I'm not comfortable with hunting simply because I can't understand why someone would want to kill something. It's not really a political statement.

This, pretty much. Not a vegetarian, either, though I was one for something like a combined total of 15 years (up till about 11 years ago), including some 2 1/2 as a vegan, & I tend to lean that way in general. (Haven't eaten any meat in a couple of weeks now, for instance, & haven't missed it.)

Even though it apparently makes me some sort of effete liberal, I have to say I don't have any huge problems with saying something like "There may very well be something basically, deeply wrong with people who like, or at the very least take satisfaction from, killing living creatures."

A corollary to the vegan argument: it is an odd moral world to construct that relies on a single premise being both true and false at the same time. In the case of veganism, the premise "humans are just another form of animal" is true in regard to the question of "is it morally okay to eat other animals?" In this case, the vegan case reduces humanity back into the "circle of life" of nature at large, in order to eliminate the traditional moral distinction between "things done to animals" and "things done to people."

But that same premise is adjudged to be false when the question is "why is it wrong for the human animal to hunt and eat meat, when other animals across the kingdom do exactly as much. What is the moral distinction between me hunting a deer and a lion taking down a gazelle?" At that point, humanity is sectored off from the rest of nature, red in tooth and claw, and required to live by a higher moral standard than the "circle of life" we were previously reduced to being a simple member of.

Oh, I saw all these posts and thought people were debating my inspired query of what's the most romantic animal to kill with a knife. Instead it's just everyone taking shots at the resident anti-hunting extremists.

I'm not comfortable with hunting simply because I can't understand why someone would want to kill something. It's not really a political statement.

No, but it is a *moral* statement. Well, it's either a moral statement, or a statement of aesthetic preference. If it's a moral statement - people who want to kill something are immoral beings in the world - then the conversation with Lassus is applicable. If it's a statement of aesthetic preference than you're obviously free to your belief, in much the same way Harvey is free to enjoy reality TV and Lassus is free to enjoy classical chorale music and Dial is free to watch 8 hour marathons of Law & Order SVU. At that point, I refer you back to may original point about fantasy sports, LARPing or building model airplanes. SPLST, OPLOT.

Oh, I saw all these posts and thought people were debating my inspired query of what's the most romantic animal to kill with a knife.

Sorry. I thought this was a rhetorical question, as the answer is so clearly and obviously long pig.

It's an odd, puritanical argument that hinges on the actor's enjoyment of the act being the critical element that determines "wrongness".

Well said. At this risk of going Akin on the crowd, is rape okay if you feel shameful and sad about it afterwards?

If you repent your sins you can still be saved by the good grace of the Lord, if that's what you're asking.

Sorry. I thought this was a rhetorical question, as the answer is so clearly and obviously long pig.

Wha? Giant squid, bro.

Even though it apparently makes me some sort of effete liberal, I have to say I don't have any huge problems with saying something like "There may very well be something basically, deeply wrong with people who like, or at the very least take satisfaction from, killing living creatures."

I thought liberals took special pride in being open minded to, and not condemning, cultures and behaviors different from their own. Or is this only in effect for politically advantageous situations?

No, but it is a *moral* statement. Well, it's either a moral statement, or a statement of aesthetic preference. If it's a moral statement - people who want to kill something are immoral beings in the world - then the conversation with Lassus is applicable. If it's a statement of aesthetic preference than you're obviously free to your belief, in much the same way Harvey is free to enjoy reality TV and Lassus is free to enjoy classical chorale music and Dial is free to watch 8 hour marathons of Law & Order SVU. At that point, I refer you back to may original point about fantasy sports, LARPing or building model airplanes. SPLST, OPLOT.

It's both, although I haven't really spent a lot of time thinking about my views on this subject.

I thought liberals took special pride in being open minded to, and not condemning, cultures and behaviors different from their own. Or is this only in effect for politically advantageous situations?

