Environmental Ethics and Argumentation of the Hunting King

Topics: Human Rights

The definition of a sport In my eyes is something that challenges a person physically and mentally for the sole act to have fun and entertainment. Others can also look at a sport, as an act that is harmful to ones self or other creatures. All sponsors have an Interest to the eyes of the participant who is acting in their own entertainment. Each person has his or her own interest and every one is not alike. Sport hunting is an act that is done for ones own interests, and is physically and mentally Changeling as well.

Hunting has been a way of life from the beginning of time, Hunting for sport or pleasure is ethical because it does not violate any animals moral rights it has as its primary object the exercise of human skills, which is a sufficient good to compensate for the evil that comes from it, namely, the death of the animal, and it contributes to the ecological system by directly participating on the balancing process of life and death upon which the ecosystem thrives, thus indirectly benefiting the human community.

As such, hunting is not only a natural good, but also a moral good (Vitali). Sport hunting is such a controversial issue because people have become concerned With animal rights and welfare, harm, suffering, and death. Well, what about the hunters rights, hunters have a right to hunt at any given time or place. With law permitting. Rights traditionally refer to naturally endowed or constitutionally granted entitlements to certain specific values that are essential.

Get quality help now
Prof. Finch

Proficient in: Human Rights

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

or deemed to be essential to the well being of an individual (Vitali). Rights. or legal rights to hunt cannot be tampered With or taken away, which is a direct result of freedom. This cannot be destroyed, or taken away without the consent lawmakers. Ignorant hunters that refuse to obey them often break laws.

This is just as common or no different as another person getting a speeding ticket for breaking the law. Just as a police office rights a ticket for speeding the game wardens do the same, but the penalties are greater. The role of the hunter is often looked at differently and is usually thought of in a bad way. The hunter, often portrayed as a redneck, bloodthirsty villain storming the woods each fall With a massive arsenal at his (rarely her) disposal, only exacerbates the impression that hunting is a disgusting sport that recalls and rehearses the worst in human instincts and behaVIor (Vllall), this is an outrage to her that people think this way of the hunter. Many hunters can be doctors, lawyers, well-respected businessmen, or iust plain everyday citizens. This common knowledge among people gives hunters this name, and this name that is given to hunters is what Will eventually lead to the end of hunting.

Hunters and poachers are often confused, while hunters use the animals they kill for food, and poachers kill the animals out of money, for fur or other prizes gained by the animal. Poachers dont care about the animal species, just the product that they yield. Hunters, on the other hand, take only what is needed or by law requirements. The Belief system that Taylor endorses is The Biocentric Outlook. Where it states humans are thought of as members of the earths community of life, holding that membership on these same terms apply to all non-human members (Taylor). This means that humans are equal members of earths community if humans are thought of as a part of the community then if animals and humans are on the same levels humans can hunt animals and Vice versa if a human enters an animals territory then both become the hunted. Taylors’ Biocentric Outlook also states that the earths natural ecosystem as a totality are seen as a complex web of interconnected elements.

With the sound biological functioning of each, being dependent on the sound biological functioning of others (Taylor), this means that ecosystems are dependent on one another: therefore, animals are dependent on humans as well as humans are dependent for animals it a hunter hunts for food, then he is dependent on the animal to provide him with food. If a hunter’s house has many beautiful flowers or plants that he has put in the ecosystem, this provides animals with food. Taylor then states each individual organism is conceived of as a theological center of life, pursuing its own good in its own way (Taylor). This means that each organism pursues its own good and has a purpose or meaning with goals. As a hunter has his or her own purpose for hunting animals, for his own good or goals for their pursuit of happiness. While animals have their own goals in their pursuit of happiness, the last part of the Biocentric outlook state that the claim that humans are superior to other species is a groundless claim, and is irrational or bias in our own favor (Taylor).

This claim states that humans are not superior to animals, I think if a hunter puts his self in an animals environment the animal becomes superior to the human. Humans and animals have traits that one another doesn’t share it a hunter is in the woods hunting bear and the bear attacks him and eats him instead of the hunter eating the bear, that is superiority. The Environmental Ethics and the Case for hunting king draws attention that to hunt means to kill a Wild, not tame domestic animals. It is an activity unlike farming or animal experimentation, directly interferes with undomesticated biotic communities (King). This states that to hunt means to kill wild not tame domestic animals. Does this mean that it is ok to raise beef Cattle from young to old then have them slaughtered by a factory? Can it also mean that cutting the legs off a baby calf to raise it for veil is morally right? In hunting the animal has Its own chances of suervaI in a natural environment and is not locked up helpless In some field or cage until Its slaughter.

Singer claims that we have a moral obligation to minimize the pain and suffering that are the consequences of our actions (Singer). This idea that Singer brings to our attention is a direct blow toward sport hunting. He claims that sport hunting is a direct action to kill an animal and the kill takes precedence over the hunt. As a hunter I know the time and preparation that is taken to plan a successful hunt. It is not directly all about the kill but the satisfaction of a successful hunt. Also animal cruelty is often brought up in the situation of sport hunting. King argues that sport hunting for trophies is not a form of predation, because, unlike nonhuman predators take the best sample of the herd or species not the sick old or injured (King), I know that if the superior samples of the herd are taken it is harder for the herd to survive.

Hunters are mostly known to take the trophy species but. are not selective and will usually take what ever crosses their path whether it be a trophy specimen or a sick old. Weak or injured animal it is not in the hunters mind to completely Wipe out the entire species. because if he does there Will be nothing left for him in the future. As for nonhuman predators whats to say the dont do the same sometimes in a fight for the power of the herd large species are killed but mostly it is the sick. weak. and old. it is the same in the hunter’s eyes we are after that trophy species but are not selective.

Cite this page

Environmental Ethics and Argumentation of the Hunting King. (2023, Mar 10). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/environmental-ethics-and-argumentation-of-the-hunting-king/

Let’s chat?  We're online 24/7