Trophy Hunting Good?!

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's a fun question, and it elaborates on my skepticism on necessity as a uniform moral modifier.  Suppose there was some necessity in hunting NPP Rhinos to extinction.  Would that reverse our moral appraisal?

A necessary evil is still...well....evil...right?

[Aroura]

You cannot assert that this argument is faulty because past arguments were faulty. That's a blatant logical fallacy. 

Address the argument being made, not the person presenting it or their history in other, non-related arguments.

But that's not what i was doing . I was pointing out that like all those other topics benny expresses the same faults. Second the person is relevant if just as with those the arguments fit the same pattern of faults which is what i was pointing out .

---

If you had listed the faults in the argument, or mentioned how the arguments were similarly faulty, they sure. But you didn't.
You literally responded to someone else saying he did something he didn't even do.  You responded to a strawman someone else posted about that argument.

Respond to the argument itself.  Show me the flaw(s).  I'm all ears.

---

Here's a fun question, and it elaborates on my skepticism on necessity as a uniform moral modifier.  Suppose there was some necessity in hunting NPP Rhinos to extinction.  Would that reverse our moral appraisal?

A necessary evil is still...well....evil...right?

Well, I personally don't think things are good or evil, moral or immoral 100%.  It's not a black and white world.  Everything, pretty much everything, exists on a sliding scale, and changes depending on perspective.

If I was one of the last NPP Rhinos, that seems like a pretty evil act.  But it would depend on the situation (here's the subjectivity part). Here we may have to chose the lesser of 2 evils.
This is much like, was shooting Harambe evil?  It certainly caused harm, and possibly it was even unnecessary.  But the risk that it might be necessary, that there might be more harm caused to a human child, outweighed our moral obligations to not harm the gorilla.

So, when you want us to imagine it is necessary, I would ask, in what way?  And if it saves one life to end an entire species, then that is probably at least partly immoral, but also necessary to save that one life.

So on this sliding scale, we have to weigh, how necessary are factory farmed chickens? How necessary are trophy hunted animals?  does ANY good come from either evil?  Does that good somewhat balance the evil?

These are all hard questions, and just labeling anything as objectively right or wrong is a cop out of thinking about the situation in as much context as we can.

[Succubus]

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

Now that there is some notimportant wisdom.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I personally don't think things are good or evil, moral or immoral 100%.  It's not a black and white world.  Everything, pretty much everything, exists on a sliding scale, and changes depending on perspective.

Perhaps, but for sake of discussion if somethings 60/40 immoral we can meaningfully refer to the thing as immoral.  Moral ambiguity is certain to exist, but it's not certain that all moral status is ambiguous.  Skullfucking a toddler to death is unlikely to strike anyone as existing on a sliding scale, 10 or 15% "a good thing".   I doubt the appraisal would differ if it were some non-human animal, either.   I think that we can both agree wholeheartedly that anyone who does that is completely in the wrong, 100%.  Eh?  

If I was one of the last NPP Rhinos, that seems like a pretty evil act.  But it would depend on the situation (here's the subjectivity part). Here we may have to chose the lesser of 2 evils.

I'm not sure it has to be subjective, but I'm sure it can be.  We often find compelling reasons to do bad things, or one bad thing over another, sure.  

 
This is much like, was shooting Harambe evil?  It certainly caused harm, and possibly it was even unnecessary.  But the risk that it might be necessary, that there might be more harm caused to a human child, outweighed our moral obligations to not harm the gorilla.

So in this case a moral obligation to the child outweighed a moral obligation to the gorilla?  A hierarchy of obligation.  

So, when you want us to imagine it is necessary, I would ask, in what way?  And if it saves one life to end an entire species, then that is probably at least partly immoral, but also necessary to save that one life.

