Introduction
Hunting has been described as a way of life, with some scholars observing that while we are presented with some specific necessities of life that we cannot avoid, the means with which we make use of these available opportunities like hunting is left to man’s creative mind of invention (Nelson, Bateson & Kerasote, 2005). Many believe that when one is out hunting, it is neither a fiction nor a farce; he is basically doing what the Paleolithic man practiced (O’Neil, 2002). This kind of argument could be related to the historical aspect of hunting where it was taken as a source of food by man. In the contemporary world, hunting has regenerated into other aspects such as leisure and commerce, giving the activity a new dimension different from what it was in early ages. For example, Wood (1996) highlights emergence of commercial hunting in the in the late 18th century. He states that the restaurant menus in certain cities like New Orleans, St. Louis and Chicago between 1870s illustrated that there was a lot of wild game supplied by commercial hunters (Wood, 1996, p.139). So far United States banned commercial hunting of wild game. Many people have attributed the banning of commercial hunting to ethical reasons.
In the contemporary hunting, it is critical to establish the difference between subsistence hunting, commercial hunting, general sport hunting. Subsistence hunting is principally meant to acquire food for human survival; commercial hunting is business-oriented; and sport hunting which is non-commercial in nature and is highly regulated (Ortega & Smith, 2007). In time frame perspective, early people practiced subsistence hunting, and even some specific indigenous people still practice it in today’s world. Commercial hunting was instigated by the early American frontier business people, while today it is sport hunting that is popular with the modern man (Ortega & Smith, 2007). However, questions have been raised on the ethical aspect of hunting, whether sport, subsistence, or commercial. Ethical issues relate to the question of what looks safe, appropriate, and justified (O’Neil, 2002). This paper illustrates the ethical aspects of hunting on the basis of human as the hunter versus animals as the hunted. This study report takes ethical aspects of hunting with a look at ethics on the basis of 4Cs.
Materials and Methods
The study focused on the search for materials from specific databases with ethics and human actions, narrowed down to hunting as human activity. Most of the materials used were got through the free search engine, Google. In the search, terms used were: “ethics and hunting”, “ethical aspects of hunting”, “ethics and human actions”, “fishing as a sport” and “conservation and human exploitation”. Even though there were hundreds of results generated in the search, it was narrowed down to articles, e-books and journals written in English, specifically publications with the latest information on hunting as a human activity.
This scope of the study was based in the United States since the country has one of the most elaborate reform agendas with distinct features in the hunting and laws. Their readily available literature also informed their choice. However, it must be acknowledged that each country has its unique ways of dealing with ethical issues in their legal systems, despite the fact that ethics is broadly considered an individual initiative rather than a legal aspect. These findings should just be a base for launching other studies. It is therefore prudent that an elaborate study be carried out to establish into details the specific trends on the ethics of hunting.
Results
Hunting ethics as a moral aspect
Hunting ethics is seen as a moral obligation by everyone planning or is engaging an activity. According to Sharpe (1998), they are seen as personal or individual codes that guide the way we live, i.e. it guides us on what is safe for both of us and the wild animals, appropriate, and fair. Basically, ethics are in some cases seen as moral obligations, which are considered to be wholesomely right (Sharpe, 1998). For instance, a person intending to shoot at an animal, but instead fires several bullets with the belief that such an action will help him or her kill at least one of the animals may ask himself or herself whether such an act is ethical. In short Wood (1996) says that ethical hunter will never shoot “outside of his or her effective range” (p.121), despite the fact that such an action may be legally acceptable. This leads us to one important aspect of looking at the ethical hunting, the 4 Cs. The four Cs is comprised of Carefulness, Courteous, considerate, and capability, and are based on the principle of unwritten laws (O’Neil, 2002). Carefulness means a hunters act of committing his or her signature and attitude or behavior to the basic rules of safe hunting (O’Neil, 2002). Courteous approach to hunting is basically to do with the behavior of the hunter, where the virtues of being polite and kind are fully practiced (O’Neil, 2002). To be considerate is for the hunter to be respectful of others who also depend on these game animals; hence creating the virtue of selflessness (O’Neil, 2002). Capability of the hunter means his or her ability to master skills needed for outdoor skills, knowledge to accurately judge an impending action (O’Neil, 2002).
Basically, the people responsible for enforcing these unwritten rules are us, hence bringing the concept of responsibility in our actions. However Bekoff (2005) observes that personal responsibility can be tampered with due to negative peer pressure and at the same time positive peer pressure can lead to responsible actions.
