Killing for food and clothing is okay. So is killing for fun.

[Strawman]

I think that it is ethically justifiable to kill animals, not only for food and clothing, but also for fun and sport.

Many people think that hunting for trophies is bad, and the only way to justify hunting is if you do it for food. Actually, the opposite is closer to the truth.

Let's take the example of deer hunting. If you are hunting for food, then you will target young deer. The flesh of old deer does not taste as good. However, if you are hunting for a trophy, it is the older deer with bigger antlers that you will target. Which is worse, to cut down an adolescent deer before it has even had a chance to really contribute to the gene pool, or to kill an old, experienced buck who has fathered many other deer and has lived a long, full life?

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with turning the slain deer into meat. If you feel like doing all the work, and if you like venison, fine (I myself am not a fan of venison). But there is nothing intrinsically wrong with cutting off the head for a trophy and then leaving the rest of the carcass to just rot. Nothing ever goes to waste in nature. Does it really make the act more moral if the corpse is eaten by a human, versus a coyote or a buzzard?

Also, the killing of an old, experienced buck has moral value that cannot be found in the slaughter of adolescent deer for food. Generally, the hunter who seeks food just goes to a deer farm, or to some semi-populated farming type community where the deer are more familiar with humans, are less afraid of humans, and hence are easier to kill. Then he just puts out a salt lick and blows away the first deer that is young and stupid enough to come out in the open. The more serious hunter must go deeper into the woods. The old buck being hunted has survived in nature for so long for the very reason that he has learned to be wary of humans and other predators. His senses are sharp, and he will flee at the first sign of man. The territory you are hunting him on is probably more familiar to him than it is to you; over his many years of experience, he has learned all of the trails like the back of his hand. Because it takes more practice and effort, serious trophy hunting has more value than killing for food.

If the young adolescent bucks knew what you were up, then they would certainly appreciate it. They certainly will experience the beneficial effects: the old bucks with the big antlers are the alphas of the pack, and by getting them out of the way, the younger bucks will gain more access to the females.

Deer don't have a retirement plan. What is worse? To just get older and older, until you eventually break a leg and die a slow and miserable death of exposure? Or, to be suddenly cut down at your peak, after a long, full life, by an experienced and serious hunter who respects his prey?

Once again, I repeat, merely eating the corpse does not justify murder. Jeffery Dahmer ate some of his victims, but most people think that this makes his crimes even worse. It certainly does not justify them.

In conclusion. A lot of people want to debate the ethics of killing animals for food. I respect their position, even if I don't agree with it. It probably takes some real determination to practice this ethic in a society that is dominated by the consumption of meat. On the other hand, I do not respect the attitude of those who want to excuse killing for food, mainly because they like meat and want to continue eating it, but who then go on to say there is something wrong with killing for pleasure. Certain types of killing for pleasure, like trophy hunting, have greater moral value than simply killing for food.

[Jack]

Based on the examples you give I presume "killing for fun" doesn't include people who set cats on fire or purposefully run over dogs because they think it's sport?

[Peter]

Based on the examples you give I presume "killing for fun" doesn't include people who set cats on fire or purposefully run over dogs because they think it's sport?

Run over dogs? Never! Cats... meh, I love cats, I just can't eat a whole one.

[crimethinker]

In any modern society hunting for food is hunting for pleasure, because meat is more easily available in other ways, and even then costs more than vegetarian and vegan foods. When you eat meat you go deliberately out of your way, at cost to yourself, to do so, because you like the taste.

I also don't see what the difficulty of the kill has to do with the morality of the kill. The concept of "sport" I guess.

[Peter]

Also, the killing of an old, experienced buck has moral value that cannot be found in the slaughter of adolescent deer for food. Generally, the hunter who seeks food just goes to a deer farm, or to some semi-populated farming type community where the deer are more familiar with humans, are less afraid of humans, and hence are easier to kill. Then he just puts out a salt lick and blows away the first deer that is young and stupid enough to come out in the open. The more serious hunter must go deeper into the woods. The old buck being hunted has survived in nature for so long for the very reason that he has learned to be wary of humans and other predators. His senses are sharp, and he will flee at the first sign of man. The territory you are hunting him on is probably more familiar to him than it is to you; over his many years of experience, he has learned all of the trails like the back of his hand. Because it takes more practice and effort, serious trophy hunting has more value than killing for food.

Moral value? Really? Did you consider saying more challenging, more difficult, more rewarding or even more responsible? You don't debate in any of the morality threads here do you?

