This is a meaningless distinction though. This morally horrible act (factory farming) is ignored because no one is enjoying it, but this less morally horrible act (hunting) is terrible because someone is?

Factory farming is (I believe, but could be wrong) ignored because it is the only real option to provide the desired food to the population at a reasonable price. There are no better options. All things being equal (which they are not) then Factory farming is morally worse than hunting (since it combines slavery and killing - to be hyperbolic about it).

However one can accept factory farming as a necessary evil (though I suspect one that could be made less heinous and still do what it needs to do - I know California is trying some stuff in that area) and still find the thought of killing stuff "icky" and people who enjoy that killing to also be suspect.

If someone worked at a factory farm because they enjoyed killing and no because they needed the work then you would have no problem with them?

If hunting was eliminated in Northern Virginia and the Shenandoah, there would be mass chaos on the highways and a sharp increase in auto deaths. The deer population is thriving. Too much.

It's fine if you don't want to hunt. Or eat meat. But a few of the comments equating hunters (the vast majority of whom eat what they kill ) with cretins and idiots are ridiculous. This is the kind of tired generalization that you see too much...I don't agree with hunting so therefore no one should hunt. . And if you never had venison stew..you don't know what you're missing.

* I don't hunt anymore because it is too cold and dark at 5 AM so I have to rely on the kindness of others for my venison. And I manage to live without the sadistic rush that all hunters feel when we track down Bambi and unload a full mag into its helpless, precious body.

However one can accept factory farming as a necessary evil (though I suspect one that could be made less heinous and still do what it needs to do - I know California is trying some stuff in that area) and still find the thought of killing stuff "icky" and people who enjoy that killing to also be suspect.

I'm not sure I can sign onto a theory that says morally horrific behavior is acceptable if it provides a convenience for many, but less horrific behavior is unacceptable because some segment of the population enjoys it.

This is precisely what the "anti-hunting" people are saying--taking pleasure in the kill is creepy. The rest of the debate is just guessing the frequency of motivations.

Pretty much. (I've no opinion on the frequency bit.)

This is a meaningless distinction though. This morally horrible act (factory farming) is ignored because no one is enjoying it, but this less morally horrible act (hunting) is terrible because someone is?

1. The debate wasn't about factory farming.
2. Enjoying hunting is, in and of itself, fine. For me, it's an issue of why a given person enjoys it. In the abstract, I'm not judging any given hunter (Kimbrel included).
3. The following is likely to be an opinion shared by few: your argument, Sam, functions on how I/some others feel about animals, whereas I'm much more concerned with people - how and why they act.
In general, I'm pro-food tech, though we can spend hours getting into the weeds of those issues.

I don't agree with hunting so therefore no one should hunt

Who said this exactly?
I literally have never met a person who I know believes this - and that includes some hardline vegetarian / animal rights activist types.

There are undoubtedly some cretins who rejoice in the "kill"

From the excerpt:
She wasn’t too excited about it at the time, but when we got down there and she shot it, she was so excited. She was, like, ‘I know what you’re talking about! This is so exciting.’

Even then, FPH - I wasn't there ... any number of aspects of it could have been exciting to her.

Bitter Mouse - for farming done right, check out Joel Salatin and Polyface farms. and don't forget, the price of "conventional" farming is reasonable in part because of subsidies (thus all the corn-based feed). I am sure that there are way more sickos working at factory farms than there are walking in the woods at sunrise on a saturday. those expose videos are chilling.

in general the only issue I have in this thread is all the people claiming that hunting = enjoying killing stuff. Sure there is a little overlap in the venn diagram of those two populations, but not nearly as much as some are making it out to be. it's like 5%, not 50%.

I have no idea where Voxter gets his information but I can't believe that hunting is more apt to desensitize someone than a realistic video game. I'm curious as to how often people think hunters actually shoot (hint: generally less than once/day) while they're hunting.

If hunting was eliminated in Northern Virginia and the Shenandoah, there would be mass chaos on the highways and a sharp increase in auto deaths. The deer population is thriving. Too much.

Yeah the cycle of life thing is not just Disney. Some predator needs to keep them in check. Which is why I was in favorof reintroducing wolves to MN and am against hunting said wolves. Well one reason anyway.

