Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SILLY GOOSE

David Booth Hunts Goat

334 posts in this topic

I'm not going to push hard here, but I would like to bring up a point. Both of you seem to agree that killing animals for sport is ethically wrong. That is, trading off an animal's life (and all the goods that that animal could have experienced) for someone's emotional thrill is not sufficient, ethically speaking. So what I want to push here, is that in some sense the animals themselves morally matter, just like it would be wrong to kick a cat down the road for fun because that cat morally matters.

If you accept the above, even if Booth is using the goat, is that sufficient ethically speaking? I ask this because what it seems to imply is that our interest in eating animals/hunting them is more important than an animals interests in non-interference and ulimately its life. In Booth's case, I don't think the justification cuts it, ethically speaking. If it were in the Arctic where hunting to eat is necessary to survive I think the judgement would be different. But in Booth`s case, it doesn`t really seem to be that far off from sport hunting that both of you acknowedge is morally wrong.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The animals do matter, but just because we are able to keep our food animals in pens does not mean that we have any moral reason to give up hunting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, are you a vegan?

If you are, then I recognize that the stance of "we can be civilized enough not to kill anything" is not a contradiction, and I can respect that but humbly disagree.

If not, then the stance weakens, but I'm not here tell you what to do or think.

Have you ever hunted? I'm not asking to be confrontational, but more curious.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right in a sense, but I would also disagree in certain respects as well. Wild animals don't necessarily die pleasantly in nature so I agree with you on that, but I don't think that gives us sufficient reason to hunt them on "compassionate grounds". What's better in one respect isn't always better on the whole. For starters, you're taking away prey for predatory animals which need to survive as well and indirectly this also has significant negative impacts on ecosystems e.g. killing keystone species. More importantly, I'd argue that wild animals have a significant interest in non-interference. Living in the wild is much different than a domestic life. One reason is that animals roam much more freely, socialize in groups with other wild animals or independently on their own. These interests may not seem that important to you but for wild animals this is what they do. A good example is what happens to some whales in aquariums. Some argue that it is morally better to have whales in aquariums because they are less prone to the dangers of the wild similar to the argument you have given us. But what happens to some of these whales is that they will just float in their aquarium motionless for hours and unresponsive. They NEVER behave like this in the wild. It is actually quite disheartening to see. Is that a better trade off? Further, would killing them be a better alternative to them dieing in the wild? On the face of it you seem to imply that this is so, but I'm not sure the reasoning is fully there given what I have stated above. So even if wild animals are at significant risk, it is more in their interests to not be interfered with.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he's a hockey player. what he does in personal life is not my concern, esp when it is legal.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, are you a vegan?

If you are, then I recognize that the stance of "we can be civilized enough not to kill anything" is not a contradiction, and I can respect that but humbly disagree.

If not, then the stance weakens, but I'm not here tell you what to do or think.

Have you ever hunted? I'm not asking to be confrontational, but more curious.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say it again, the only difference between hunting and trophy hunting is being more selective as opposed to taking the first legal animal you see.

These animals rarely ever die of old age. They die from hunters, accidents, starvation, or natural predators. Death by hunter is typically the quickest of those options. They don't live their lives prancing through the woods and across meadows living a happy Disney life. They are constantly hunted and know they are food to all the predators out there. The vast majority eventually wind up food to another species.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

???????????????????.................bull!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a vegan, but if I wasn't it wouldn't make the argument contradictory. It would be irrational (and somewhat hypocritical) though to accept the argument but continue to act otherwise. But that doesn't affect the validity nor the soundness of the argument.

I don't hunt.

Domesticated animals e.g. broiler chickens are much different than wild animals. They've been engineered in a way that they couldn't survive prolonged exposure outside. Nonetheless, I do think cattle and even broiler chickens to a limited extent want to experience the warmth of the sun (something you take for granted everyday), dustbathe, etc. These are their most basic interests. Imagine, for example, that you are in a crowded elevator with no room to move. After some time, memebers of the group begin to get agitated and start acting aggressively while others, out of sheer hopelessness, resort to activities like canibalism. That is the life of a battery caged chicken. And you're right. These animals have a desire to live + more. We owe them that much. This isn't hippy bull s***. It's the rational and intelligent thing to do. And yes, I am a vegan.

That sounds all fine and dandy, but you're missing the point at issue.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a vegan, but if I wasn't it wouldn't make the argument contradictory. It would be irrational (and somewhat hypocritical) though to accept the argument but continue to act otherwise. But that doesn't affect the validity nor the soundness of the argument.

I don't hunt.

Domesticated animals e.g. broiler chickens are much different than wild animals. They've been engineered in a way that they couldn't survive prolonged exposure outside. Nonetheless, I do think cattle and even broiler chickens to a limited extent want to experience the warmth of the sun (something you take for granted everyday), dustbathe, etc. These are their most basic interests. Imagine, for example, that you are in a crowded elevator with no room to move. After some time, memebers of the group begin to get agitated and start acting aggressively while others, out of sheer hopelessness, resort to activities like canibalism. That is the life of a battery caged chicken. And you're right. These animals have a desire to live + more. We owe them that much. This isn't hippy bull s***. It's the rational and intelligent thing to do. And yes, I am a vegan.

That sounds all fine and dandy, but you're missing the point at issue.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.