Your word choice just jumped out at me. Carry on.

edit - crimethinker is also wondering the same thing

[Strawman]

I do not mean to justify sadistic and senseless violence. All I mean to point out is there is nothing intrinsically wrong with killing for pleasure.

These things must be judged on a case by case basis; I doubt there is some general law of ethics that allows us to deductively judge the matter before hand. Each case must be judged individually. If there is general rule, it can only be arrived at inductively, after examining each example.

Some types of killing for pleasure cannot be justified; some can. Setting a cat on fire just for the hell of it is pretty bad. I wouldn't find this much fun, but some people would. These people have some kind of problem. They can not justify their act.

But the justifications of serious trophy-hunters make more sense. The hunter derives pleasure from killing, and I don't believe there is anything unwholesome or pathological in this pleasure. We're not talking about gratuitous and pointless violence.

I also do not have a problem with the ritualistic murder of animals for a public spectacle. Bullfighting seems alright to me. The key thing that justifies it is that the bull has a fighting chance. It may happen only rarely, the entire spectacle is arranged so that 99 times out of a 100 the bull will lose, but the bullfighter still takes some risk when he gets in the ring. It is not a risk I would take. There is an element of courage involved which justifies the killing.

But why restrict our examples to animals? I believe that the killing of humans can be justified, even if it is for nothing more than the fun and entertainment of a public spectacle. Automobile racing is what I am thinking of. You can't race cars without the occasional crash. At high velocities, it is virtually guaranteed that some of these crashes will be fatal. The crashes are one of the main reasons people watch these races. Automobile racing is, in fact, a death sport. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Now, racing was way more hardcore back in the day. Back before they developed all the safety measures, it truly was a death sport. They still recite a prayer at the Indianapolis 500 for the protection of the drivers. This prayer has less meaning in an age where the driver's safety is placed at such a high value; back in the day the deaths were much more frequent. The old cars just looked like death traps; to climb into one with a full consciousness of the danger involved, to risk your life for something as basically pointless as a race, that is an act with high moral value.

This confuses me:

Moral value? Really? Did you consider saying more challenging, more difficult, more rewarding or even more responsible? You don't debate in any of the morality threads here do you?

[barts]

Let's take the example of deer hunting. If you are hunting for food, then you will target young deer. The flesh of old deer does not taste as good. However, if you are hunting for a trophy, it is the older deer with bigger antlers that you will target. Which is worse, to cut down an adolescent deer before it has even had a chance to really contribute to the gene pool, or to kill an old, experienced buck who has fathered many other deer and has lived a long, full life?

...

The old buck being hunted has survived in nature for so long for the very reason that he has learned to be wary of humans and other predators. His senses are sharp, and he will flee at the first sign of man. The territory you are hunting him on is probably more familiar to him than it is to you; over his many years of experience, he has learned all of the trails like the back of his hand. Because it takes more practice and effort, serious trophy hunting has more value than killing for food.

From an ecological viewpoint, it's generally far less potentially damaging to kill young mammals (preferably babies) than older ones. The 'old buck' you speak of likely has a very desirable set of genes given its longevity that would serve future generations well. However, the sport hunter chooses to deprive the deer species and by extension the ecological system of those genes. Indeed, trophy hunters target the most genetically successful animals and diminish a species.

I fail to see how diminishing the viability of a species or an ecosystem for 'fun' can be considered 'good', which is what you seem to be suggesting.

[ruksak]

I also don't see what the difficulty of the kill has to do with the morality of the kill. The concept of "sport" I guess.

I can tell you as an avid hunter/fisherman, we get pretty pissed the hell off when we see men casting nets and illegally catching fish, also known as seining.



The morality is a tricky bit. As intelligent creatures that can manipulate our environment and devise tools, we have an advantage that a predatory animal would not. Being that we have to think about this in the context of "what if everyone did this". Morally speaking, we have the ability to wipe out entire species from the face of the Earth.

In any modern society hunting for food is hunting for pleasure, because meat is more easily available in other ways, and even then costs more than vegetarian and vegan foods. When you eat meat you go deliberately out of your way, at cost to yourself, to do so, because you like the taste.

Mostly agree. However I would say that many game fish/animals aren't widely available, or available at all, on the retail market. There is a cost factor as well. Myself and others I know save quite a bit on beef costs due to having a freezer full of venison. Although admittedly, I prefer beef for most meals.

[Strawman]

The 'old buck' you speak of likely has a very desirable set of genes given its longevity that would serve future generations well. However, the sport hunter chooses to deprive the deer species and by extension the ecological system those genes. Indeed, trophy hunters target the most genetically successful animals and diminish a species.

