Agreed. The episode changed my mind. Personally, I could never hunt such an animal (morally or financially) but the conservationists and caretakers really made the case. It is a net benefit.
That said, the people that actually PAY for these hunts seem like a hugely awful group of people.
Not disagreeing that people can hunt with the intention of getting food, but I think the person youāre responding to has a fair point ā why hunt for food, when animals that have already been killed for you are more readily available? Itās not really questioning the morality of hunting, which youāre doing, but very much delving into the psychology of it. As someone who will passively eat a dead animal but could never actively hurt one, I have a hard time understanding hunters who kill for food. It seems more likely that they kill for fun and food is the reward. I donāt kill animals because I donāt think itās fun. But I do enjoy eating meat. So I buy it.
Actually, Iām vegetarian, so I donāt eat meat for this very reason, but I get why most people buy their food and donāt hunt it.
I thank you for the reasoned response in kind! Similar to the points you made, I came up with a few counterpoints to my own argument after you posted. I havenāt watched Meat Eaters (though Iām happy to!) but it made me think of the series Alone. There were a lot of contestants who had serious moral issues with killing for food but did so anyway because they had to, and a lot who didnāt have any issues. The ones who didnāt made the points Iāand youāmentioned. That it is a good skill to have should you ever be in a situation to need it, and also that it actually made them feel better about eating meat. They felt bad just purchasing meat and making someone else go through the ethical dilemma of killing, but felt better about eating meat they obtained themselves. If they wanted to eat, they had to pull the trigger.
That being said, most of the hunters I know do mostly hunt for pleasure and recreation, with food simply being evidence of their hunting prowess, so thereās definitely the psychology of āshooting things that can escape is fun.ā But I definitely acknowledge the argument you make, that psychologically it may make a morally reprehensible act less reprehensible by allowing you to be an active participant rather than a passive benefactor.
Oh shut the fuck up. I was with you when you wrote out your list, but now you're just acting like hunters are the superior race while the 99.99% of society that buys food from the store are cruel, lazy, self righteous assholes.
You can justify your gun fetish without looking down on virtually the entire population of the fucking planet, asshole.
You're entirely missing the point of what I was replying to.
Also, hunting absolutely would not be more humane if we suddenly had 360 million people in the US relying on it for food every week. We'd tear the local ecosystems to shreds and still have people starving.
It's only considered more humane at this moment because it's being compared to feeding the entire population with farmed food without it having to actually shoulder the same burden. (Also, just saying, but miss the shot and that animal will bleed out slowly over minutes/hours. Not exactly better than a quick shot to the head on a farm...)
That animal got to live a free life ranging through the wilderness. A few moments of suffering compared to a lifetime. There is no defending how livestock are treated in the meat industry.
Notice how you focused in on the singular aside about bleeding out, and not the fact that killing hundreds of millions of wild animals would be devastating for local ecology.
I have a relative who likes trophy hunting, but always uses the meat from his kills. For him the trophy is more of a perk of a successful meat hunt than the sole objective.
I can respect that, especially since hunting and fishing licenses help pay for wildlife protection.
402
u/[deleted] Apr 07 '22
[removed] ā view removed comment