No, you're confusing "open-mindedness and tolerance" with "moral relativism", the latter of which is the RIGHT-WING phrase used to INSULT liberals. If someone thinks something is actually immoral, they won't tolerate it no mattter how tolerant they are.

That being said, I would agree that someone who thinks hunting is basically immoral is probably an extremely effete liberal indeed. I certainly haven't met many people with that point of view outside the student chapter of Amnesty International.

I have never hunted, and probably never will. Please observe how some of the North American first nations decayed when their traditional hunting was replaced with grocery stores and resource (mining) jobs. Also consider the fate of a wilderness animal, free for its whole life until a predator gets it, versus livestock, unfree until slaughtered.

Maybe I will hunt plankton or slime molds some day. Until then, it's slow floating-point code.

That being said, I would agree that someone who thinks hunting is basically immoral is probably an extremely effete liberal indeed

.

I consider myself neither effete nor a liberal, but are you saying that enjoying or taking satisfaction in killing a living creature is basically moral?

Fascinating.

And please stay away from my cats. And my friends.

I certainly haven't met many people with that point of view outside the student chapter of Amnesty International.

Time to try leaving mom's basement every now & then.

And for the record: I am not a hunter. As a general rule of thumb you can assume "I am not an X" in any case where X involves getting up at 4 AM and trudging into the cold morning wilderness where you sit and freeze for hours on end.

I consider myself neither effete nor a liberal, but are you saying that enjoying or taking satisfaction in killing a living creature is basically moral?

There's a huge assumption here that most hunters take pleasure in the kill, rather than the hunt.

There's a huge assumption here that most hunters take pleasure in the kill, rather than the hunt.

Which is why they use cameras as opposed to guns, I'm sure.

This is a distinct argument from "it's morally wrong to kill the animal," but still questionable I think. Your case seems to reduce to "it's okay to kill the animal, so long as you feel sorry about it and make a sad face while he bleeds out." That is...tentatively less than compelling. I would posit that it makes little difference to Bambi or Bessie if the guy that kills them is sad or gleeful after the fact of their deaths. What with the being dead and all. "You can kill, just don't enjoy it" is a weak construction.

It's an odd, puritanical argument that hinges on the actor's enjoyment of the act being the critical element that determines "wrongness".

I don't think this is my case/argument. I think my argument is more that I find it morally questionable to kill a living thing for a primary purpose other than food. I find it troubling that so many people find this killing to be that enjoyable. I wouldn't really say "EVIL, BURN THEM", but again, I don't find a distaste for this particular kind of glee at sport killing to be bizarre.


There's a huge assumption here that most hunters take pleasure in the kill, rather than the hunt.

You are correct, it is an assumption. I don't think it's huge. I don't think it's added pleasure in the specific kill, but I don't think separating it makes much sense, I guess. The hunt is a means to the killing, which is the end.


Well said. At this risk of going Akin on the crowd, is rape okay if you feel shameful and sad about it afterwards?

I hope you don't get pissed the way Dan does here, but you are better than this.

Which is why they use cameras as opposed to guns, I'm sure.

It's hard to butcher and freeze venison flank from digital cameras.

Regardless, have you ever taken satisfaction in stepping on a cockroach?

Regardless, have you ever taken satisfaction in stepping on a cockroach?

Nope. I've done it, but not with any sense of accomplishment or whatever.

Instead it's just everyone taking shots at the resident anti-hunting extremists.

Honestly, not snarklily, am I coming off as extremist here?

I think my argument is more that I find it morally questionable to kill a living thing for a primary purpose other than food. I find it troubling that so many people find this killing to be that enjoyable. I wouldn't really say "EVIL, BURN THEM", but again, I don't find a distaste for this particular kind of glee at sport killing to be bizarre.

Do you apply this aversion to blood sport to football?

Do you apply this aversion to blood sport to football?

Doesn't every thinking person?

Doesn't every thinking person?

Well, obviously not. Sure, you'll get a selection bias effect here, so you'll find some anti-football people more easily than in the general population. But the point is that blood sport is blood sport.