The serious trophy hunter does not deprive the ecosystem of these genes. The older a buck, the bigger the antlers. These big antlers make desirable trophies. The deer they come from have already made their contribution to the gene pool. The bigger the antlers, the bigger their contribution. The deer has to die sometime. Sooner or later, his genes have to be taken out of the ecosystem.

One of the things that makes an ecosystem strong is diversity. The old have to die and make way for the new; these new contributions will lead to new genetic combinations, i.e. more diversity. It is probably not good for an animal to live too long, his genes will dominate the system, and this leads to a lack of diversity. Serious trophy hunters maybe help the ecosystem they hunt from, and cause it to be just that much more heterogeneous and healthy.

I repeat, the animal has to die sometime. The cause of death doesn't matter all that much: cougar, wolf, car, a fall that causes an injury, it doesn't matter all that much from an ethical point of view. A death is a death. But a car does not distinguish between the old and the young, and a trophy hunter does. He only kills animals that have already made a significant contribution to the gene pool. And he has fun doing it. Good for him.

[ruksak]

The serious trophy hunter does not deprive the ecosystem of these genes. The older a buck, the bigger the antlers. These big antlers make desirable trophies. The deer they come from have already made their contribution to the gene pool. The bigger the antlers, the bigger their contribution. The deer has to die sometime. Sooner or later, his genes have to be taken out of the ecosystem.

One of the things that makes an ecosystem strong is diversity. The old have to die and make way for the new; these new contributions will lead to new genetic combinations, i.e. more diversity. It is probably not good for an animal to live too long, his genes will dominate the system, and this leads to a lack of diversity. Serious trophy hunters maybe help the ecosystem they hunt from, and cause it to be just that much more heterogeneous and healthy.

I repeat, the animal has to die sometime. The cause of death doesn't matter all that much: cougar, wolf, car, a fall that causes an injury, it doesn't matter all that much from an ethical point of view. A death is a death. But a car does not distinguish between the old and the young, and a trophy hunter does. He only kills animals that have already made a significant contribution to the gene pool. And he has fun doing it. Good for him.

Yep yep and yep. Most likely this 'ol buck is dominant and has already bred many times over. There is a reason why bonus doe stamps are issued as well. Also, once the buck gets too old, it won't be able to breed any more. Rut is an aggressive time for male deer, and the competition for a mate is fierce.

As an avid hunter, I do feel a sense of pity when a magnificent creature is felled. The idea that it has been removed from the Earth is kind of a bummer. But, it was going to die at the hands of predators, natural causes, a vehicle or many other means.

[barts]

The serious trophy hunter does not deprive the ecosystem of these genes.

If that were the case, the research wouldn't show that you were wrong. From the abstract for Human-induced evolution caused by unnatural selection through harvest of wild animals

Human harvest of phenotypically desirable animals from wild populations imposes selection that can reduce the frequencies of those desirable phenotypes. Hunting and fishing contrast with agricultural and aquacultural practices in which the most desirable animals are typically bred with the specific goal of increasing the frequency of desirable phenotypes. We consider the potential effects of harvest on the genetics and sustainability of wild populations. We also consider how harvesting could affect the mating system and thereby modify sexual selection in a way that might affect recruitment. Determining whether phenotypic changes in harvested populations are due to evolution, rather than phenotypic plasticity or environmental variation, has been problematic. Nevertheless, it is likely that some undesirable changes observed over time in exploited populations (e.g., reduced body size, earlier sexual maturity, reduced antler size, etc.) are due to selection against desirable phenotypes—a process we call “unnatural” selection. Evolution brought about by human harvest might greatly increase the time required for over-harvested populations to recover once harvest is curtailed because harvesting often creates strong selection differentials, whereas curtailing harvest will often result in less intense selection in the opposing direction. We strongly encourage those responsible for managing harvested wild populations to take into account possible selective effects of harvest management and to implement monitoring programs to detect exploitation-induced selection before it seriously impacts viability.

You can make many arguments to support trophy hunting, improving the species or ecosystem isn't one of them.

Just wondering, but of the trophy hunters how many are serious, and what do you mean by "serious"?

[crimethinker]

I can tell you as an avid hunter/fisherman, we get pretty pissed the hell off when we see men casting nets and illegally catching fish, also known as seining.

The morality is a tricky bit. As intelligent creatures that can manipulate our environment and devise tools, we have an advantage that a predatory animal would not. Being that we have to think about this in the context of "what if everyone did this". Morally speaking, we have the ability to wipe out entire species from the face of the Earth.

I respect the idea, but it doesn't fall under morality as I know it. More like an internal code of ethics.