Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by la95)
    1) Surely rights are a human construct and thus humans do not have 'inherent' rights either?
    You are exactly right.

    2) Let us discard my response to 1) and assume that humans do have rights whilst animals do not. Does the fact that something does not have rights necessitate that it is therefore morally justifiable to kill it? If so, why?
    Rights are put in place to defend certain sanctitiys, it is the breaking of actions that are seen as sacred or special that is wrong.
    Since Animals have no rights, it is no more "wrong" for me to take it's life, than it is for me to chop down a tree for wood.
    Or to throw a pebble across a lake.

    3) Why does the fact that you enjoy something make that activity justifiable? I am sure serial killers enjoy killing human beings - does that make it justifiable to do so?
    Serial killers harm other human beings, therefore it is dangerous and counter-intuative to us as a species.
    You know full well this is the case, don't extrapolate the argument to silly proportions.

    4) What if they endanger other living creatures, as does hunting? Where is the distinction between harming humans and harming non-human animals?
    The distinction is that one is human, and one is not-human.
    That's like asking "What is the distinction between an Acorn, and a fruit blender?

    The distrinction is one is an acorn, the other is a fruit blender.

    In case you are not aware, I de-facto give the human species a greater level of respect, care and leeway than non-humans.

    Legality, in my opinion, is a poor justification - laws are constructed by humans and are thus victim to the same fallibility as any other view.
    Agreed.

    The burden is on you to show the fallibility of this specific law.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guru Jason)
    I stand by my point that I would physically have a go at anyone whom I saw partake in foxhunting.
    No you wouldn't mate. If some uppity little crybaby came up to a hunter he'd get a rifle wrapped round his head.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's wrong in my view.
    Would you kill your mother/father/cousin etc. for ''fun''? I don't think so. I don't understand why it's a criminal offence to kill a human but not if you kill an animal (unless it's endangered).
    Humans and animals aren't as different as most of us would like to believe. We have evolved, they haven't. End of. Why does that give us the right to murder them? (and yes, I use the word murder)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    Can you explain to me the corrolation between "We are smart ergo hunting for sport is wrong"

    The two seem unrelated to me.

    Thank you!
    We as humans have the ability to empathise, to understand the pain the animals go through.

    Animals are born scared and live their entire lives scared and hunting them just adds to this.

    I cannot fathom how anyone can hunt wild animals knowingly that they are scared and then put them through being shot just for kicks, ergo, hunting for sport is wrong.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arnob204)
    No you wouldn't mate. If some uppity little crybaby came up to a hunter he'd get a rifle wrapped round his head.
    Yes, becaue you know all about me and what I would or would not do. :rolleyes:
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by mf2004)
    Yes, I do, my main concern was that the part you enjoyed was the killing rather than the hunt. If that isn't the case I have no opposition with the act of hunting. I do find the act of not using the carcass disrespectful though. I know it will be eaten by other animals but imo that's not the point, if you kill something it's death should serve you a purpose. If you can't find one for it then I would do as you do in fishing, get to the point where you could kill it but then leave it. I know this is easier to do in fishing than in hunting because in fishing once you've landed the fish the kill is guaranteed whereas in hunting it isn't until you've damaged the animal too badly to let it go.
    I really don't understand this attitude. As if it is a consolation to the deer that you're going to make it into a nice warm fur coat.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guru Jason)
    We as humans have the ability to empathise, to understand the pain the animals go through.

    Animals are born scared and live their entire lives scared and hunting them just adds to this.
    Actually, and this is using rather harsh Logic I will admit.

    If 1)Animal is born in fear
    2)Animal lives it's entire life in fear
    3)When it is killed by natural predators/cold/hunger it will die in fear.

    Surely me killing it, either
    A)Reduces the ammount of fear it would have to endure before it was killed by another predator and
    B)Is no different from what it would expereince via death from another predator
    C)Is usually a good deal more humane and quick than death from other causes

    I cannot fathom how anyone can hunt wild animals knowingly that they are scared and then put them through being shot just for kicks, ergo, hunting for sport is wrong.
    I think it comes from a calm understanding and most importantly being in-tune with and respecting nature.
    By knowing the animal will receive the same, if not usually worse fate anyway, you know that what you are doing is nothing but the natural order and a natural extension and use of your ability's as an animal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MissMcAvoy)
    It's wrong in my view.
    Would you kill your mother/father/cousin etc. for ''fun''? I don't think so. I don't understand why it's a criminal offence to kill a human but not if you kill an animal (unless it's endangered).
    Humans and animals aren't as different as most of us would like to believe. We have evolved, they haven't. End of. Why does that give us the right to murder them? (and yes, I use the word murder)
    It's exactly because we are animals, and aren't as different as most would like us to believe that we can take there lives.

    In the same way when a lion kills a gazelle, we don't pounce upon the Lion and put it down for murder, it's the natural interaction between species.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guru Jason)
    Yes, becaue you know all about me and what I would or would not do. :rolleyes:
    Maybe he's watching you...

    That's a bit weird...I would be careful if I were you.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    You are exactly right.


    Rights are put in place to defend certain sanctitiys, it is the breaking of actions that are seen as sacred or special that is wrong.
    Since Animals have no rights, it is no more "wrong" for me to take it's life, than it is for me to chop down a tree for wood.
    Or to throw a pebble across a lake.


