hunting and politics

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The political scene may change in the UK and the hunting lobby are determined to overthrow legislation banning hunting by hounds. Is it morally correct to hunt for pleasure in the 21C and to permit by law. Can we, should we, legislate to stop any sports hunting? The US is far removed from our moral views on the subject but should the principle be debated?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,612 • Replies: 23

No top replies

@xris,

xris;102163 wrote:

The political scene may change in the UK and the hunting lobby are determined to overthrow legislation banning hunting by hounds. Is it morally correct to hunt for pleasure in the 21C and to permit by law. Can we, should we, legislate to stop any sports hunting? The US is far removed from our moral views on the subject but should the principle be debated?

Of course it should be debated. Oscar Wilde called hunting foxes, "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable". But if you read some of the novels of Anthony Trollope, you can understand why some people find fox-hunting so enjoyable. But that, of course, has nothing to do with the ethics of it.

0 Replies

@xris,

I agree it should be debated. It can be debated whether or not hunting is moral in the 21c, and it can be debate whether or not it should be permitted by law.

But, morals can't be mandated, they must be taught. Those who have a desire to kill solely for sport, will still have that desire whether it is illegal or not.

2 Replies

@chad3006,

chad3006;102170 wrote:

I agree it should be debated. It can be debated whether or not hunting is moral in the 21c, and it can be debate whether or not it should be permitted by law.

But, morals can't be mandated, they must be taught. Those who have a desire to kill solely for sport, will still have that desire whether it is illegal or not.

They may have that desire. But if it is illegal they won't do it.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;102171 wrote:

They may have that desire. But if it is illegal they won't do it.

Maybe, or maybe not. The desire may manifest itself in some other way. Or they may just hunt illegally.

A black bear was illegally shot in my county a few months ago and nothing was done about it. I know people who kill illegal game all the time. It is tolerated in my area. But you'd better not steal a chain saw!

1 Reply

@chad3006,

I think the majority of those who oppose hunting for sport feel their representation is not truly represented, nor is it debated enough by the media or by the religious establishment. It has become the Parana of the ethical debating society. Many vested interests are fearful of making their views heard. The hunting lobby it appears has many powerful friends and to speak up against it may jeopardize certain interests.

Morally i find it repugnant and indefensible by any standards, yet many seemingly moderate moral individuals support the act. Why anyone should find it exciting and not sickening, is beyond my comprehension.

1 Reply

@chad3006,

chad3006;102175 wrote:

Maybe, or maybe not. The desire may manifest itself in some other way. Or they may just hunt illegally.

A black bear was illegally shot in my county a few months ago and nothing was done about it. I know people who kill illegal game all the time. It is tolerated in my area. But you'd better not steal a chain saw!

People may desire to murder, but they don't because the costs of doing so are too great. If the desire manifests itself by becoming a butcher, that is perfectly all right. It depends on how the desire comes out. If they murder (illegally) then they are likely to be caught and punished.

0 Replies

@xris,

kennethamy;102181 wrote:

People may desire to murder, but they don't because the costs of doing so are too great. If the desire manifests itself by becoming a butcher, that is perfectly all right. It depends on how the desire comes out. If they murder (illegally) then they are likely to be caught and punished.

I guess you're right. I'll have to work on myself a little harder to accept other's solutions. I've always had trouble with that. It's always been my method to fight and inevitably loose and then once again gain hope through some mystic osmosis that one time I'll win the fight. I'm not talking about the debates here on PF, I'm talking about life. It's just that the debates here are microcosms of that life. This is someone else's world. This is the nuclear age and I've got a sharpened stick, what the hell do I expect? If I can just get that through my thick head I could finally sit with folded hands and look at the pretty flowers....here comes that hope again.

0 Replies

@xris,

I agree that hunting for sport is morally wrong, but I don't exactly see the grounds for making the activity illegal, at least not on private property. It seems to me that the law does not allow for the protection of the rights of animals, unless they reside on public grounds. But, it's a touchy issue indeed. When it comes down to it, I'd rather keep the government from meddling with private property rights than from banning all sport hunting, though neither option appeals to me.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

We make laws to protect domestic animals but for certain reasons put wild animals below the value of our cutey little mutts. I'm not saying what is possible in the present moral attitude of the general public but that it should be debated more often than it is. It is ignored or constantly brushed under the carpet. We should examine the mind of those who find pleasure in killing for its own sake. It lies within us all. this sickness, and it should be examined.

