Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 If we're talking terror/fear, then essentially that's the same terror/fear the fox puts into livestock such as chickens as they watch one by one each of their chicken friends being torn to bits when a fox gets in a chicken shed just waiting for the fox to get round to them. Accept for the fact that a Fox has no system of morality or free will to decide whether or not to inflict unnecessary suffering, where as we do. And is only guided by his instinct to eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Well as "Hume’s Law" states, “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it”. And whatever an apocryphal "vast majority" need or do not need, I having been Vegan and becoming anaemic and arthritic showed me that I do need meat. Eating meat is the reason why human beings evolved the brain size and capacity we did. Plant material just not providing the excess calorific connects to enable the structural enlargement of the human brain over evolutionary time. So as far as I am concerned this is reason enough, and legitimacy enough to eat meat. And has absolutely nothing whatever to do with hunting for sport. They are separate moral issues. Do animals experience fear in the line at the abbatoir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Accept for the fact that a Fox has no system of morality or free will to decide whether or not to inflict unnecessary suffering, where as we do. And is only guided by his instinct to eat. A moot point, since those that go hunting have no moral objection to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 What about deer stalking? I have a freezer full of venison at the moment, which will probably last me at the moment for another four months or so. After which it'll be stalking time again. I go out, with a reasonably powerful rifle from the cabinet and I stalk and select a suitable deer. I freely admit I enjoy it, I pay good money to do it and I have a pleasant couple of days bagging food for the freezer. Is that wrong? Is it unreasonable to enjoy the challenge - and it is a big challenge of hunting. If the quarry sees, hears or scents me coming it'll be off. It's response will be exactly the same if I was just a casual hill walker. I doubt my going hunting causes any more specific fear. If it doesn't see me then it gets a 11.3g .308 bullet doing a mile in just under 2 seconds. Odds are good it doesn't know what happened - and if it did it'll only know for a couple of seconds. Now is that better or worse than factory farming beef? If I didn't eat what I shot I wouldnt do it. I was invited on a pheasant shoot once and bagged a couple. Trouble was I don't like pheasant as I found out later. So I shoot clay pigeons now. If I didn't like venison, I wouldn't stalk it. Is that an unreasonable attitude to take? I'd like to know your views. Not at all. You are using the deer for food. Whether you enjoy it or not is besides the point. The deer dies a quick death, and its death provides food. I personally wouldn't but that is your choice. Hunting a fox with all the macabre enjoyment which serves no other purpose than to enjoy the tearing apart of the Fox is, to me morally retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 A moot point, since those that go hunting have no moral objection to it. I'd like to refer you to my post above where you can clearly see my moral objections to certain forms of hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Not at all. You are using the deer for food. Whether you enjoy it or not is besides the point. The deer dies a quick death, and its death provides food. I personally wouldn't but that is your choice. Hunting a fox with all the macabre enjoyment which serves no other purpose than to enjoy the tearing apart of the Fox is, to me morally retarded. Do you reckon people don't enjoy the hunt if no fox is caught? Oh and did you see my previous post regarding Victoria Braithwaite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Not at all. You are using the deer for food. Whether you enjoy it or not is besides the point. The deer dies a quick death, and its death provides food. I personally wouldn't but that is your choice. Hunting a fox with all the macabre enjoyment which serves no other purpose than to enjoy the tearing apart of the Fox is, to me morally retarded. What about hunts, and there are a few who will not dig out a fox that has gone to ground? Would they therefore be acceptable? Or what about those that will kill the fox as soon as possible as fast as possible and in fact will always try and keep the hounds back and shoot the fox as soon as they get a clear shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 A moot point, since those that go hunting have no moral objection to it. The fact that they have no moral objection to it, is the point isn't it? The Fox has no capacity to do so and so is not culpable of the failure to do so. So no it's not moot is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 What about hunts, and there are a few who will not dig out a fox that has gone to ground? Would they therefore be acceptable? Or what about those that will kill the fox as soon as possible as fast as possible and in fact will always try and keep the hounds back and shoot the fox as soon as they get a clear shot? Still pursuing the Fox purely for pleasure to inflict suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Still pursuing the Fox purely for pleasure to inflict suffering. I don't think the end game is what most of them are in it for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.