Well, if there's any way that it could be necessary and still immoral, than comments as to the necessity of hunting..or lack thereof, would not modify it's moral status.  You seem to be bargaining here, over what's necessary enough.  Suppose it was necessary to kill one species to save, not one person, but an entire other non-human species?  It seems to me, personally, that you might be imparting meaningful subjectivity and ambiguities.  We had a thread a ways back that circled around this one, about mosquitos.  It's difficult to see how killing a mosquito has a moral component.  Even killing all the mosquitos seems bereft a moral component.  The benefits of killing all the mosquitos are compelling..even if the plan is less than credible.  It's still not a necessity that we kill all the mosquitos.  Now, me...not seeing a moral component in that, I don't have to wonder about necessity or whatever sense it might be necessary in.  We don't -have- to conserve deer or elk, either.  Not seeing a moral component in hunting, even for fun, beyond that one obligation I mentioned...I don't have to worry about necessity or the sense of necessity or whether that sense is necessary enough.  I can simply state a right and a wrong way to do it, and list the benefits.

So on this sliding scale, we have to weigh, how necessary are factory farmed chickens? How necessary are trophy hunted animals?  does ANY good come from either evil?  Does that good somewhat balance the evil?

Well, just to reiterate, I did start off by mentioning that I don't think hat necessity is a uniform modifier...but if I had to answer the question I'd say that factory farmed chickens -are- a necessity..at least at present..whereas no wild animal is.  Trophy hunted or not.  As to how much good comes from either..plenty.  The chickens don't just provide meat, they provide income and industry.  Imagine poorer people with nothing to do all day and no fried chicken to eat.  It wouldn't be long till they started shooting each other, fuck the deer.   Trophy game...in addition to being the engine of conservation and a significant amount f income and industry themselves..provide the very palpable framework for an uncommon appreciation of nature, a participation in it and between generations and that all important thing, fun.  

Personally, I'd love to see factory farmed animals phased out and trophy hunting scaled up. The benefits to animal welfare (including human animals) across the board would be difficult to properly encompass. Getting rid of battery farms is going to require a credible economic and productive alternative that simply doesn't exist as yet - but people are working on it.

These are all hard questions, and just labeling anything as objectively right or wrong is a cop out of thinking about the situation in as much context as we can.

I'm not sure why we can't label things objectively right or wrong, or even non-applicable -and- think about a situation in as much context as possible.  I think, frankly, that understanding objectivity is important to intelligently discussing issues like these in the first place, as otherwise it's nothing but a bunch of peoples competing opinions.  At some point, some issues of objectivity have to be raised for any meaningful progress or comment. They're a starting point, not a conclusion or a cop out. Not that agreement is required..we've both reached the same conclusion about trophy hunting in the end - that we have good reasons to do it, that some good comes from it. You think it;s good outweighing bad (which is what I think about battery farms)...whereas I just think it's good. I can;t find anything -objectively- bad or immoral or evil about trophy hunting..but I recognize that many subjective comments and positions to that effect exist.

[bennyboy]

Here's a fun question, and it elaborates on my skepticism on necessity as a uniform moral modifier.  Suppose there was some necessity in hunting NPP Rhinos to extinction.  Would that reverse our moral appraisal?

A necessary evil is still...well....evil...right?

That's right.  The question is whether it comes down to the greater good as virtue, or abstinence from evil as virtue.

Man vs. beast, killing that beast is nasty business-- it will suffer, and its life will end, and I see both those as negatives.  But given a knowledge of the bigger picture. . . you can count all the animals who don't yet exist but will, and will definitely suffer (like livestock), you can count the lives of one species against those of another, and so on.

[Aroura]

I think necessary clearly modifies the morality of things, though of course not uniformly. If only things were that simple.
That doesn't mean it does not modify it at all , as you seem to be saying with the comment "Well, if there's any way that it could be necessary and still immoral, than comments as to the necessity of hunting..or lack thereof, would not modify it's moral status."

You gave an example without any specifics, only stating it would be necessary to kill off the last PP Rhino or whatever. Necessary how or for whom and why? It matters. Necessary for another species to exist?

If you think wild animals are not necessary (to human life as well as other life), I guess you have no idea how things work.
Your argument about providing economy and industry sounds suspiciously like what we hear applied to the dying coal and steel industries. They can be replaced.