Which may be the part of the reason I find football, especially the NFL variety, pretty distasteful & have since pretty much my early teens, though god knows there are plenty of other reasons (media overkill, self-evidently stupid rules that get changed at the drop of a hat as often as not, steroids & the like, gambling, etc.).

Do you apply this aversion to blood sport to football?

The purpose of hunting is to kill something. Dead. Not alive. An EX-parrot.

The purpose of football is to push something over a line. Calling them the same thing pretty much ends the conversation.

Calling them the same thing pretty much ends the conversation.

The purpose of hunting, in your formulation above, is the joy of the kill. Blood sport.

The purpose of watching football is to see violent, pain inducing, body destroying collisions of human beings. Blood sport.

Add in boxing (beating someone else unconscious, or watching said be done) or MMA.

#76 George Carlin on Muhammad Ali

Ali: 'No, that's where I draw the line. I'll beat 'em up, but I don't want to kill 'em.'

(Response: If you won't kill them we won't let you beat them up)

The purpose of hunting, in your formulation above, is the joy of the kill. Blood sport.

No. The purpose of the discrete act of hunting is to kill. The result of the purpose is the enjoyment.

Honestly, not snarklily, am I coming off as extremist here?

More extreme than me, Lassus, but no.

I am fine with hunting for food, a bit less so for non-food product. I think many people (certainly including myself here) are too disassociated with what it means to raise and kill an animal. I, for one, should eat less meat and meat less often for this reason among others. I find hunting for sport distasteful but not immoral. I don't take pleasure in killing the various vermin that I occasionally feel the need to off - in some cases, it actively bothers me.

With all due respect to Sam, the hunters tended to be slope-browed, slack-jawed rednecks ... even more so than the rest of us, I mean.

As Sam said, most of the hunters I know (and I know a lot of them) are fine, intelligent, good people. A few fit the stereotype. But, then, a few of the people on this board fit the statnerd stereotype, too. Most don't.


As for "pleasure" in hunting, has anyone here taken pleasure in building something that isn't as good as you'd get from a professional? Or from repairing a part of their house or their car? There is pleasure to be had in being self-reliant. That is the pleasure of hunting - that you went out in the world and brought your own food home. The pleasure of being just a little bit more in control of your world and life than you were before.

There are undoubtedly some cretins who rejoice in the "kill" but the average hunter is not that guy.


Lassus, yes, you come off as a little extreme to me. You're essentially imagining a stereotype, applying a worst-case scenario and then judging a very large group of people according to that your imagination. If you've met an individual that meets these criteria then, by all means, judge them harshly as most (including most hunters) would.


I say all of this as someone who hasn't hunted or fished in over 25 years because, like many of you, I didn't enjoy the killing part. But, at one point, I did enjoy those two sports and not for the killing. I've eaten fish and quail that I've shot and, this will sound silly, they tasted better than fish and quail others shot. It was MINE. Something I did. I never liked the killing part of it, which is why I quit. Well, that and moving to more urban environments.


I will say the professional hunting businesses that all but tie up the animal in front of the clients are sick. And I do believe it immoral to kill an animal that is not threatening you and that you don't intend to eat. Also, if you're interested in becoming vegan, visit a feedlot or chicken hatchery some time.

Lassus, yes, you come off as a little extreme to me. You're essentially imagining a stereotype, applying a worst-case scenario and then judging a very large group of people according to that your imagination.

Um, hell no. I have said

1.) Hunting is killing
2.) People enjoy hunting
3.) I find the fact that people take such joy in hunting and killing for non-food reasons to be troubling to me.

What stereotype have I imagined or promoted?

There are undoubtedly some cretins who rejoice in the "kill" but the average hunter is not that guy.

I'm going to go out on a limb & say that the average hunter from backwoods SW Arkansas -- i.e. where I grew up & happened to form my impressions of the people I'm talking about -- is a hell of a lot closer to that guy than whatever urbane, sophisticated litterateurs with guns that you're basing your conclusion on.