I'm not sure I can sign onto a theory that says morally horrific behavior is acceptable if it provides a convenience for many, but less horrific behavior is unacceptable because some segment of the population enjoys it.

Society is all about compromise (plus no one is actually making the case you are refuting). So I gather you are OK with person who goes to their factory farm job because they enjoy the killing involved?

don't forget, the price of "conventional" farming is reasonable in part because of subsidies (thus all the corn-based feed). I am sure that there are way more sickos working at factory farms than there are walking in the woods at sunrise on a saturday. those expose videos are chilling.

Yeah I try to avoid learning too much about factory farming because it horrifies me. I stopped eating tuna long ago when Dolphins were being killed (or at least I heard they were) and never went back to it (never liked it much anyway). Basically I know I am at least mildly a hypocrit on the subject and so don't judge others, but I still get to be repulsed at killing stuff.

I'm not sure I can sign onto a theory that says morally horrific behavior is acceptable if it provides a convenience for many

There's an argument to be made that you can't really complete the calculus on how morally unacceptable an activity is until all of the economic calculus is completed. Because ultimately getting food at a 25% discount over what it otherwise would be, does result in (human) lives saved at the very end of the line, thanks primarily to opportunity cost.

That complication tends to be why many folks prefer "rights based" legal systems to "morality based" ones. They certainly can and do overlap, but they aren't the same thing.

check out Joel Salatin and Polyface farms.

seconded... here's the link

also, try The Omnivore's Dilemma.

I almost never comment in any quasi-political thread, but in my little corner of the world, factory farming/feedlots are just wrong... far more troubling to me than any hunter's rush.

I think humans should have moved beyond killing and eating animals by now. Is hunting worse that factory farming? No. Is killing animals under any circumstances morally wrong? Yes. Humans have a capacity for morality that other animals don't apparently have. That doesn't mean we shouldn't respect and care about other animals--they can't help the way they are. As humans, who can help it, we have a responsibility to look after them. Certainly anyone who has pets must be able to understand the reasoning behind that point of view. The deer problem, and others like it, could be solved by tranquilizing and sterilizing. After a couple of generations of that, which would only be a decade or so on the human timescale, the problem would be solved without killing anything.

Most people's consumption of meat involves purchasing it, already quite killed, from a store or restaurant. As a result, they don't really internalize, or even think about, the way it got to be in the store or restaurant. If they did, I expect many or most of them would generally feel icky about it and stop. So I think that people who actually kill animals themselves, rather than just buying meat after it's been killed, are more morally responsible for their actions. That goes for people who hunt or work on farms.

Presumably that's an extremist position. Is it hypocritical?

Is killing animals under any circumstances morally wrong? Yes.

Self-defense?

The deer problem, and others like it, could be solved by tranquilizing and sterilizing. After a couple of generations of that, which would only be a decade or so on the human timescale, the problem would be solved without killing anything.

What is the deer timescale when it comes to decades?

What makes the discomfort of tranquilization/capture/sterilization that much better than death?

Well, I'm a vegetarian (not a vegan). Mainly for moral reasons, though I also was a vegetarian growing up so it's not like I ever made some big moral choice. That said, in my own personal moral universe people who eat meat from the supermarket (or McDonalds, etc) are doing something creepier than hunters are. I'd say the percentage of slaughter yard workers who take pleasure in an animal's pain/death is probably way higher than the percentage of hunters who do.

I also think there are a lot of people that know (or at least suspect) they would find the actual reality of factory farming morally unacceptable and choose not to think about it. I certainly do that with some things in my life, so I get it, but hunters are at least directly confronting the morality of their actions.

I'd say the percentage of slaughter yard workers who take pleasure in an animal's pain/death is probably way higher than the percentage of hunters who do.

I imagine that that's true.

Piggybacking on Voros: Factory farming has probably (indirectly at minimum) saved human lives*. (I'm ignoring quality of life issues for both people and animals for the time being, which is huge for both parties.) At what threshold would you consider some version of factory farming a moral choice?

[To be clear, I have many misgivings about factory farming, but I don't reject the institution out of hand.]


* Even if you reject the idea that meat is necessary for anyone's diet, substitution effects are at play... short of an impractical world vegetarian argument where many farm animals go unborn and don't consume feed.

Presumably that's an extremist position. Is it hypocritical?

