From: Ian Reilly (ianreilly@comcast.net)
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 19:15:42 MDT
> Greg Jordan 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.
> 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.
What about self-defence - is not "survival" hunting a form of self-defence?
At the very least it is a mitigating circumstance - or should we throw out
mitigating circumstances all together. That said, compassion for animals
raised in captivity could be part of a justification for hunting which
doesn't involve survival per se.
> But if the evil emanates only from the sport-hunter's mind then the
argument
> against sport-hunting evaporates
But if the evil emanates only from the murderer's mind then the argument
against murder evaporates - Huh? isn't it a bit more complex than that? Is
it the same to kill your dog, the last 2 blue whales, an ant, a bird, a
fish, a dolphin, a bacteria, a human? By slow death, starvation, extended
torture?
It is not "THE" argument against sport hunting - it is a part of a web of
multidimensional relative matrices or some such unimaginable nonsense.
Ian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 08 2003 - 19:31:25 MDT