Negative Influence and Hunting
Substance abuse has been known to lead to improper decision making. Making responsible choices requires that one does not hunt while intoxicated. This is because alcohol and drugs are known to influence or affect all the human senses such as hearing, perception, judgment, vision and even reaction time (Wood, 1996). It therefore follows that for one to make appropriate personal choice, it must be influenced by appropriate or positive actions or things. The following aspects were found to influence personal choices: the environment where one was raised, one’s experience with the traditions of hunting, what level one understands the concept or practice of conservation (Wood, 1996; Sharpe, 1998).
Discussion
In the contemporary hunting, the most common hunting type is sport hunting, which is largely restricted by law and regulations. Such laws and regulations are normally related to the time in which hunting should start and stop, the size and type of the gun to be used, which species are to be hunted, what age should be hunted, what time of the year is recommended for hunting (Sharpe, 1998). Principally, other forms of restrictions are found in the way an individual act in the game of hunting (e.g. avoiding the shooting of young gobbler, although it is legally acceptable), or following the traditions of local hunting ethics where, for example, avoiding the shooting of quail when they are on the ground and instead provoking them to fly before shooting (Sharpe, 1998). There is also the restriction on the more effective tools or machines used to trace the game or kill them which are enforced (Sharpe, 1998). For example, the use of helicopters in the hunting of large games is normally prohibited due to the desire of the hunter to be fair in their game of hunting. In this perspective, particular hunting techniques that are considered very efficient (e.g. baiting of wild turkeys using a corn), or use of spotlight during night hunting of deer are generally prohibited in the game of hunting (Sharpe, 1998). It therefore follows that restrictions imposed by law, personal ethics as well as traditional customs are considered important part of hunting. Traditionally, the art of hunting has never been solely been killing of animals per se, but involved personal responsibility in what, how, why and when an animal needs to be killed. In fact many argue that a person’s ethical behavior towards hunting reflects his or her personal life.
Personal and Public Ethics of Hunting
Ethics of hunting have been subdivided into personal and public ethics (Beers, 2006). In the personal aspect of ethical hunting, the hunter looks at his or her ways of treating the animal, actions as well as other fellow hunters (Beers, 2006). In practice, personal ethics has no illegality issue in it, i.e. its treatment outside the legal measure makes it only a personal initiative rather than a restriction by law. Public ethics however is fully covered under the art of disobeying the laws or trespass (Beers, 2006).
It is advisable that a hunter practice personal ethics such that he or she respects fellow hunters or sportsmen as well as rights of the animals. This is to say, as a matter of hunting principles; hunters should never fight over hunting zone and instead should embrace each other’s needs and share the hunting ground. It therefore means that disregarding of another person in terms of a right to hunt in the same area is discouraged. It is argued that the biggest ethical irresponsibility shooting an animal and not follow up, as it is said that one should take all the initiative to follow the entire shot animal and retrieve the wounded one (Adams, 1995).
In the public ethics, an act such as killing an animal with a gun shot and leaving the remains for another hunter, or ignoring the killed animal simply because it is smaller than what you wanted is considered highest level ethical misconduct as well as illegal in all aspect (Adams, 1995). In other words, the two major sources of this attitudinal orientation are related to the humanistic and moralistic views (Adams, 1995). The moralistic view is inclined towards the belief that hunting as a whole is ethically wrong, expressing their love for animals. This kind of love is expressed in the pets they keep, where they extend the same love to the wild animals (Adams, 1995). It is a belief that focus on an individual animal is important, and not species, with regards to animals as innocent and virtuous creatures that have done no wrong to deserve mistreatment (Adams, 1995). In principle, hunting is viewed as ethically wrong, with some expressing their strong idea that it has a “degenerative impact on human beings and society” which does not respect the equivalence between humans and animals, and further fail to extend the ethical rights to animals (Adams, 1995, p.67).
The moralistic approach to anti-hunting presents the activity as ethically evil, seen as an unjustified exploitation of an animal in the world where every creature has a position to live freely without interference (Wood, 1996). In this dimension, the evil may be seen in the impact of such an act on the people, that is, the belief that hunting has a degenerative impact on people welfare as a whole (Wood, 1996).
Literature
Humanistic approach to hunting was clarified by Keller, cited by Wood (1996), stating that anti-hunters who belonged in this category had a very strong emotional identification with animals, basically individual pets. It is this love for pets that they also applied to wild animals, hence classifying hunters as those who just inflict injury or pain to wild animals without genuine reason or cause. It is a kind of view that elevates animals to the human status. Still, there are those who believe that animals are in the higher level as compared to animals, hence lowering the human status (Sharpe, 1998).
