Do you think killing an animal for it's meat/fur is morally different compared to killing it as a hobby?

Why would one animal “make a difference” more than another?

There’s a huge difference. People have to eat, and we have to eat other living things to do so. I don’t discern between plants and animals (and fungi) necessarily in terms of morality, but rather the effect their life and death has on the ecosystem as a whole. On top of that, killing things for fun is just kind of sick and sadistic.

@incendiary_dan Thanks. And when I said that an animal makes more difference than another, I meant as in killing an endagered species such as the Siberian Tiger, compared to killing a Pig or a Horse.

@MilkyWay Gotcha. I was confused. How about animals that are over-populated? Oh yea, and plants for that matter. And invasives?

Let’s see how many of my blog posts I can link to!~

Good question, and I’m of the same opinion as @incendiary_dan . Another point to consider is what deforestation does. For example, in Sumatra they clear forests for palm oil which is wiping out or endangering many species, with potential to wipe out an entire class (of some frog I think). Wiping species off the planet that took millions of years to evolve seems like the greatest crime. But that’s a bit off topic.

Should you buy cosmetics that use palm oil if you think killing for pleasure is sick? This is just a degree removed.

@cockswain I don’t think your point is at all off topic, if we’re talking about endangered animals and plants and the role of our dietary and lifestyle choices on the biosphere as a whole. I don’t really advocate any sort of lifestylism as a solution, but it’s worth considering.

@incendiary_dan Yes, over-populated animals are an issue. More serious than most people take it to be. It can disrupt the environment of the animals and other animals that live there as well. But I really asked this question to get other people’s point of view so, over to them.
BTW, I’m a fan of your blog posts already :)

@incendiary_dan If not “lifestylism”, then what to force a change? One of the concepts of the free market I love in principle would be the fact that the consumer has full power to collectively demand whatever they want. The entrepreneur will supply the alternative. Unfortunately what happens in practice with corporate deception and consumer complacency doesn’t bore out with my optimistic principles.

Yes. Morality is about intention as much as effect,
That’s why we tend to distinguish the difference between manslaughter and murder.
Having said that, with the ecosystem what it is these days, eating meat is a very environmentally costly option; and consuming it without awareness of the impact it has is bad.

For me it’s not an entirely a black and white concept. I am a vegetarian for my own ethical reasons. In general, I feel like it’s very cruel to kill animals (dogs, cows, deer, pigs, endangered animals or any other kind) in the absence of real need. But I do understand that if someone is starving or lives somewhere that it is difficult, if not impossible, to survive on a diet of other things, then it may be necessary. It is kind of like the lesser of two evils (the person starves, or kills an animal).

I think killing for sport or hobby is really bad and completely un-necessary. I also know that I am in the minority on that subject, and that is only my opinion and I cannot make that decision for anybody except myself.

I also think that in most modern countries, where non-animal food is abundant, that it is an un-necessary convenience and cruelty to continue to raise animals for food consumption. But once again, that is only my opinion and belief. I can’t make anybody believe anything different. People come to their own conclusions based upon their own experiences, knowledge and interpretations of how things are and how things should be.

I also believe that human beings can survive, quite healthily, without eating animals. We are omnivores, which means we can eat meat and we can eat plants, but it is not necessary in today’s world to eat both. Back in the days before civilization, humans ate whatever they could find, and they found out that they could eat both meat and plants.

I also know that meat eating is highly ingrained in our society, so I don’t have any expectations that people in my country are ever going to give up meat. But since I had the choice to give it up, and it works better for me within my own ethical beliefs, I choose not to eat meat. But I would never presume to attempt to get anyone else to make that same choice.

On a lighter note, if anyone wants any good vegetarian recipes, I’m your Go-To gal : )

I don’t think there is a moral difference between killing for food and killing for fun when the target animal is overpopulated, an invasive species, or harmful to the environment. Sport hunters actually do quite a bit of good for the environment. There is a reason why there are certain regulations for hunting, and this is it.

I do not support the killing of endangered animals, or beneficial species.

@cockswain

“For example, in Sumatra they clear forests for palm oil which is wiping out or endangering many species, with potential to wipe out an entire class (of some frog I think).”

IIRC, Sumatran deforestation is also bringing the Sumatran tiger to the brink of extinction.

I think birth control is a more humane way of ultimately diminishing over-population of animals, although it is not as immediate.

So long as it is done in moderation, I have no problem with people killing animals, for whatever reason. And as @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard points out, a lot of hunting works out to population control. The Missouri Department of Conservation relies on Missouri hunters to keep the local deer population small enough that it won’t eat all of its food and starve to death. It monitors the deer and issues hunting permits on the basis of their findings.

