From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: why hunting is unethical
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:28:37 GMT

nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:

>Some comments to the comments on my recent posts.  (I didn't bother to
>keep track of all the references.)

	So now I have to.  Oh, well.

>- - - - - (1) - - - - -
>|> 	Why should I [leave guns, etc at home]?  Contrary to your
>|> assumptions, the most enjoyable
>|> kill is a painless, immediate kill.  This is a pat-on-the-back sort of
>|> enoyment, similar to finally making that slam-dunk shot in basketball.
>|> Of course, the former takes a lot more time and effort.  I see no reason
>|> I need bow to your whims because some animal might not like my killing it.
>|> That's life on the low end of the food chain.  To suggest that I leave my
>|> bullets or arrows at home simply shows that, to you, hunting is only a
>|> kill, while to the hunter is is far, far more.

>If hunting is more than just a kill, then by definition if we subtract
>out the kill then there will still be something left.  I guess
>something about the fun of sneaking up on the animal, the smell of gun
>powder, feeling self-reliant, whatever.  Why can't you get all that
>with blanks, or better yet just a walk in the woods??  Presumably you
>agree; if not then we won't get much farther.

	It appears we won't get much farther.  The kill is a part of
the hunt, but it is not all that is hunting.  To shoot a blank does not
give the satisfaction of a clean kill, nor does it allow the stalking
of game to be much more than an exercise in walking about the woods.
I'd suggest removing the motor from your car and seeing if it still
resembles a quick lap around Sears Point racetrack.  You could make
sputtering noises with your lips to add realism.

>   my fundamental claim: it is unethical to kill sentient beings
>   just for the satisfaction of killing them

	Agreed.  We have other purposes and reasons.

> (2): To make it clear, we are
>now no longer talking about the smell of gunpowder or whatever; that
>was a few sentences ago.  So it does no good to say "But killing is
>only PART of my I enjoy hunting.")

	In short, you can't refute it and now wish that reason removed
from the discussion.  A reason based on a claim you made above.  I'll
not consider it premature to chalk that point up.

>So tell me why you disagree with this statement, and how this meshes
>with your belief that, say, humans shouldn't murder one another.

	I never said I don't believe humans shouldn't murder each other.
I admit wanton murder isn't something I like to see, but I do support
the death penalty, for example, and I also consider killing in self-defense
of person or even (on occassion) property to be perfectly fine.  There
are a great many things worth killing for.

>My ethics don't tolerate racial discrimination.  It seems that your
>argument re. hunting compels you to advise me to deal with racial
>discrimination by just not doing any discrimination myself.  In
>particular, I guess you'd urge me not to try to stop others from
>discriminating.

	A bit harsh, but correct in the main.  To clarify, we don't
want you to butt into somebody else's business and attempt to enforce
your morality.  It works both ways, no matter how many worthwhile
causes you can come up with.  For your discrimination example, I'll
simply note that it's illegal in certain areas to engage in premarital
sex, or sodomy, and did you know a photograph of an unclothed baby, say
your 2-month old daughter taking her first bath, is considered to be
child pornography in some areas?  Since it's nearly impossible to make
everbody agree on a distinct moral code, the best solution is to leave
others alone unless there is a sufficiently compelling reason to
intervene.  Chances are, my killing jackrabbits is not such a reason.

>Maybe this is hard for you to follow, but the fact that this sentence is
>of the form "doing X for fun is unethical" does not mean you can fill in
>anything you want for X. You've made this mistakes already, but even
>worse, you tried to cast it as my opinion.

	It does indeed mean this is this sentence is the basis of your
moral condemnation of an act.

>An outline of my rationale is given above.  To repeat the central
>claim: it in not ethical for one sentient being to kill another just
>for the entertainment of the first.  Hunters tell me they hunt for
>three reasons: for fun, for survival (they need the meat to avoid
>starvation), and for the animals sake (stop overpopulation, etc).  So
>to apply my principle to hunting, to the extent that hunters enjoy
>hunting because they enjoy killing, then they are unethical.

	Can you not see that these three reasons, among others, can
exist at the same time, and that enjoying it does not somehow
detract from these reasons?  You seem to think along the lines of,
"Hunting is 12% unethical because Joe seems to enjoy it some, but
it's 88% ethical because 75% of Joe's reason is food and 13% is
survival in this case."  It isn't like that.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals