Let's build a coherent philosophical and ethical case for hunting.

[Taff]

I don't think that is quite the case Taff. I do not believe that the mass populous sees hunting as "killing bambi", but the anti's certainly do, and they are making a lot of noise. Many people go about their lives not giving a second thought to the topic of hunting and if pressed on the spot would probably go along the lines of "if it does not affect me....". That said, the more noise the anti's make, the more it hands the wider public a "received" perception of hunting along the lines you mention and brings the topic to the front of peoples minds. The anti's certainly are illogical and irrational (generally not worth wasting your breath on), but I do not believe that the majority of the public are. That's why I feel that Pine Martin's attempt at a coherent and cogent argument coving as many thesis and antithesis is a worthy cause.

Where as I agree that the general public does not give a hoot, when pushed on the subject of guns and hunting, they will sign a petition to ban both, as they feel it's the thing to do, actually the general population does not give a rats axxe about most things polutitions and pressure groups like us to believe they do, even voting in elections is along historic lines, as was once said about the Rhondda valley," labour could put up a donkey and it would get in"
If I started a petition asking do you believe minority groups, should infringe upon the human rights of other citizens ? Most people would sign, yet that would mean any government would have to resign.

 

[Crosshair243]

A fashionable topic it would seem.

Stop demonising guns they're an important tool for leading a moral life - Telegraph

 

[User00047]

A fashionable topic it would seem.

Stop demonising guns they're an important tool for leading a moral life - Telegraph

There's a bit of a vote going on there.........
91% think guns are ok
9% think guns are terrible and should all be banned

 

[mark_smith1]

I am unashamedly going to ratchet up recent conversations on "the PR War", bringing people into stalking, driven pheasant shooting and so on by a few brow levels in an attempt to collectively develop a coherent philosophical and ethical argument in favour of hunting in general, and therefore deerstalking too. I was inspired to attempt this by a programme on Radio 4 last night around the question of whether it was morally justifiable to kill animals for meat. Towards the end, the presenter made the point that opponents of killing animals for meat had to really make their case as they were opposing the default position, and their arguments were well thought out and constructed. I think this is a very valid point: it's all well and good for we as hunters to complain that our traditions, way of life, hobby is under attack from various quarters who don't understand us or are just irrationally hostile, but I don't think I can remember seeing a single coherent case for why it's morally permissible for us to hunt animals.

There are bits and pieces of course that all work away at making this case, often economic arguments like the BASC's "Value of Shooting" study and FACE's equivalent. But economic arguments on their own are insufficient. You can make a business case for just about anything if you set your mind to it. The obvious extreme example is that proponents of the slave trade had most of the financial arguments on their side, but in the end the moral case was just untenable. And in the forthcoming EU referendum we'll hear lost of economic arguments going both ways, but the discussion is about a lot more than P&L statements. So for now, let's park the economics.

At the risk of sounding like I'm setting homework, may I suggest that we deconstruct this and build our case for hunting little by little. Let's start with the following question:

"Why is it morally justifiable for you specifically to kill that particular deer"?

There are some obvious areas for expansion here too: suppose it's a rabbit, a pigeon, a carp? Does that make any difference? Then that will lead on to "Why is it morally justifiable for humans to kill deer, as species?"

I'm hopeful that we can develop a coherent case here that we can draw on subsequently more effectively that just by trying to lay low or hold on to the status quo, which is far from ideal anyway.

Sorry, additional assumption: you're going to kill that deer instantly, it won't suffer. This isn't about the deer suffering or not from the act of killing, it's about bringing about its' death.

I have been fortunate to work In education for the last 15 years, however, the way we sanitise where food comes from was bought home to me the other day. I asked them where their meat came from in an ethics lesson. Without thinking one student said Tescos. But where did it come from before tescos I asked. Oh no it comes from Tescos. But what about cows, sheep and pigs? Oh they just live on farms. Until we teach our young people to know the provenance of their food how can we create an arguement for our sport. People who dont know where their food really comes from have no right to put us down. I for one am pround to explain the process of field to table, and have even prepared food with them and shared a meal using freerange and wholesome produce. My father was a country vicar who gave me the best advice a man could give his son..... Never trust a person who doesn't eat meat!

 

[Mr. Gain]

A fashionable topic it would seem.

Stop demonising guns they're an important tool for leading a moral life - Telegraph

The problem as I see it with the Telegraph article is that one of the principal ways it seeks to defend shooting for the pot is by criticising other means of food production, and even other forms of shooting for sport (please, please, can we STOP doing this).

It's exactly this: "my way of doing/seeing things is the only justifiable way" absolutism that characterises the antis' condemnation of our activities and attitudes.

The author's Parthian shot of "never trust someone who doesn't eat meat" is the kind of nonsense that I think makes my point.

 

[VSS]

The problem as I see it with the Telegraph article is that one of the principal ways it seeks to defend shooting for the pot is by criticising other means of food production, and even other forms of shooting for sport (please, please, can we STOP doing this).

It's exactly this: "my way of doing/seeing things is the only justifiable way" absolutism that characterises the antis' condemnation of our activities and attitudes.