@Kardamom Just you try birth-controlling animals that you can’t catch. :D

@cockswain The main reason I don’t promote lifestylism, at least within the industrial system, is because what we buy doesn’t actually make a difference, particularly in terms of food. The same destructive monocrops are planted regardless of our habits because of subsidies, and with a revolving door between agribusiness and government positions in the FDA, EPA, and USDA, there’s really no ability to undermine the destructive habits of these corporations in any meaningful way through lifestyle changes.

@Kardamom Drugging large portions of a species to prevent birth sounds like a great way to cause accidental extinctions. Can’t we just use the methods we’ve already evolved?

Hunting solely for fun when people are starving seems pretty cold. I hope most people who do hunt for fun at least donate the meat. I know a few places in my area where hunters donate venison for the poor (I need to get on those lists).

@Nullo I’m just picturing myself running after a bunch of mule deer with a diaphragm in my hand LOL.

I meant the type of birth control that they put into foodstuff for the animals to eat.

There is absolutely no difference to the animal involved whether it’s beng killed for needed food or for fun.

As to the moral aspects- I believe that harm to another sentient being can be justified only if that harm is necessary to avoid an equal or greater harm. Killing for fun certainly doesn’t qualify; killing for food can qualify if it’s your only alternative.

I am kind of sickened by the idea of people getting enjoyment out of killing things.
Other species kill because they need food or they need to protect their territory. To my knowledge, no other species kill just for the fun of it.

@Mariah Cats and fishers.

Yes. To me, to kill an animal for sport is wasteful versus eating the meat, utilizing it’s skin or fur. Also there are animals I don’t think it’s necessary to hunt if you need traps or bludgeons to get it done. Killing for use is one thing and causing horrible maiming and prolonged pain is another. I may like fuzzy warm stuff to wear but not if a baby seal has to have it’s brains bashed in. That kind of thing.

@Neizvestnaya Also there are animals I don’t think it’s necessary to hunt if you need traps or bludgeons to get it done

Here in the Smoky Mountains, the National Park service uses traps to catch wild hogs, which are an incredibly detrimental species. A lot of private individuals catch them with traps too. Wild hogs suck.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Wild hogs? I’m visiting. Need to make some wild bacon.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard: Scary and sad, the traps but I do understand if they’re wrecking havoc. Don’t you all just have a bigger hunt season for them to cull the numbers?

@incendiary_dan, yeah, they literally infest the national park here. The hoglets are supposed to be extra tasty.

@Neizvestnaya they’re considered a nuisance, so it’s pretty much open season year round, as far as I know, and there really aren’t any restrictions on how you kill them. I’m completely ok with this, though I’ve never hunted them myself.

In today’s world, no one needs to hunt. However, to hunt without using the meat and othre parts of the animal seems morally bankrupt.

@marinelife Lots of people in the world still subsist primarily by hunting. Your answer is classist and ethnocentric. The whole world isn’t a privileged Westerner.

@incendiary_dan You are correct. I was talking about the world of Fluther, however, where I contend no one really needs to hunt.

@marinelife: I have a brother whose family lived off of deer meat as their only meat aside from an occasional fast food drive-thru meal. They did this for about 5yrs, just one of the ways my brother saved money while the kids were small as he bought properties for them, one at a time and put money aside for schooling.

There is a big difference between not enjoying hunting, or not approving of hunting, and calling it morally bankrupt.
If you do not like it, fine. I do not enjoy hunting either. (I like to fish, however)

But when people start calling things they don’t like (i.e. hunting) morally bankrupt, I team up with the hunters.

@marinelife I may be approaching a financial situation where I need to hunt and trap to get food of decent quality. Even if it turns out I’m not, I’m going to try to anyway so I can stop living paycheck to paycheck and actually save a bit. You assume a lot about others on this site. But what if we turn your answer on its head? Nobody in this world needs to buy meat (or other foods) from the store. There are numerous animals running around, some of them so overpopulated that killing some would be beneficial for the environment, as opposed to most store bought meat which is an environmental blight. And why would you pay such exorbitant prices when a 12 gauge slug costs a buck or less? A $1 rat trap can kill a whole ton of squirrels for the table (yum!). As one of my anthropology professors once said “There’s a problem with protein deficiency in some parts of our society, yet there are so many rats running around!”

I’m tired of the attitude of some people that hunting as a way of subsistence is somehow lesser and less desirable than buying meat. Like I said, its classist and ethnocentric. Does anyone do the same thing with gardening (which I thankfully do that, also)? Do people say “Well, nobody needs to grow vegetables in their back yard”. You know what, some people probably do.

Oh Dear, this year’s Fluther potlluck is going to be very awkward.

@josie But when people start calling things they don’t like (i.e. hunting) morally bankrupt, I team up with the hunters.

I tend to agree.

@incendiary_dan, pic related.

@Kardamom I’ll bring Bambi. What, that a problem? :P

@incendiary_dan As long as you don’t expect me to sample it. LOL As if!

