Is hunting for sport (not food or survival) morally justified? At one point of time hunting was very crucial for survival but now some would say hunting is nothing more than a violent form of recreation that the majority of hunters do not need for subsistence. Those who support hunting may say it does more good than bad for economic reasons. Outsiders are more concerned with the pain and suffering and loss of life endured by the animals. A study conducted by a Yale professor concluded that 60% of Americans disapprove of sport hunting and about one-third of Americans favor a total ban on hunting (Achor 138). I believe hunting animals for sport and not for survival is completely wrong and should be illegal. Hunting is permitted in many wildlife …show more content…
Starvation and disease can be tragic, but they are nature’s ways of ensuring that healthy, strong animals survive and maintain the strength of the rest of their herd or group. The balance of ecosystems also ensures their survival, if they are left unaltered (Achor 155). Hunters are not anything like that or natural predators. While natural predators cull the weak, the old, and the sick members of the species, human hunters kill the strong, large, healthy animals. This weakens the gene pool. Shooting an animal because he or she might starve or get sick is still cruel and arbitrary. There are also many instances of licensed hunters killing more animals than allowed by law. “Limit violations were found in 25% of hunters examined at roadblocks in Utah and in 40% of hunters examined in Idaho” (Wilson). It’s not a cheap source of food either. Hunters spend money on weapons such as ammunition, licenses, blinds, tree stands, mobile stands, scents, lures and a variety of other equipment. Annually, they spend about $10 billion in supplies, equipment, motels, restaurants, and other expenses related to hunting trips (Stevens). Hunting also hurts people in many ways as well. About 200 hunters and innocent passersby die and between 1,500 and 1,700 are injured in hunting accidents each year (Achor
In the film, "Louis Theroux's African Hunting Party", South African wild game farmers advocate trophy hunting as a necessary activity for saving certain species from inevitable extinction due to illegal wildlife poaching. However, when considering Peter Singer's utilitarian theory on the ethical treatment of non-human animals, the process of shooting and killing an animal to preserve its species seems counterintuitive. Applying Singer's perspective, my position is that trophy hunting is morally unacceptable as it reasserts speciesism by disregarding the suffering of the animals being murdered for sport. Indeed, the act of purchasing a hunting permit so that a person may kill an animal for its material value dismisses the animal's personhood.
We are not alone on this Earth. We, humans, have animals by our side. We share this inhabitable planet together with animals, and they should have same right as we do on this beautiful planet. Animals are pure instinctual living creatures who never think before following their instincts. They won’t think otherwise before killing a person.
Big game hunting allows humans and animals to benefit from it. According to Ameena Schelling Ever since the death of Cecil the lion, the world 's been looking at trophy hunting a bit more closely. “While many people have condemned the practice as cruel, ardent big game hunters have stood up to defend it, arguing that
Like Cassidy said, humans are animal too. We have no right to hunt them just because it’s fun and it is a sports. Bear can hurt as much as human could. Try imagining yourself getting shot by a gun and you don’t immediately die after. The feeling is extremely painful and torturous.
In the world today many people say killing is justified, but in reality it's not. One reason why it is not acceptable is because people harm and kill animals for no good particular reason and it’s taking another life out of this
In the last couple of years, the issue regarding big game hunting has received more recognition since the killing of Cecil the lion in 2015. Despite the controversy concerning the use of legal paperwork by Walter Palmer, the individual who killed the lion, the killing of the exotic animal itself caused a major spark in the ethicality of trophy hunting. “The killing of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe in July 2015 reignited the debate over big game hunting” (Big Game). When looking at big game hunting from an ethical point of view, it is more beneficial than opposers realize. There are many controversies surrounding the dispute of the legality involving big game hunting, most educated hunters know that big game hunting actually helps, not hurts, the
Is trophy hunting really the answer? Many people believe that trophy hunting is just digging a hole deeper and deeper in the population, but it is still getting help by the government. Then there is people who think trophy hunting should be legal,this mostly is hunters looking for the best experience of their life. Is that enough to believe trophy hunting is the real answer or not? Trophy hunting is a sport in which you select the animal you want to kill, the place finds the biggest one for you, then it is released and you shoot it.
Authority is what creates order, so when authority is lost, chaos reigns. In William Golding’s novel, Lord of the Flies, authority is needed on the island so that chaos isn’t created. Authority is needed for survival, hope, and order. Survival is based on authority. People look up to authority to tell them how to survive.
Some may choose to go to a grocery store and pay for the things that are processed, rather than going and getting the freshest, free version of the same thing, in their own backyard. In cases like these, those who choose this method are not keeping any animals alive by doing so. They have to be killed first to get to the grocery store anyways. Even with that being said, many would see killing an animal to use as food as the cruelest thing a
People for hunting think it helps keep animal populations down, it provides a good food source, and has been a part of people 's survival and livelihood since the beginning of time. No matter what side you are on, almost everyone agrees
A federal law exists that prohibits killing wolves in the United States. This law was made because, many years ago, wolf populations were decreasing, and many people were worried that wolves would become extinct, just like the West African black rhinoceros (that was declared extinct in 2011) and the do-do bird. But I believe that some hunting of wolves ought to be allowed. First, there are many livestock ranching problems because of wolves.
In the long run, killing these animals will only result in endangerment of the species. I don’t see the wrong with hunting for food and/or hunting for survival. However, hunting to control population or simply for bragging rights, is what I considered
Well, the main argument for why we shouldn’t hunt is that in today’s society we don’t need to hunt because we have supermarkets and the original purpose for hunting were for survival. I would happen to disagree with this because the main foods that we eat from the supermarkets are processed which is bad for our health. Hunting is good because it helps decrease or prevent unhealthy habits, microwave meals, and food company competitions. If our society was not allowed to hunt then we would not have an increase of people in our society with unhealthy eating
On page 3 of the article they say that if hunting were to be abolished animals such as deer will become a problem because of overpopulation. This means that deer could create problems for farmland as they could eat and stomp on the crops. Hunting is what keeps the deer population from growing too large since the population of the deer’s natural predators are too small to keep the population of the deer stabilize. Deer are not the only animals that are stopped from creating problems with the ecosystem. Animals such as warthogs and the Springboks are also hunted to stop problems such as destruction of
Is Hunting Ethical Since just last year the starting growth of the ringneck pheasant here in south Dakota has increased 42%. And how are we going to control these growing species? Which brings me to my point; is hunting ethical? Hunting is ethical because it manages the growth of certain species, and there are rules and regulations in place protecting the animals.