1 Reply

@xris,

And to think that many hunting elites have often killed hunting dogs when they are no longer of the strength expected of them. I think we should legislate if there is a danger involved - whether it be to an animal or a human.

2 Replies

@Amerie phil,

The false regard they have of their own hunting dogs is representative of their inhuman attitude. They say our poor dogs will have to be shot because of the hunting ban, what drivel, if they are treasured animals you dont kill them for monetary reasons.

My question about the whole scene of hunting asks, why does society have these schizophrenic views on animals and the torture of them. What mentality would put a man behind bars for skinning his dog alive but allows hunters do to the same to wild animals..It is bit difficult to comprehend..

0 Replies

@xris,

I just fail to reach a decision on how people can think themselves more superior than animals anyway. You're right though it is very difficult to comprehend and just shows how humans often do what suits them rather than what is right by the animal.

0 Replies

@Amerie phil,

Amerie;106679 wrote:

And to think that many hunting elites have often killed hunting dogs when they are no longer of the strength expected of them. I think we should legislate if there is a danger involved - whether it be to an animal or a human.

I often wonder what is thought happens to the great majority of wild animals who are not hunted. Many of them die, of course, of disease, and are killed and eaten by other animals. But what about those who do not die violent deaths or painful deaths by disease and accident? They do not live into their golden years taken care of by their sons and daughters and grandchildren, nor are there happy nursing and assisted living homes set up for them. Those who survive (very few) to old age, also die miserably. It is not as if by killing them that we are depriving them of a happy old age.

0 Replies

@xris,

the question is really whether it's worth the fight, and the answer is probably not

if we can't even bridge the gap with assault weapons and handguns, then it's not worth even trying with hunting

there are some circumstances in which hunting is encouraged to eliminate an 'exotic' species that is endangering native species, like rabbits in Australia, pigs in Hawaii, and deer in New Zealand. Also, there is pretty good evidence that the exploding deer population in coastal New England is greatly amplifying the risk of Lyme disease, so liberalized deer hunting is promoted by some as a means to control this disease (both my moral and scientific opinion are mixed on this one).

2 Replies

@Aedes,

I have no problem with the culling of animals for certain benefits to the animals but so often its done for the benefit of man. What I question in ethical terms is the blood lust that is excused for those hunting wild animals. The joy of killing is the question that im asking, why is it acceptable ?

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;106856 wrote:

I have no problem with the culling of animals for certain benefits to the animals but so often its done for the benefit of man. What I question in ethical terms is the blood lust that is excused for those hunting wild animals. The joy of killing is the question that im asking, why is it acceptable ?

So you think that the problem with the hunting of animals is the motives and the feelings of the hunters? I have never before heard that as an objection to hunting, and it seems to be rather puritan. Why does it bother you if other people are made happy, and it harms no one, or nothing? It sounds like an aesthetic objection rather than a moral objection.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106858 wrote:

So you think that the problem with the hunting of animals is the motives and the feelings of the hunters? I have never before heard that as an objection to hunting, and it seems to be rather puritan. Why does it bother you if other people are made happy, and it harms no one, or nothing? It sounds like an aesthetic objection rather than a moral objection.

If you cant see the moral objections to killing for pleasure then my explaining will not help. Maybe it is rather puritanical but it is feeling that has many supporters in the UK. How does this objection to the blood lust have anything to do with taste, aesthetics? i can kill if required but if my feelings became one of happiness for the death, then ide be really worried.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;106860 wrote:

If you cant see the moral objections to killing for pleasure then my explaining will not help. Maybe it is rather puritanical but it is feeling that has many supporters in the UK. How does this objection to the blood lust have anything to do with taste, aesthetics? i can kill if required but if my feelings became one of happiness for the death, then ide be really worried.

It is just that I thought that the killing part was what was objectionable. Not the pleasure part. It bothers me aesthetically when someone stuffs himself and overeats, but as long as he is not ruining his health (which he may be doing) I have no moral objection. I may be repelled by the blood lust, but not morally distressed. Why should I be, unless it is harmful?

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;106856 wrote:

I have no problem with the culling of animals for certain benefits to the animals but so often its done for the benefit of man. What I question in ethical terms is the blood lust that is excused for those hunting wild animals. The joy of killing is the question that im asking, why is it acceptable ?

For most hunters the joy is in the chase, not the killing. I know plenty of people who hunt, but none of them do so because they need an outlet for their blood lust.

0 Replies

hunting and politics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know