The author's Parthian shot of "never trust someone who doesn't eat meat" is the kind of nonsense that I think makes my point.

You're criticism of the telegraph article raises valid points, but apart from that I think the article was better than most , and the voting looks encouraging.

 

[Pine Marten]

The author's Parthian shot of "never trust someone who doesn't eat meat" is the kind of nonsense that I think makes my point.

On balance I think this article is more helpful than not, and importantly it's in a mainstream publication. However his argument about people opposing shooting because they don't like manly pursuits and are all under the thumb of a feminist conspiracy is completely unhelpful. Essentially with that argument, he picked a fight with 50% of the population. I think he could have made the same point more effectively by saying that he's a born, instinctive hunter, this triggering the civil liberties clause as we've discussed before. But ranting about women just makes his notional opponents' point for them.

 

[kes]

There is perhaps still the question of whether we are 'defensive' in our responses or proactive - we fund organisations to publicise a proactive stance for shooting but I dont see it hitting the right audience which is public opinion. We need to do more to influence opinion positively. A Taste of Game by BASC is pointing in the right direction but perhaps should be supported more by celebrity chefs who do not feel the need to pander to the masses on food production methods.
Julia Bradbury ran a series about abbatoirs etc - maybe a food production reality show is needed a la Hugh Fearnley campaign?

 

[Pine Marten]

I'm reviving this because I was in Frankfurt yesterday and picked up a copy of Wild & Hund, in which there were book reviews. One of the titles caught my eye as it appears to be exactly on this topic: Daß es dem Menschen schmeckt, Jäger zu sein: "That it pleases Man to be a hunter"
. This chap Dr Bernd Balke appears to have stolen a march on me. I've translated the marketing bumph to the best of my ability, without any attempt to change the rather lyrical metaphors about ploughing and so on. I think I need a copy of this!

Today’s hunters could sing a song about it: their hunting stands accused. And the answers that they give to their accusers are mostly driven by anger, or insufficient, or simplistic but embarrassingly wrong. Much greater minds such as the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset, have targeted the essential questions on hunting and missed. Yet hunters have a solid motivation: ethical hunting is without a doubt right, and not only in the light of the Law, but also according to our conscience. Yet hunters lack the valid arguments that they need. Who else to turn to? None of the great thinkers of Mankind’s history, such as Plato or Aristotle, have fully engaged with hunting or have attempted to explore its’ foundations. For this reason, the German doctor Bernd Balke has taken this field under his plough in his book “That it pleases Man to be a hunter”. What are the different faces of hunting’s accusers? What separates right from wrong? And finally: what is Man? Bernd Balke exposes the very core of Mankind’s nature openly. And this core is influenced by hunting: a Man who hunts behaves according to his nature, he is in tune with himself. He who understands this can only wholeheartedly say “yes” to correctly understood hunting. The book handles a difficult theme, all in good and comprehensible German (sic). The reader who allows himself to embark on the adventure of Bernd Balke’s exciting, crystal-clear, sound and elegant thought, will be richly rewarded.

The title does rather go straight to the core of what we were saying before.

 

[mallettn]

It sounds like it will be an insightful read...

- but, for me, only when there is an English translation!

 

[Freeforester]

Meditations on hunting by Jose Ortega y Gasset is available in English translation, and despite the marketing blurb of Herr Dr Balke' publishing house, is well worth a read. Thereafter one might be able to compare both.

 

[Pine Marten]

Now this is controversial because this BBC video shows a Danish hunter explaining why he opposed the use of lead shot. BUT, he also comes over tremendously well as a sincere hunter AND conservationist, an ordinary guy that people can relate to. There's a lesson here:

The hunters who campaign against lead shot - BBC News

 

[oager]

It's an elegant piece of film and the interviewee is thoughtful and comes across very well, but as with so much media it snapshots a complex issue. Without any explanatory blurb about the report, why wetland birds tend to ingest lead etc etc it's not even half a story. It would be useful to understand from the clip why he calls himself a conservationist too. If he could explain that as calmly as the lead shot story - which is key to the story - then the picture would be more complete.

 

[stig]

This is bollox, I've never had an argument that can beat... If you're prepared to eat meat you should be prepared to kill it, gut it, prepare it, cook it. EVEN if you won't kill it, the argument for the health benefits of wild deer above any other meat is irrefutable.... There is no argument... Deer stalking is so easily justifiable it is without argument to any meat eater. Pheasant shooting less so... But the conservation argument is very valid....

 

[stig]

I have been fortunate to work In education for the last 15 years, however, the way we sanitise where food comes from was bought home to me the other day. I asked them where their meat came from in an ethics lesson. Without thinking one student said Tescos. But where did it come from before tescos I asked. Oh no it comes from Tescos. But what about cows, sheep and pigs? Oh they just live on farms. Until we teach our young people to know the provenance of their food how can we create an arguement for our sport. People who dont know where their food really comes from have no right to put us down. I for one am pround to explain the process of field to table, and have even prepared food with them and shared a meal using freerange and wholesome produce. My father was a country vicar who gave me the best advice a man could give his son..... Never trust a person who doesn't eat meat!

exactly my point... If any meat eater can create any valid argument against deer stalking I will sell all my rifles and move on