Trophy Hunting Good?!

[bennyboy]

If animals kill each other for food, how is it that men is imoral for  killing an animal for food ?

Morality is a human social construct, and is formed on human ideas.  One of those ideas is that suffering and death are bad, and that inflicting suffering or death on others is wrong.  Animals, so far as we know, are not capable of formulating this idea, nor would they have the luxury of acting on it, since surviving in the wild is a lot harder than surviving a block away from Costco.

They are, however, and especially in the case of mammals and birds, clearly capable of suffering-- not only simple physical pain, but also emotional distress.  Genetically, neurologically, and behaviorally, they are close enough to people to deserve protection from harm.  Many adult mammals, for example, are more developed in almost all regards than a human infant; yet we will extend to that infant all the care and protection that our moral sense allows.

Now, if the food is necessary, i.e. if a human being will suffer greatly from a lack of meat, then we might set aside that moral consideration-- better us than them, basically.  But if the food is not necessary-- i.e. in an overweight person, or in an unhealthy excess, or in the presence of a plethora of dietary alternatives to meat-eating, then the suffering caused indirectly is unwarranted, and I'd categorize it as immoral.  In the latter case, the killing of the animal is as unnecessary as it is in trophy hunting; therefore trophy hunting should not be said to be especially immoral, or food factory food killing particularly justified.

In general, I'd say that well-managed trophy hunting may actually reduce the overall amount of suffering of animals-- by eliminating disease, by removing non-indigenous species that will wipe out native species, and so on. Certainly, there is a strong case to be made for thinning out overwhelming numbers of deer in America for their own sake. But eating that extra Big Mac-- that's unlikely to do anything other than add a vacant space in a warehouse somewhere which will be filled by another animal-- along with all the suffering and torment that its predecessor went through.

---

Benny sayed it was no difference , I want some arguments for that.

Their is a clear difference but like Symbolism , Gender issues, and White nationalism Benny does not get it.

I didn't say they weren't different.  I said that meat-eaters who point at trophy hunting as an unnecessary evil are probably guilty of some level of hypocrisy.

If you are struggling to feed your family enough calories and vitamins, I'd say fuck a deer, and feed your family.  But I doubt you are in a situation in which most of the meat you eat is really a necessary dietary requirement.  It is a luxury item, raised and purchased for the enjoyment of eating it and little more.

Where this is true, then I'd say that morally speaking, there's little difference between eating meat or killing an animal for its antlers (or whatever).  People do it because they can, and they want to, not because there is actually a serious need to. ALTHOUGH, as Khemikal has pointed out, in same cases there may actually BE a need to kill some animals for the benefit of the species, and in that case, trophy hunting is less immoral than overeating.