Trophy Hunting Good?!

[The Grand Nudger]

Laying aside the irony in having someone discuss objective facts while insisting that morality cannot be objective......

Trophy hunting, and this is the worst that can be said about it on grounds of suffering, causes no additional suffering to the animal whatsoever.  It's not as if there are assisted living facilities for elderly deer.  Sure, they may just wink out in their sleep, or freeze to death.   Barring those two longshots, they are going to starve to death, become diseased, or become crippled and then diseased...and subsequently starve to death.  Because we've mostly eradicated the predators...a good number of game animals are already living in pain from injuries sustained.  

OFC, when we shoot them, they're usually young and healthy.  Whether a person sees hunting for food or sport as immoral likely boils down to whether or not they think they have moral obligations to prey, and if so, which obligations.  I can tell you that I feel some moral obligations to prey.  For example..I think I owe them a good shot and a swift death.  That's why I prefer my 303 over other rifles and over primitive tackle.  It's not a good rifle for harvesting meat, but it's got a really predictable trajectory in the ranges I hunt, and it's just a -tad- heavier and slower than a 308.  

I'll wait for a double shoulder shot in good range..and if they don't give me one, I don't shoot.  The damage a 303 does in that profile is tremendous.  You'll usually snap their spines from the impact...but say you didn't give them quite enough lead....you'll leave a hole where their heart and lungs used to be.  In either case they're going to fall down on the spot.  I've noticed alot of .223 guys (lol, ar15 hunters) go for the head, but in my experience that leads to deer getting their faces blown off more often than a hit to the brain.  I also know that most people are taught to aim for the heart and lungs..but a failure to lead on that one ends up in the most common type of hit.  In the stomach, or the lower back...hind legs.

Even in the absence of a necessity or a conservation scheme, I wouldn't consider sport hunting immoral unless someone was doing it in a fantastically brutal way. Or they were just plain bad at it. As you've pointed out, Aroura, captive animals are routinely treated with far less dignity and care than game.

[Aroura]

Laying aside the irony in having someone discuss objective facts while insisting that morality cannot be objective......

Trophy hunting, and this is the worst that can be said about it on grounds of suffering, causes no additional suffering to the animal whatsoever.  It's not as if there are assisted living facilities for elderly deer.  Sure, they may just wink out in their sleep, or freeze to death.   Barring those two longshots, they are going to starve to death, become diseased, or become crippled and then diseased...and subsequently starve to death.  Because we've mostly eradicated the predators...a good number of game animals are already living in pain from injuries sustained.  

OFC, when we shoot them, they're usually young and healthy.  Whether a person sees hunting for food or sport as immoral likely boils down to whether or not they think they have moral obligations to prey, and if so, which obligations.  I can tell you that I feel some moral obligations to prey.  For example..I think I owe them a good shot and a swift death.  That's why I prefer my 303 over other rifles and over primitive tackle.  It's not a good rifle for harvesting meat, but it's got a really predictable trajectory in the ranges I hunt, and it's just a -tad- heavier and slower than a 308.  

I'll wait for a double shoulder shot in good range..and if they don't give me one, I don't shoot.  The damage a 303 does in that profile is tremendous.  You'll usually snap their spines from the impact...but say you didn't give them quite enough lead....you'll leave a hole where their heart and lungs used to be.  In either case they're going to fall down on the spot.  I've noticed alot of .223 guys (lol, ar15 hunters) go for the head, but in my experience that leads to deer getting their faces blown off more often than a hit to the brain.  I also know that most people are taught to aim for the heart and lungs..but a failure to lead on that one ends up in the most common type of hit.  In the stomach, or the lower back...hind legs.

Is this directed at me?  Because there are objective facts does not mean there must also be objective morality.  But ok, that aside....

I already said I have no moral objections to game management hunting, or even trophy hunting when it also serves a good cause (the money goes back to game management, which it usually does).

So this feels like you are arguing with....yourself.  Or no one.  Or the OP?  Not sure.  Sometimes I think you just like to argue, so you try and argue even when people are agreeing with you.  You actually do that quite a lot, lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

More no one, just giving some perspective, lol.  Personally, I don't think that sporthunting is morally objectionable in and of itself even laying aside a "good cause".  I can see why some people would though.

[Amarok]

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

It is one thing to state your opinion but enitrely wrong to judge people from a subjective point of view on a matter.

It not just an opinion it's based on time after time debating him on those very subjects .

[Aroura]

It is one thing to state your opinion but enitrely wrong to judge people from a subjective point of view on a matter.

It not just an opinion it's based on time after time debating him on those very subjects .

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.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hunting is necessary to the well being of the animals in question, and positively effects human well being in addition to that.  If necessity can determine somethings moral status (and I'm not sure it can) than hunting is not immoral at all.  It may be distasteful, to some, and it certainly -can- be done in an immoral way...but that's about as far is it can go.  Highlighting the difference between a subjective moral appraisal and an objective morality appraisal nicely.

[bennyboy]

Hunting is necessary to the well being of the animals in question, and positively effects human well being in addition to that.  If necessity can determine somethings moral status (and I'm not sure it can) than hunting is not immoral at all.  It may be distasteful, to some, and it certainly -can- be done in an immoral way...but that's about as far is it can go.  Highlighting the difference between a subjective moral appraisal and an objective morality appraisal nicely.

We should make it clear, though, that we're talking about actual necessary hunting, not this as an excuse for trophy hunting in general.  If some guy wants to bag the last mating pair of Norwegian Purple-plumed rhinos, for example. . . then that's immoral and fuck that guy.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're talking about hunting to extinction, not trophy hunting.  That's pretty much the definition of unethical hunting, and ofc it's entirely counterproductive. Fuck that guy, for sure.

[Amarok]

It not just an opinion it's based on time after time debating him on those very subjects .

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 .

---

I didn't say they weren't different

Who are you addressing me or him ? I never said that you said their was no  difference.