Should sport-hunting be banned?

"Responsible hunting" won't address any arguments against hunting on the basis of an appeal to pity. That much is true.

So it won't address the concerns of those who feel the animal simply should not be killed. It does, however, mitigate against concerns that the hunting will have a negative impact on the enviroment, since regulation can address this to some degree.

Indeed, replenishing the supply in no way addresses the morality of the killing of animals itself except to mitigate the enviromental cost.

To those of the opinion that the animal shouldn't be killed for moral reasons other than enviromental cost, replenishing the supply might actually be worse by their view.

Does this imply that the majority of philosophical arguments against sport-hunting contain the informal fallacy of an appeal to pity?

Despite popular belief, not all appeals to pity are fallacious. If the "real" issue is enviromental cost then it can be said to be a fallacy.

However I don't think there can be a way to determine the "real" issue.

It all depends on one's criteria. For some it will be the associated enviromental costs. For these people appeals to emotion are fallacious grounds to make their case.

If you restrict the discussion to the morality of the killing itself, and exclude enviromental concerns, I don't really have much to say.

As a kid who didn't like when people stepped on ants (even on accident) I understand the concerns of those who say it is always wrong to kill animals for sport.

I do not, however, agree with them. There are some animals whose degree of conciousness is such that I would personally object to hunting them (such as deer) and there are others (such as duck) that I would not.

This is, of course, based on my own criteria of conciousness and there's not much that can be said to establish this as the criteria with which all hunting arguments should be based.

To some, it will be simply measured by how bad the concept makes them feel about it, a criteria of general decency if you will. To others it will be a rejection of gun culture for reasons other than hunting. To others it may be concern for abuse of the enviroment.

Unless the criteria is shared little can reconcile them for the purposes of a coherent argument.

Pray tell, what is the difference in the degree of consciousness of the duck and of the deer?

The consciousness of any "lower" animal resembles that of the next, and that of the ant resembles that of the duck, or the deer?

As for the criteria of sport-hunting arguments, they rest on moral precepts- precepts established by logicians and moralists in the 20th century.

roger wrote:

You get what you pay for, Intrepid. Feed the deer and you get more deer to feed.

Feed the poor and you get more poor to feed.

And one more item Mr. de Kere: when is it proper and morally correct to kill any animal whatsoever for the sake of sport?

Or else, I wish to find one instance in which sport-hunting is justifiable.

By the way, nice to meet you.

when is it proper and morally correct to kill any animal whatsoever for the sake of sport? Or else, I wish to find one instance in which sport-hunting is justifiable.

I would like to hire a few green berets, armed with springfield sniper rifles, and take them to various sport-hunting grounds in order to even the odds between hunters and hunted...

Unless you are a Vegan you have no moral position worth a blow on a ragman's trumpet.

The green beret argument would put those using it behind bars.

There is a function of hunting you have not even mentioned.More than one actually.

Basically the antis are socialists and urban.

Feral, as in domesticated though wild after a period of time? And do you mean that such animals must be "terminated" because of this progression? That such animals, because of this wild nature following domestication, should be shot? And this for sport? NobleCon is referring to an instance in which such action for the sake of sport is warranted.

Any clarification would be helpful.

And it should be noted that here the topic is not hunting in general, but only sport hunting.

Which is an excellent point that leads to another question.

Since Noblecom thinks it would be a good idea to have these Green Berets out there protecting the deer (and other game) from those immoral sport hunters I'd like to know how his Green Berets are going to distingush between "sport hunters" and other hunters? Since there really isn't any way for them to know it would seem that he would be introducing an even greater immorality into the situation than may already exist.