I’m the only vegetarian in my family, so when I go to a barbecue, there is meat everywhere. I don’t like the idea of it, for the reasons that I stated a million posts or so above this one, but I don’t begrudge people from doing what is right for them, as long as they don’t begrudge me what is right for me.

We are hungry and we need the protein.

@Brian1946 Also a species of orangutan too. It sucks. Millions of years of evolution wiped out, likely never to produce the same species ever again.

@incendiary_dan I don’t have time to watch that movie, and scanned the article. I’m familiar with the content of the article, and have seen a few documentaries about factory farms, Monsanto, and water resources. I didn’t know exactly what you meant by lifestylism, but now I have a better clue. Politics and not personal choice is more the root of those problems.

Consider the hunters who wiped out the Buffalo. They killed far more animals than they could use for meat. What was the point? Was it for their own pleasure? The pleasure of being top dog? Able to subdue any other species? Was it target practice?

So what is the moral content of that action? Well, if you think of morality as the greatest good for the greatest number, then that was an immoral act because it dramatically changed the environment and prevented millions of people from benefiting from the species.

I think that killing just to kill is not always immoral and not always moral. It really depends on the circumstances. If I kill a lot of mice or rats, most people will think I’m getting rid of a pest. If I kill a lot of deer, some people will think I’m ridding them of a pest and others will think I am destroying cuteness and am a heartless, immoral person.

Now, if I’m killing for meat or fur, it seems to me that it is generally a reasonable thing to do except if you are overkilling the species. Like overfishing. There aren’t going to be enough animals left to replenish the species if people keep killing them at the rate they kill them.

So it’s about being reasonable, given other people’s needs and the needs of the environment insofar as we want it to remain in the future. But I have no feelings that taking the life of an animal is a bad thing. I think that pets have certain rights in terms of how their owners take care of them. I.e, no cruelty, as we define it. But nonpets—I have no problem with us using them in a responsible way, and killing those we need for whatever.

@incendiary_dan I think I said that hunting and using the animal was better than hunting for sport in my original answer.

I don’t want to get into a debate about whether one chooses to use subsistence hunting or not.

I just want to say to everyone that has participated on this thread, so far, thank you all for keeping it so civil. This is a potentially conflict-inducing question and everyone has valid points on both sides (even though none of us are likely to every switch to the other side). But thanks for keeping everything civil so far.

@Kardamom It is ironic that you should say that, because I was just thinking that you are a blappity blappity fling flong who had her broloba excised when her fribble dogsnotted.

I’ve really been trying to remain civil, but that dogsnotting blew me a new gasket.

I know this comment will be moderated, but I’m glad I got that off my chest.

PS. Did you have an opinion on the subject? I didn’t read anyone else’s answers. I know, I know. I’m horrible. So slap me on the wrist, ok? Not good enough? Ok, sue me, then!

@wundayatta I just pulled my fling flong outta my fribble so I didn’t hear what you just said LOL.

@wundayatta AFAIK, people hunted the buffalo for its hide.
@marinelife Even animals hunted for sport may be consumed. I hunt deer, albeit unsuccessfully. When I do get one, I will be taking it to the processor (I am not yet so 1337 as @incendiary_dan, who probably flays things with his mind) who will give me back the meat some time later. He will very probably keep the skin and sell it at some point. All that goes unused are the bones. You’re supposed to gut the deer where it falls and bury the innards. This returns nutrients to the soil, unless the coyotes find your buried guts (in which case the nutrients go to them.)
@Mariah I don’t think that there is anybody who particularly enjoys the killing so much as the hunting. And the camping, and the sweet silence of the autumn woods. If it were just about the killing, you could go buy a pellet gun and shoot birds around your neighborhood. It would be a lot cheaper.

You guys all made some valid points, this discussion was interesting.
Thank you for answering everyone :)

I am late but I will join in. I feel as long as the creature is killed quickly and humanely then so be it. Humans are at the top of the food chain and that is the way it is.

I personally do not like killing. I don’t even like killing bugs, although I do it when they invade my space. I can’t imagine hunting and killing for fun. But as I said above, if that is your thing, do it properly and I won’t complain.

Just because, we eat vegetarian 2 or 3 nights a week. If I had to kill my own meat, I would have to do it. But I wouldn’t like it and would probably up the number of vegetarian meals we eat per week. And we would probably never have anything except chicken. But even that would be hard because I had a pet chicken and she was smart in a chickeny sort of way.

@Nullo I’m pretty sure a lot of the buffalo killing occurred just for the fun of it. I seem to remember learning that some people would just shoot buffalo out the window of a train while riding.
If it were just about the hunting, you could just as easily be a wildlife photographer; same hunt, no killing.