You're imagining people are hunting for non-food reasons and you're imagining that hunting is (only) killing.

Again, if you eat meat, you're killing, albeit indirectly. So, your statement could be:

1) Eating meat is killing
2) People enjoy eating meat
3) I find the fact that people take such joy in hunting when they could derive nutrition without killing to be troubling.

Basically, if you eat meat, you can't criticize hunting in general. For sure, you're entitled to criticize killing without using the animal but that is a small subset of the group you are criticizing.

If you don't believe hunting is immoral if you eat the animal, then you really don't think hunting itself is bad. If you do think hunting is immoral if you eat the animal, you should be a vegetarian. (I still wouldn't agree with you, but you'd be consistent in your judgement).

And, now, an awkward question; are you a vegetarian (awkward because you might be, in which case most of my beef with you is out the window)

I'm going to go out on a limb & say that the average hunter from backwoods SW Arkansas -- i.e. where I grew up & formed my impressions of the people I'm talking about -- is a hell of a lot closer to that guy than whatever urbane, sophisticated litterateur with a gun that you're basing your conclusion on.

I'm from Oklahoma, bub, so, I doubt it. Do Arkansans really not eat what they kill? The folks I know that hunt eat it, give it away, celebrate it. Hell, during deer season, we ate venison almost every night without ever paying for it or shooting it ourselves. Deer jerky lasted most of the year.

I find hunting for sport distasteful but not immoral.

I think you're letting "for sport" do more work in that sentence than it does in the real world. When bunyon says:

I will say the professional hunting businesses that all but tie up the animal in front of the clients are sick. And I do believe it immoral to kill an animal that is not threatening you and that you don't intend to eat.

I agree with him completely. I think you, for whatever reason, conflate the majority of hunters with the people who do this (possibly because the majority of coverage worthy "hunting" stories are about celebrities of some sort or another going on "hunting trips" that are often this type of thing. I think that skews the perception a bit.

The vast majority - I'd go high 90 percentages here - of hunting in America is done in rural ares by people who kill and eat their kills. Many give portions of the kill to others in their communities as well. There may be some "joy of the kill" involved, but then they slaughter the animal and take it home to eat. And I find nothing particularly morally problematic about that act, as opposed to buying meat from a supermarket and pretending that you're not killing an animal in the process.

The most immoral acts of humans against animals in the world today is 1) the destruction of habitat such that animals have no ranges to live freely on, and 2) factory farming. Factory farming - chickens, hogs, cows, any of it - is far more immoral and disgusting than hunting.

Do Arkansans really not eat what they kill?

Of course they do. Except when they're killing Oklahomans, probably. (Of whom, I suppose I should note, my mother was one.)

The folks I know that hunt eat it, give it away, celebrate it.

That's ... bizarre, or so it seems to me.

I'm about to go microwave a frozen Indian dinner here at the office, as it happens. Let the celebration begin! Music! Party favors! Dancing girls!

Okay, mongoose, I read that as if your mom had killed and not eaten an Oklahoman. Need coffee.

Mom was pretty nuts & in fact spent time in the state hospital in Little Rock on at least two occasions. I'm not sure I would put it past her.

I know hunters, there's all types. Some don't keep, eat any of it. Some eat it, give it away, celebrate it. I view them differently. (And none of them are rural types, at least not anymore.)
The only time I've ever hunted, I was 11. Tried to miss the perched bird I was aiming "at", inadvertently popped it in the throat. The end.

Hell, during deer season, we ate venison almost every night without ever paying for it or shooting it ourselves.

And might I point out that two months of meat in the freezer for the cost of one rifle cartridge is a pretty useful thing in the socio-economically depressed rural parts.

As for "pleasure" in hunting, has anyone here taken pleasure in building something that isn't as good as you'd get from a professional? Or from repairing a part of their house or their car? There is pleasure to be had in being self-reliant. That is the pleasure of hunting - that you went out in the world and brought your own food home. The pleasure of being just a little bit more in control of your world and life than you were before.