You simply cannot say, well, if there exists any situation in which something is both necessary and immoral, then that applies to all other situations.

Discussing the necessity of Trophy hunting vs the necessity of factory farming animals, specifically, we even seem to agree that it's possible Trophy hunting is actually MORE moral than factory farming.

You talk in such circles bringing up such unrealistic examples, it's hard to have a meaningful conversation.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's right.  The question is whether it comes down to the greater good as virtue, or abstinence from evil as virtue.

Just not for me, at least not in this.  

Man vs. beast, killing that beast is nasty business-- it will suffer, and its life will end, and I see both those as negatives.

Some ways moreso than others..yeah.  It will suffer and it's life will end regardless.  Moreso if it's mangled by a deep moldboard plow, eaten alive by any number of things, or hit with a bow and bled out running.  Not so much from a well placed shot.   

But given a knowledge of the bigger picture. . . you can count all the animals who don't yet exist but will, and will definitely suffer (like livestock), you can count the lives of one species against those of another, and so on.

Livestock needn't suffer.  We're in a better position to reduce that suffering than we are in the case of wild animals.   I sometimes wonder, btw, at people who treat the hunting of a deer with more thorough ethical consideration than the production of their own livestock.  People with 40 acres managed for deer....and some tiny portion of the rest a feedlot.

---

I think necessary clearly modifies the morality of things, though of course not uniformly.   If only things were that simple.
That doesn't mean it does not modify it at all , as you seem to be saying with the comment "Well, if there's any way that it could be necessary and still immoral, than comments as to the necessity of hunting..or lack thereof, would not modify it's moral status."

If a necessary evil is still evil it's moral status hasn't been modified.  It's just an indication that we have compelling reasons to do the bad thing.  If it weren't evil..it wouldn't be a necessary evil..just necessary.

You gave an example without any specifics, only stating it would be necessary to kill off the last PP Rhino or whatever.  Necessary how or for whom and why?  It matters. Necessary for another species to exist?

See above.

If you think wild animals are not necessary (to human life as well as other life), I guess you have no idea how things work.  
Your argument about providing economy and industry sounds suspiciously like what we hear applied to the dying coal and steel industries.  They can be replaced.

We managed without elk in kentucky for 150 years, they don't seem to have been necessary.  As to replacing ill-thought out industry, ofc we can, when we can..and I think we should when we can.  

You simply cannot say, well, if there exists any situation in which something is both necessary and immoral, then that applies to all other situations.

It shows that it's not a rule, and in so doing shows that a lack of necessity wouldn't, in and of itself, make some thing x immoral.  

Discussing the necessity of Trophy hunting vs the necessity of factory farming animals, specifically, we even seem to agree that it's possible Trophy hunting is actually MORE moral than factory farming.

-even though factory farming is a necessity in a sense that trophy hunting isn't.  

You talk in such circles bringing up such unrealistic examples, it's hard to have a meaningful conversation.

If you say so.

[bennyboy]

That's right.  The question is whether it comes down to the greater good as virtue, or abstinence from evil as virtue.

Just not for me, at least not in this.  

I think that's ALWAYS the moral question. If by doing some harm, you can prevent even more harm, or even cause a good of greater magnitude, how do you stand? Do you avoid doing any harm personally, or do you commit the evil in order to serve the greater good? Here's a question-- what if instead of deer, we come to the conclusion that HUMAN population density is likely to lead to wipeout-proportion disease spread, strangulation due to lack of resources and so on. Do we commit the necessary evil of thinning out the herd?

Is even the horrific evil of war ultimately likely to lead to a net negative?

Man vs. beast, killing that beast is nasty business-- it will suffer, and its life will end, and I see both those as negatives.

Some ways moreso than others..yeah.  It will suffer and it's life will end regardless.  Moreso if it's mangled by a deep moldboard plow, eaten alive by any number of things, or hit with a bow and bled out running.  Not so much from a well placed shot.   

