Hunting for the Joy of the Kill: Ethical or Not?

[Acim]

Separate post to say I'm not compelled to vote because I don't see the inquiry as necessarily relating to ethics. Or would need to hash out the debate with someone who thinks it truly possible to survive on this planet without any killing at all, before I then consider whether it ethical to have joy. Cause that's kind of how I understand the vote: Is it ethical to experience joy, or is it unethical? I think the poll is somewhat implying that the way to understand the question is: whether it is ethical or unethical to kill animals? But it truly is conflating 2 ideas - killing and joy to then reach a conclusion that both are intrinsically ethical or not ethical.

So, yeah I'd be very curious how others that have voted framed that in their own minds to make sense to vote either way.

Would actually be interesting to see if that could be done with other moral considerations: like is it ethical or unethical to enjoy gossiping; or is it ethical or unethical to take joy in voting for the lesser of two evils? See how that works.

 

[Nous]

My apologies.
You are correct.
It is not a strawman.

Thank you. No apologies necessary.

 

[Onyx]

Hunting doesn't usually represent a moral dilemma for me, but I would hope people would take joy in their skill and experience rather than the killing itself. I think this is largely the case, so I don't worry about it. Population control (of deer, squirrels, etc) could be considered ethical, but poaching endangered species for ivory would be quite the opposite.

There is an interesting article in one of my books which suggests that hunters should kill the weaker deer and preserve the stronger, rather than going after the greatest and strongest animals. I'll try to find it and post excerpts when I get home.

 

[metis]

Amerindian animism is probably the strongest form of animism of the examples you listed, but even they were people. And depending on the individual's and the tribe's belief, lots of excess hunting could be done for both ceremony, sport or untrue medicinal reasons. But, for example, Australian Aboriginals were so not at harmony with their environment that some anthropologists believe that their macrofauna hunting technique (surrounding large predators in bush fire) contributed to the Australian central desert becoming as barren as it is. They may have thought it was a matter of survival or personal glory or sport, we can't say for sure. But we do know they made many macrofauna go extinct and radically changed their landscape.

There always a danger of over-hunting, but that didn't always stop the indigenous. The same happened here in the Americas with the pre-Colombian horse and also the mastodon.

 

[Skwim]

There always a danger of over-hunting, but that didn't always stop the indigenous. The same happened here in the Americas with the pre-Colombian horse and also the mastodon.

One of the possibilities, the others being climate change, and a combination of the two. But it's still an


.

 

[psychoslice]

I did, but I see the enjoyment as inextricable from the drive. Like sex, hunting was necessary for survival, and both drives were facilitated by pleasure in their execution.

Don't get me wrong. I've been a vegan and animal rights supporter for decades, but I accept the fact that carnivory was a fundamental feature of hominen evolution, and that individuals who do not find hunting pleasurable are something new in the world.

well I suppose if you want to live your life in the evolutionary past, then that up the the one who loves killing and gets sexually turned on lol.

 

[Yerda]

I don't know what you mean by "the validity of P1," but go right ahead and show that it is questionable.

It seems to imply that pulling the wings off a fly and torturing someone to death slowly are morally equivalent if done for temporary human desires. Is that correct?

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

Still lots of Folks avoiding the issues here - skirting around it and trying to deflect the attention away from the real questions...I see mention of laws and legalities - as if mans laws can give us moral and ethical superiority..lol....

We are appealing to the wrong authority entirely there - if you want to really know if this is acceptable or not, then ask your SOUL and listen to your own conscience - those who know how, find the answer is invariably the same - their Soul absolutely PROHIBITS such "sport" and screams VERY LOUDLY the complete opposite ethos - that we need to PROTECT the innocence rather than SLAUGHTER IT FOR FUN - which is still the REAL issue here !!

Onyx;

Hunting doesn't usually represent a moral dilemma for me, but I would hope people would take joy in their skill and experience rather than the killing itself. I think this is largely the case, so I don't worry about it

This is not a matter of taking joy in anything BUT the ACTUAL KILL itself - obviously...If the hunter was about testing his skill then he would shoot inanimate targets - clay pigeons and the like - or could use none lethal shot such as paintball - IF the intent was to show off or to hone a SKILL then there are many MANY NONE LETHAL ways to achieve that level of competition....BUT CLEARLY - the activity here as stated in the OP is PURELY about taking JOY from murdering INNOCENT LIFE - the EXPERIENCE of ACTUALLY KILLING THE LIFE is the whole CRUX and purpose of the hunt itself...NOT to feed or for survival - NOT to test the self in competition - these are NOT the issues HERE as outlined in the OP but the issue is hunting and KILLING purely for the self satisfaction that taking an others life seems to bring to them..

It is a very clear cut scenario to any who know their Soul intimately - it is NEVER ACCEPTABLE to take a life EXCEPT for food OR in self defense or for MERCY if we must - but to kill for sport and personal pleasure satisfaction or "kudos" - is PURE EVIL - and no matter which way they try to dress it to make is seem "acceptable" to the Soul it still gives off that pure evil stink - doesnt it..??..

 

[McBell]

Hi Folks...

Still lots of Folks avoiding the issues here - skirting around it and trying to deflect the attention away from the real questions...I see mention of laws and legalities - as if mans laws can give us moral and ethical superiority..lol....

We are appealing to the wrong authority entirely there - if you want to really know if this is acceptable or not, then ask your SOUL and listen to your own conscience - those who know how, find the answer is invariably the same - their Soul absolutely PROHIBITS such "sport" and screams VERY LOUDLY the complete opposite ethos - that we need to PROTECT the innocence rather than SLAUGHTER IT FOR FUN - which is still the REAL issue here !!