@Mariah – I’m given to understand that while the Native folks killed buffalo for their own food and shelter, the massive slaughter that came about later (killing from trains and letting the corpses rot, for instance) was done to deprive the Native folks of their living. If you take away a culture’s main sustenance, they are more easily broken.

And, to answer the main question, I don’t have any problem with killing an animal if I need the resources (food, shelter, etc.) that it provides. Killing on a lark would seem egregious and wasteful.

Considering the fact that we’re heading for a man-made mass extinction, I don’t think animals should be killed for fur. Meat… ok? But even that places a great demands on water consumption as opposed to just grain farming. What with our fresh water reserves dwindling and a “great thirst” hanging imminent over our heads.

More importantly, this is an environmental issue. Because the way animals are killed for human consumption is also of crucial ethical and legal implications. Recently, there was a debate on the internet about whether animals feel stress? Pain? Yes of course, but what about actual emotional hurt? The study was evaluating the ethics of modern farming techniques.

When weighing the arguments, human behaviour with respect to animals is not ideal.
I think we should learn their language and ask them before we massacre them out of existence

@atlantis – You’re right, factory farming is atrocious. Luckily, there are other, better ways to obtain meat, that even help the environment. For instance, if all the farmland that grows grain that is fed to factory-farmed animals were allowed to return to prairie, and the animals allowed to munch on the grass there instead, we’d actually start building topsoil rather than losing it to agricultural erosion.

@wundayatta: Run of the hunters didn’t wipe out the American buffalo. The American govt. and also railroad companies put great bounties to be paid on buffalo hides. The idea was to wipe out the Native Americans by removing a big food source so they wouldn’t threaten railroad building and the settlements going up around the railroad stops.

@josie

“when people start calling things they don’t like (i.e. hunting) morally bankrupt, I team up with the hunters.”

There is a big difference between calling something immoral because “you don’t like it” and calling something immoral because it actually is a moral problem.

I agree that calling something immoral simply because you don’t like it is unwarranted. My philosophy, as I stated above, is that harm is only justified if necessary to avoid an equal or greater harm. The corollary is that is an action harms no innocent sentient beings, it’s allowable, no matter what I think of it.

For example, I detest boxing; I think it’s sickening. But those who box freely choose to do so, and this is their right.

I also think that people who break valuable guitars during concerts are silly. But guitars are not sentient objects, therefore there is no moral wrong done.

There can be no argument that hunting, on the other hand, is an action which does cause harm to beings who did not choose to be harmed. In some cases, such as subsistence hunting, this harm may be justified. Most of the time, it is not.

@crisw
Morality deals with human choice regarding human survival. Humans are not hard wired to know what to do in any circumstance such that the outcome gives them a shot at living another day.
Humans must learn about the existence of values, how to gain them and how to use them to continue living.
This demands an abstract “game plan” for survival, and that is what morality is.
How we treat each other, or how we treat animals, etc. is not a moral question. It is a capricious social convention.
It is hyperbole, or modern political hyper rhetoric to call it moral or immoral.
It appeals to some people’s sense of guilt to label certain behaviors as moral or immoral. Your politicians, secular or religious, are responsible for that manipulation of your conscience. Shame on them for doing that.
But hunting and killing animals is not a moral question. Certainly, living things deserve a level of respect and empathy higher than inanimate objects. Nobody will argue that. But the issue is based on that fact alone, not some deeper moral basis.

@josie

Valid moral systems cannot be capricious or arbitrary, or they are useless. They must be consistent; they are not simply a “matter of choice.” Racism, for example, is wrong because it’s capricious and arbitrary. So is sexism.

Morality is not what we choose. Morality exists because we choose. The principles are not arbitrary.

Yes, very different. Killing animals for fun is extremely wrong in my value system. In addition to meat and fur, an upset ecosystem lacking natural predators can be a reason for hunting too.

@Nullo Shame about those bones, they make the best soup.

Kudos to those who mentioned the slaughter of buffalo as part of the intentional genocide of indigenous peoples. I’d forgotten to comment on the matter. That constitutes wrong on so many levels.

@josie

I am getting a bit confused- in your first post, you stated that how we treat other beings is a “a capricious social convention.” In your last post, you state that the “principles are not arbitrary.” These two statements seem to conflict.

I agree that morality is primarily a human construct (although proto-morality is found in many social animals and no doubt was found in early humanoids.) But morality exists in order to specify what practices are or are not condoned- thus, morality is all about how we treat others.

Of course morality exists because we can make choices. But, once again, we can either make choices that are logical and consistent, or choices that are not. And workable moral systems are based on logical, consistent choices, not capriciousness or arbitrariness.

@incendiary_dan I guess that they might use the bones. Hadn’t thought of the potential for soup.

Thanks for the answers everyone :)

We have different teeth than the omnivores and herbivores for a reason. It’s our God-given right to eat meat. But playing with animals’ lives,is just cruel.