    Serial killers harm other human beings, therefore it is dangerous and counter-intuative to us as a species.
    You know full well this is the case, don't extrapolate the argument to silly proportions.

    The distinction is that one is human, and one is not-human.
    That's like asking "What is the distinction between an Acorn, and a fruit blender?

    The distrinction is one is an acorn, the other is a fruit blender.

    In case you are not aware, I de-facto give the human species a greater level of respect, care and leeway than non-humans.


    Agreed.

    The burden is on you to show the fallibility of this specific law.
    As rights are a human construct, they have no objective moral value in and of themselves. You asked what the distinction is between an acorn and a fruit blender - there are many. I asked what the distinction is between a human an animal - once again, there are many. But in the context of this discussion, I believe we are talking about distinctions regarding the morality of killing. Humans and animals are living creatures with characteristics which define them as such. Thus, given that rights are a human construct, why is it that we apply them only to humans? Surely this points only to our selfishness and sense of grandiose superiority as a species. Speaking of which, you put a ridiculous amount of emphasis on (and your arguments seem to centre around) our loyalty to our own species but how we needn't have regard for members of other species. Why is this?

    P.S. The fallibility of the law relates to the distinction (or lack thereof) I outlined above.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guru Jason)
    Yes, becaue you know all about me and what I would or would not do. :rolleyes:
    Don't make silly little bravado-filled statements that you can't prove then.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    if 7 billion people started hunting we wouldn't have anything left to hunt.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    Actually, and this is using rather harsh Logic I will admit.

    If 1)Animal is born in fear
    2)Animal lives it's entire life in fear
    3)When it is killed by natural predators/cold/hunger it will die in fear.

    Surely me killing it, either
    A)Reduces the ammount of fear it would have to endure before it was killed by another predator and
    B)Is no different from what it would expereince via death from another predator
    C)Is usually a good deal more humane and quick than death from other causes


    I think it comes from a calm understanding and most importantly being in-tune with nature.
    By knowing the animal will receive the same, if not usually worse fate anyway, you know that what you are doing is nothing but the natural order and a natural extension and use of your ability's as an animal.
    Preditors know no better. This is what makes us different from them. They do it for survival. Being alive and scared to me is better than death. At least when an animal does get killed by a preditor, it dies not in vain. The circle of life continues (please forgive the horrendous cliche). I see no good coming from killing animals for sport, only that it fulfilling a bloodthirsty hobby (which isnt good at all).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Hunting for food due to lack of any other sources of protein: fine.
    Hunting for any sort of enjoyment, sport or reward: not fine.

    I understand there are cases when the population of a species needs to be kept down in which case humane extermination, not hunting for sport, is the way this can be done.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by la95)
    As rights are a human construct, they have no objective moral value in and of themselves. You asked what the distinction is between an acorn and a fruit blender - there are many. I asked what the distinction is between a human an animal - once again, there are many. But in the context of this discussion, I believe we are talking about distinctions regarding the morality of killing. Humans and animals are living creatures with characteristics which define them as such. Thus, given that rights are a human construct, why is it that we apply them only to humans? Surely this points only to our selfishness and sense of grandiose superiority as a species.
    It does, and there is nothing wrong with this.

    Speaking of which, you put a ridiculous amount of emphasis on (and your arguments seem to centre around) our loyalty to our own species but how we needn't have regard for members of other species. Why is this?
    The ingrained desire for propagation and defense, a sense of loyalty and more importantly honour.

    I have often pondered over why I feel this way, I even on many levels agree with the rational arguments presented by Vegetarians/Vegans and those who are against hunting, to the extent that I went Vegetarian for close to two years(I think I may actually still be a member of the TSR Vegi soc >.>) however ultimately however rational or seemingly moral such arguments and views were, it was contrary to what I genuinely felt and desired.

    And why do something which goes against my heart?

    Besides all of this, what else im I going to offer to the Aesir, battery farmed chickens? A vegtable stew?
    I wouldn't insult them that way.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arnob204)
    Don't make silly little bravado-filled statements that you can't prove then.
    It's not bravado. You are making assumtions also. The only difference is, I know my own mind and what I would do. You don't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Barbaric.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guru Jason)
    It's not bravado. You are making assumtions also. The only difference is, I know my own mind and what I would do. You don't.
    Saying you'd physically assault someone who hunted foxes is bravado. No one is impressed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guru Jason)
    Preditors know no better. This is what makes us different from them. They do it for survival. Being alive and scared to me is better than death. At least when an animal does get killed by a preditor, it dies not in vain. The circle of life continues (please forgive the horrendous cliche). I see no good coming from killing animals for sport, only that it fulfilling a bloodthirsty hobby (which isnt good at all).
    Why not?

    Is not mental and spiritual sustenance as important as physical?

    And besides, I eat the meat(all of it) I use the pelts, I personally find battery farming and the way meat is prepared in our soceity to be offensive, very few commerical meat suppliers meet the standards of care to an animal that I demand, so I don't eat meat that often, but a kill made by myself, to feed myself is a good kill, the Animal is respected and thanked, offered to the Gods, the meat goes to feed myself and others, and it's body is used in other things.

    The "Circle of Life"(And it's a beautiful cleche, don't be ashamed) is continued perfectly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arnob204)
    Saying you'd physically assault someone who hunted foxes is bravado. No one is impressed.
    I was...

    If he came towards me, id probably poo my pants, and fire widely into the air in fear.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 3, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.