The moralistic belief is based on the notion that hunting itself is an unethical act and an evil that should be avoided at all costs (Sharpe (1998). In most cases, the evil may be seen in what a person’s actions causes to the animal world or its adverse effect on the fellow humans. … Sharpe (1998) states that killing an animal for sport is the perfect case of evil behavior. He further elaborates that such evils are done because the people committing the acts belief that they are justified in that they are going to gain something out of their actions (p.189). According to Nelson, Bateson & Kerasote (2005), such are the act of selfishness, with the killer preferring death to life with the only satisfaction they get is that something that was once alive is dead. Bekoff (2005) says, “Even if the act of killing was quick, hunting as a game is unacceptable” (p.233). Beers (2006) is more philosophical when he says that ‘reverence for life’ demands that all life should be held sacred; hence we have no express right to kill or harm another creature unless it occurs in certain unavoidable circumstances. Schweitzer, cited in Wood (1996) gives his recommendations that worms and insects should be helped and saved, and that a flower should never be cut unless there is serious need. In a general view, it may be argued that killing of an animal is morally wrong, whether it is domestic or wild animal. From this it can therefore be argued that eating of meat is principally wrong; hence leaving the people with vegetables as the only viable options. But aren’t vegetables too having life to be protected?
Some of the hunting critics like Roger King, cited in Ortega, J. & Smith (2007), links hunting culture to a wider traditional belief of male superiority over female, both physically and socially. According to them, hunting is “symptomatic of a necrophilic culture, indeed of patriarchal culture” and that the belief that real participation in nature means to hunt, which means that one must just kill to justify the hunting goal (Ortega & Smith, 2007). Collard, cited in Bekoff (2005) on one hand criticizes hunting and the culture of domination by the hunters, describing it as “man’s oldest profession” (p.91). According to her, hunters should never be sympathized with since they are brutal creatures who are senseless in every of their action (Bekoff, 2005). She goes ahead to explain why hunting is too bad to be continued. Liking the act to behaviors of the men in the patriarchal societies who identified the prey, competed with each other (or with other fellow males), with little care whether the “prey is a woman, animal, or real estate” (p.102).
My idea
Evaluation of Unethical Act of Hunting
As stated earlier, hunting is considered unethical act by many, based on the view that wild animals have a lot of value or rights just like the humans do. It therefore means that we need to acknowledge that every living organism, both animals and plants have a life worth living just like us humans. However, this kind of argument cannot go without some faults. First, it is undisputable that not all living things have the same value, and that man cannot survive without a living thing being killed, at least for survival.
In fact, one would respond to some scholars’ assertion that there is a sacred element in every life and that we as humans should protect life of all other living things by acknowledging that all living things have value. Again one must accept that life a mystery as well as being wonderful part of earth Bekoff (2005). That is to say, we should put similar value for both animals and humans, thus being positive about the creatures even those which seem to have little value to humans. In other words, the fact that we appreciate all forms of life does not mean that we are unable to make proper judgments of what to be killed and that which should be preserved; appreciating the values of animals does not stop us from eating meat.
It is evident that people must accept the fact that everyone, be it hunters or anti-hunters or vegetarians are dependent on a particular life being ended for them to survive. As Beers (2006) puts it, “life entails the necessity of destroying life to have life. Life isn’t possible without death of others” (Beers, 2006). In other words life is never possible without an act of killing, and this killing mostly involve innocent animals. This is a fact that can never be disputed in all levels of life, from micro-organisms to macro-organism. Basically a vegetarian would argue that hunting for animals is unethical, yet hunting for plants can also be unethical since they both have life to be guarded.
Conclusion
It would be logical to delve much about ethics in hunting but as shown above, it is a really tricky and complicated issue that constitutes a dilemma that is hard to counter. There is basically a greater confusion with regard to norms that constitute ethics of hunting. However, we have to regulate our treatment of other creatures in realities of the existence. The other difficulty is in the fact that the ethics of death is critically difficult, since death is the least intelligible fact that man would stumble upon Bekoff (2005). Beers (2006) states that in the hunting morality, “the enigma of death is multiplied by the enigma of the animal (p.275).
Reference List
Adams, C. (1995). Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. New York: Continuum.
Beers, L. (2006). For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States. Athens, OH: Swallow Press.
Bekoff, M. (2005). Animal Passions and Beastly Virtues: Reflections on Redecorating Nature. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Nelson, F., Bateson, P., & Kerasote, T. (2005). The Ethics of Hunting. Ecological Society of America. Vol. 3, No. 7, pp. 392-397.
Ortega, J. & Smith B. (2007). Meditations on Hunting. New York. Wilderness Adventures Press.
O’Neil, T. (2002). Hunting Ethics: The unwritten laws of hunting Ethics. Web.
Sharpe, M. (1998). The ethics of hunting, and of life. Fish and Wildlife Today. Web.
Wood, F. (1996). The Delights and Dilemmas of Hunting: The Hunting versus Anti Hunting Debate. Washington, DC: University Press of America.