Yes. No.


Also, I'm not sure I get your sterilization argument. You'd have to continually do it. You could take the deer population to two, male and female and stop the program. At some point in the future, you'd again have over-population.

And I simply don't accept the moral bit about moving past killing. We're animals who consume meat. It isn't immoral. That you don't like it is fine - society provides you the opportunity not to partake.

There's an argument to be made that you can't really complete the calculus on how morally unacceptable an activity is until all of the economic calculus is completed. Because ultimately getting food at a 25% discount over what it otherwise would be, does result in (human) lives saved at the very end of the line, thanks primarily to opportunity cost.

This is a roundabout argument for consquentialism. I am more of a deontologist. The right or wrong is in the act, not the third factor economic fallout of the act.

The deer problem, and others like it, could be solved by tranquilizing and sterilizing. After a couple of generations of that, which would only be a decade or so on the human timescale, the problem would be solved without killing anything.

So we're on board with wide scale genetic manipulation of the entire ecosphere, but not killing an animal for meat? Odd.

Piggybacking on Voros: Factory farming has probably (indirectly at minimum) saved human lives*. (I'm ignoring quality of life issues for both people and animals for the time being, which is huge for both parties.) At what threshold would you consider some version of factory farming a moral choice?

I don't think I oppose the idea in the abstract. I accept that humans killing animals is a pretty natural thing (though I'll choose to avoid having a part in it if I can), but I do think there are moral distinctions to be drawn in the way the animals live and are killed. And I think the idea that cheap low quality meat has saved lives in total is probably wrong (at least in America). The fact that a cheap hamburger costs about the same as a can of beans has a lot do with the high percentage of heart disease, obesity, etc. Raising the quality of animals lives in large farms probably raises the price of meat, but is that a bad thing? At least in this country we definitely don't have a food supply problem.

I wonder how many anti-hunting people have this sort of ridiculousness in mind when they think of hunting? These cops broke the law to unlawfully take a trophy elk. One guy had an interest in the meat, but it seems mainly to have been about poaching a trophy.

(Although the article says one of the cops tried to cover himself by sawing an antler off and claiming the elk was injured. But that might have occurred after the cops figured out they were in big trouble--which was pretty much immmediately after they killed the elk.)

I accept that humans killing animals is a pretty natural thing

Humans killing each other seems to be pretty natural, too. Why some people get all upset about it, I haven't the foggiest idea.

Seems like a lot of folks here are cloaking their lifestyle preferences in morality. Hunting and fishing aren't moral issues, unless you are doing it wrong, IMHO.

There are more deer now than in the Colonial Era - we need more hunters, not fewer, although I'm not a hunter, and I'll stop eating steak WHEN YOU PRY THE FORK FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND!

Darkness/117: I was thinking globally - we're a big part of the world food distribution system.
As for our domestic food supply, I work (a very teeny bit) with a group getting meals to poor kids. We have enough food in aggregate in this country, but I can't extend that to every individual. Presumably, more folks would be in this boat under this scenario...

Humans killing each other seems to be pretty natural, too. Why some people get all upset about it, I haven't the foggiest idea.

Must be the thought of all that wasted meat ...

As for our domestic food supply, I work (a very teeny bit) with a group getting meals to poor kids. We have enough food in aggregate in this country, but I can't extend that to every individual. Presumably, more folks would be in this boat under this scenario...

Furthermore it's not just about less availability of food, it would also be about the opportunity cost of things you could no longer buy because of the increased costs of food. I'm not arguing this justifies factory farming, but I am saying that the morality of it is quite complicated.

I guess the point is simply that whenever someone says "we can afford to pay a little more for __________" whatever vital resource that blank is (food, energy, shelter, education), the implications of those increased costs once all the calculus is done are not trivial. It may still be a good idea despite those implications, but I think recognizing them is still important.

As for our domestic food supply, I work (a very teeny bit) with a group getting meals to poor kids. We have enough food in aggregate in this country, but I can't extend that to every individual . . .

Using food for gasoline certainly doesn't help. That's an issue far more deserving for the attention of the Morality Police than hunting.

Must be the thought of all that wasted meat ...

The thing that's always bugged me the most about bbtf is the Puritanism. Thanks to Sam and others for dissecting it with regard to hunting.