoned with the bait in their stomachs....the bait meant for the foxes which ruin the 'crop' of the shooters. Where did yoou get the idea that the land has been managed for a thousand years for hunting, though? Nearly all the grouse moors and pheasant estates were late nineteenth and early twentieth century creations - the previously introduced sheep which replaced the displaced population being themselves uneconomic and found to be destroying the heather moorland? Many of these great estates are set in land which once supported communities and small farms which no longer exist, having been removed by the landowner to create the artificial desert of shooting estates.

[SusanDoris]

So managing species and what should happen is judged by what standards?

It is impossible to set 'standards', as things have never stayed the same long  enough for anyone to say that such and such a standard is the only one. Knowledge is never one set of facts; and civilisation, technology, new understandings are always changing. It has always been trial and error really.

[Nearly Sane]

It is impossible to set 'standards', as things have never stayed the same long  enough for anyone to say that such and such a standard is the only one. Knowledge is never one set of facts; and civilisation, technology, new understandings are always changing. It has always been trial and error really.

in which case how do you judge success or failure? 

[SusanDoris]

in which case how do you judge success or failure?

I have just finished listening to 'While Flocks Last' by Charlie Elder (I think it is the second time I've heard it).   Success in terms, for instance,  of 'red line' birds in Britain, wil be judged when numbers are up to a level where emergency measures can be relaxed a little.

[Nearly Sane]

I have just finished listening to 'While Flocks Last' by Charlie Elder (I think it is the second time I've heard it).   Success in terms, for instance,  of 'red line' birds in Britain, wil be judged when numbers are up to a level where emergency measures can be relaxed a little.

But then that's saying that there is a standard to be aimed for which is that we should prevent further extinctions and ignore previous ones. That doesn't seem to me to tie in with any consistent approach over the last thousand years. I get that there is always an issue of unintended consequences but to get to the stage that they can be judged unintended, we need to have a discussion about what we are trying to achieve.

[SusanDoris]

But then that's saying that there is a standard to be aimed for which is that we should prevent further extinctions and ignore previous ones. That doesn't seem to me to tie in with any consistent approach over the last thousand years. I get that there is always an issue of unintended consequences but to get to the stage that they can be judged unintended, we need to have a discussion about what we are trying to achieve.

It can never be judged as a success and thinking, okay, that's that, that problem is dealt with.  People are gettting better at realising we can't stop everything from becoming extinct, we can only do the best possible at the time, and fortunately there are enough dedicated and knowledgeable people to campaign for that.

[Nearly Sane]

It can never be judged as a success and thinking, okay, that's that, that problem is dealt with.  People are gettting better at realising we can't stop everything from becoming extinct, we can only do the best possible at the time, and fortunately there are enough dedicated and knowledgeable people to campaign for that.

Who is suggesting 'that's the problem dealt with'? Why the strawman?

What does the best possible at the time mean?

[Anchorman]

As far as reintroducing species to an area in which they were driven to extinction goes, I cite the beaver in Knapdale, sea eagle in Mull and the north west of Scotland, the return of the osprey, the great success of the red kite, and surrupticious reintroduction of wild boar into extensive woodland as examples of species which have recolonised the land. As far as I know, the great Bustard is reasonably succesful in England. The next goal, and one I support, would be reintroducing the european lynx. This may well prove effective in harrying forest deer and aiding regeneration of native woodland.

[Hope]

I suppose it depends on what you refer to as 'hunting'.  If one is living 'off the land' it can be a vital means of getting food - be that meat or otherwise.

However, the 'blood-sport' that goes by the same name is a bit of a dichotomy.  Traditionally, it was a means of keeping the larder full, and also getting rid of those animals that might kill the young deer or boar, etc. that would have been hunted.  The fact that a number of hunts involve more than just the wealthy classes reminds us that hunts were often cross-class activities.

Whilst not happy with the way that dogs are allowed to worry and massacre the fox, I also have concerns over the poor record of specialist gunmen who are employed to kill the foxes instead.