Onyx;

This is not a matter of taking joy in anything BUT the ACTUAL KILL itself - obviously...If the hunter was about testing his skill then he would shoot inanimate targets - clay pigeons and the like - or could use none lethal shot such as paintball - IF the intent was to show off or to hone a SKILL then there are many MANY NONE LETHAL ways to achieve that level of competition....BUT CLEARLY - the activity here as stated in the OP is PURELY about taking JOY from murdering INNOCENT LIFE - the EXPERIENCE of ACTUALLY KILLING THE LIFE is the whole CRUX and purpose of the hunt itself...NOT to feed or for survival - NOT to test the self in competition - these are NOT the issues HERE as outlined in the OP but the issue is hunting and KILLING purely for the self satisfaction that taking an others life seems to bring to them..

It is a very clear cut scenario to any who know their Soul intimately - it is NEVER ACCEPTABLE to take a life EXCEPT for food OR in self defense or for MERCY if we must - but to kill for sport and personal pleasure satisfaction or "kudos" - is PURE EVIL - and no matter which way they try to dress it to make is seem "acceptable" to the Soul it still gives off that pure evil stink - doesnt it..??..

*yawn*

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I would have bet this would happen. In fact, it illustrates what happens with a lot of threads. People go off on irrelevant tangents. Not to address a new subject, but in belief they're talking abut the original issue. There's gotta be a term for this kind of disconnect. Any of you curbside psychologists know of a name for it?


.

I dunno? Misdirection?

 

[Ana.J]

I can list a ton and a half of laws that state you can hunt animals.
Please be so kind as to list even one law that states you can hunt humans.


Says who?

I mean, all fifty states have laws and regulations concerning how you may enjoy the right to hunt animals....

AND you still have not answered the question

What question? Anyways, I am done discussing this since it is useless and unpleasant for me.

 

[McBell]

What question?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[Nous]

I don't know what you mean by "the validity of P1," but go right ahead and show that it is questionable.

It seems to imply that pulling the wings off a fly and torturing someone to death slowly are morally equivalent if done for temporary human desires. Is that correct?

I can't actually vouch for the suffering of a housefly--I am not knowledgeable about their nervous systems and nociception, etc. So in order to avoid ambiguities, let's use more clearly equivalent examples of suffering--e.g., dousing a dog with gasoline and setting him on fire and doing the same to a human, just for the “joy” of it. Yes, I would argue the moral status of those two acts is not distinct merely because humans and dogs are different species. How would one argue to the contrary?

 

[Ana.J]

Where do you draw the line?

For what? Murder?

 

[McBell]

For what? Murder?

Just imagine that group of humans would decide to hunt you for fun. Ethical or not?

Where do you draw that particular "ethical" line?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

PARTIAL QUOTE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hi Folks...

Still lots of Folks avoiding the issues here - skirting around it and trying to deflect the attention away from the real questions...I see mention of laws and legalities - as if mans laws can give us moral and ethical superiority..lol....We are appealing to the wrong authority entirely there - if you want to really know if this is acceptable or not, then ask your SOUL and listen to your own conscience - those who know how, find the answer is invariably the same - their Soul absolutely PROHIBITS such "sport" and screams VERY LOUDLY the complete opposite ethos - that we need to PROTECT the innocence rather than SLAUGHTER IT FOR FUN - which is still the REAL issue here !!

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Visiting a slaughterhouse changes some peoples minds. I don't know what I expected but the slauterhouse killing seemed neither humane or painless (in all cases). The animals seemed to know they were going to be killed and most were terrified. I will say most hunters I know are not in the sport for the thrill of taking a life, but more for the thrill of the hunt. So I think most hunters are ethical, moral and humane. There will always be deviants, which is an mental illness.[/I]

 

[Nous]

So I think most hunters are ethical, moral and humane.

Studies have shown that huge numbers of animals shot by hunters are never found, are not killed instantly, but run off and suffer a long slow death.

 

[Valjean]

What does that mean, and where did you get that idea? There are no known wires in the discipline of psychology.

And how were these "hard wires" "superseded by social cosmopolitanism"?

It's an engineering analogy, obviously.
Millions of years of evolution selects for the physical and psychological features that facilitate survival and reproduction. Sex and hunting drives, sweating, hairlessness, bipedalism, mirror neurons... all are innate physical or psychological features, designed to facilitate life in small bands of hunter-gatherers.

We no longer live in bands of hunter-gatherers, and some of the features that facilitated Pleistocene life are no longer functional in a Civilized social system.
Our current situation no longer selects for a hunting drive, but pastoralism, agriculture and civilization are brand new social arrangements. Human neurology has not yet caught up -- we're still hunting apes -- but our cosmopolitanism is beginning to produce individuals with decreased hunting drive, just as it's been selecting for lactase persistence.

 

[Nous]

It's an engineering analogy, obviously.
Millions of years of evolution selects for the physical and psychological features that facilitate survival and reproduction. Sex and hunting drives, sweating, hairlessness, bipedalism, mirror neurons... all are innate physical or psychological features, designed to facilitate life in small bands of hunter-gatherers.

We no longer live in bands of hunter-gatherers, and some of the features that facilitated Pleistocene life are no longer functional in a Civilized social system.
Our current situation no longer selects for a hunting drive, but pastoralism, agriculture and civilization are brand new social arrangements. Human neurology has not yet caught up -- we're still hunting apes -- but our cosmopolitanism is beginning to produce individuals with decreased hunting drive, just as it's been selecting for lactase persistence.

The very idea that "the enjoyment of hunting/killing is hard-wired into Hominen psychology" is preposterous. I can't think of any noble reason why anyone would make such a claim. There is obviously no evidence that humans (or any other hominid) are or have ever been genetically determined to enjoy hunting and killing other animals.

 

[Ana.J]

Ethical line for what?