Joe Rogan makes a pretty good point. The status quo for nature is that either you die of illness, you bleed out from injury, or something bigger than you rips you apart, starting from your asshole, and you die in horrible agony. In some sense, a shot to the head or heart is the animal world equivalent of dying in your sleep, right?

But maybe harm isn't so much in the suffering in that sense, as in the inability of the individuals to live (and die) according to their nature. You are taking an animal that would have experienced the morning sunlight thousands more times, enjoyed eating fresh sprigs in springtime, had a chance to mate again. . .

But given a knowledge of the bigger picture. . . you can count all the animals who don't yet exist but will, and will definitely suffer (like livestock), you can count the lives of one species against those of another, and so on.

Livestock needn't suffer.  We're in a better position to reduce that suffering than we are in the case of wild animals.   I sometimes wonder, btw, at people who treat the hunting of a deer with more thorough ethical consideration than the production of their own livestock.  People with 40 acres managed for deer....and some tiny portion of the rest a feedlot.

Again, it's very hard to arrive at a good picture of what harm is. I'd say for animals to be enclosed in tight spaces is suffering. Separating a cow from her calves certainly must produce a great deal of suffering in both, but we do that with puppies, so. . .

It's a lot more ambiguous than people of either side generally admit to. Maybe Aroura is on to something by looking at it through an environmental lens: at least there's some degree of objectivity to be found there.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that's ALWAYS the moral question.  If by doing some harm, you can prevent even more harm, or even cause a good of greater magnitude, how do you stand?  Do you avoid doing any harm personally, or do you commit the evil in order to serve the greater good?  Here's a question-- what if instead of deer, we come to the conclusion that HUMAN population density is likely to lead to wipeout-proportion disease spread, strangulation due to lack of resources and so on.  Do we commit the necessary evil of thinning out the herd?

Is even the horrific evil of war ultimately likely to lead to a net negative?

 
We've done it before.  We'll do it again.  I suppose it get's lost in our experience today, but when our situation was much closer to wildlifes, we did kill the diseased, the crippled, or the mouth too many.  We still have the odd debate about assisted euthanasia now.  We're more likely to come to the realization of limiting population growth than reducing population density, however.  Difficult to get deer on the pill.  I;m probably the wrong guy for this one, being an equal opportunity shooter. For every round I've sent downrange at a deer I've sent dozens at people, lol.

Joe Rogan makes a pretty good point.  The status quo for nature is that either you die of illness, you bleed out from injury, or something bigger than you rips you apart, starting from your asshole, and you die in horrible agony.  In some sense, a shot to the head or heart is the animal world equivalent of dying in your sleep, right?

It's better than chronic wasting disease.  

But maybe harm isn't so much in the suffering in that sense, as in the inability of the individuals to live (and die) according to their nature.  You are taking an animal that would have experienced the morning sunlight thousands more times, enjoyed eating fresh sprigs in springtime, had a chance to mate again. . .

They've definitely lost whatever sunsets and sexcapades might have been in store for them from this day to their last.  

Again, it's very hard to arrive at a good picture of what harm is.  I'd say for animals to be enclosed in tight spaces is suffering.  Separating a cow from her calves certainly must produce a great deal of suffering in both, but we do that with puppies, so. . .

Enclosed in tight spaces does produce suffering (not in all livestock, though), being separated from calves...probably not so much in both..but iirc there was a study that showed that the calves grew up to be less social.  Gotta remember that most animals don't appear to be as sentimental or clingy about their kids as we are.

It's a lot more ambiguous than people of either side generally admit to.  Maybe Aroura is on to something by looking at it through an environmental lens: at least there's some degree of objectivity to be found there.

IDK, like I suggested earlier, whether or not there is some ambiguity -must- depend on whether or not a person considers killing an animal unambiguously immoral in and of itself.  A bad act in need of positive modification. Without that bit of certainty, there's just nothing to weigh on any scale.   Because I don't consider killing animals unambiguously, or objectively, immoral.... there's nothing to weigh or create ambiguity later on down the line.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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

If dumb animals kill for food it's because they don't have much choice. [speakingasanomnivore]