From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Wed May 07 2003 - 09:17:46 MDT
On Wed, 7 May 2003, gts wrote:
> [gts wrote:]
> >> The hunting behavior and the suffering of the animal will
> >> be the same regardless of the hunter's motivation. So then
> >> if sport-hunting is evil but survival-hunting is not, then
> >> the evil must not emanate from the act of hunting or from
> >> the suffering of the animal. The evil must instead emanate
> >> from the brain activity of the sport-hunter.
> >
> > The calculation of value is made by the person considering
> > the possibility of hunting - whether it would be better to
> > hunt recreationally, or not to.
>
> Okay, so then it appears that you agree with me that by your own definition,
> the evil of sport-hunting emanates from the subjective value judgments of
> the hunter rather than from the suffering of any animal he might hunt. This
> must be so because you agree that survival-hunting is not evil.
No, the evil of sport-hunting *from the perspective of the hunter*
emanates from the subjective value judgment of the hunter *about* a wide
variety of things, including *the suffering of the animal*.
Survival-hunting is still evil, IMO, it's just a "necessary evil" as the
saying goes. And it's rather hypothetical. Even historically, there were
few human environments in which hunting animals was nutritionally
necessary - I am thinking of places like the Arctic.
> But if the evil emanates only from the sport-hunter's mind then the argument
> against sport-hunting evaporates. As evidenced in survival-hunting, the
> suffering of animals is not in itself evil, so why not hunt?
The suffering of animals is not desireable. The steps taken to avoid it,
as possible, as feasible, are the ones to be taken. For kind of the same
reason we don't kill and eat our grandmothers as soon as we get a bit
hungry.
gej
resourcesoftheworld.org
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 07 2003 - 09:28:37 MDT