This is a good and important point. The enjoyment of hunting is, for most people, an irreducible aggregate that can't be broken down into overly simplistic explanations such as "enjoying killing". The pleasure of wilderness/outdoors activity. The satisfaction of having and using the skill and expertise required to succeed. The camaraderie of friends and other hunters. The self-reliance and sense of control set forth above. All of these things come together to explain why hunters enjoy hunting.

Personally, I haven't hunted in almost a decade; I just don't enjoy it enough to go out of my way to do it. If good friends pester me enough, I may go again; if not, I probably won't.

mongoose, by "celebrate" I don't mean "party". I mean, give thanks that there is food. For most of human history, food has not been guaranteed (it isn't today, despite how it appears). As Sam, says, an animal full of meat for a little hunk of metal is a very good deal.

mongoose, by "celebrate" I don't mean "party". I mean, give thanks that there is food. For most of human history, food has not been guaranteed (it isn't today, despite how it appears). As Sam, says, an animal full of meat for a little hunk of metal is a very good deal.

Well, that's better. I was envisioning some sort of Texas Chainsaw Massacre scenario for a moment there ...

(Probably I watch too many horror movies, admittedly. In fact, I defintely watch too many horror movies.)

Again, if you eat meat, you're killing, albeit indirectly

I'm working so can't properly respond to everyone (or anyone), but lot of things happen indirectly. That conversation spins out into nowheresville. I made a point to use "discrete" above to avoid that sort of thing.

I come from generations of hunters and know many people who hunt, personal friends, who are not bad people. But hunting is ####### retarded, and is a much bigger part of our culture of violence than any movie or video game. Shooting things for fun is a shitty thing to do.

I can't see any way in which hunting (and eating the kill) is worse than eating factory-farmed meat. most meat you buy in a supermarket (local-sourcing can be an exception) lived a horrible life in a confined space, being pumped full of antibiotics and hormones and fed a diet of nothing but corn and ground-up animal parts. anybody who enjoys eating this kind of meat yet considers hunting distasteful or whatever is wearing blinders as to exactly how the meat gets into those little shrink-wrapped packages.

I've known many, many people who hunt and fish. The only ones I've met who don't eat their prey are the catch-and-release fly-fishing snobs.

Lassus I don't think you're being extreme, but I think you are misrepresenting the vast majority of people who hunt and fish. If you're solely railing against people who go on Trophy Hunts to put a lion head on the wall, don't lump them all in with "hunters". I don't fish to kill things - I fish because the act of fishing is a challenge, and fish are delicious.

whether you kill it or someone else does, eating meat means something gets killed. I prefer doing it myself. if killing animals bothers any of you, don't eat meat. if you are OK with eating meat that someone else raises and kills for you, I'd suggest withholding judgment on those who do it for themselves.

I can't see any way in which hunting (and eating the kill) is worse than eating factory-farmed meat.

I'm not Lassus, but...
Sure - but I don't think that's the issue. Getting really into the act of killing, as distinct from the accomplishment of the catch (whatever that means) - that's what can be creepy. Odds are that any fisherman/hunter reading this has an idea where they are on that spectrum.

I don't hunt (or fish). I am not too fond of killing things (vermin excepted - stay the #### out of my house mice). I find hunting distastful (personally) but not immoral. I have plenty of friends who hunt.

I eat meat. I know where the meat I eat comes from and think I would be a better person if I didn't eat meat, but not so much I am willing to stop eating meat (though I eat much less than most and wouldn't be horrified to be Vegitarian - plants are yummy).

I suspect someday there will be vat grown meat and then I will be able (but not that much more likely) to get on my high horse and be all moral about the whole thing (and eat my vat grown meat - which I am sure will be very tasty).

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

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.

Sure - but I don't think that's the issue. Getting really into the act of killing, as distinct from the accomplishment of the catch (whatever that means) - that's what can be creepy. Odds are that any fisherman/hunter reading this has an idea where they are on that spectrum.

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?