Remember this: Morality is not Absolute.
After reading several books, articles, an online commentary wars, the subject of hunter morality wept and bled through my eyeballs into my brainpan; one conversation to another.
This interested me. How proponents of the non-hunter regime in offense attacked, while defensive hunters fired back. To show, with myself as the example though humorous, these conversations I thought were morally lacking based on the behavior and content. Nor do I want to sit long on the mountain in judgment of those below. Falls from that height are quick, abrupt and deadly.
At any point in my conversation on this topic, I have decided most ideals on both parts are treated as blanket ideals. No matter what the individual believes, it's applied to all regardless of innocence or guilt. Any argumentative conversation over the morals of hunting would fall back on whatever defining description that is held in the minds of the ones doing the fighting. There would not be a compromise or resolution. It is not reverence of animal life or the cause. It’s who wins. If a non-hunter can trump a hunter, then the belief they are a better survivor than the other would be exploited. If that is the case, the hunter is a poor choice to consider and vice versa.
I do not use the term anti-hunter because this group maintains unused latent hunting skills. They just don’t choose to hunt wildlife. Local food is gathered via the internet and grocery store. Hunters kill wild game for food , recreation, teaching morals and values to offspring, and ecological maintenance much like other animals. Non-hunters are either vegan or have others butcher the animals in an undisclosed location in another state or country far removed from the true reality, but given different communal behaviors share some of the same endeavors but in different ways.
The word used to characterize people’s feelings was termed simply ambivalence. Ambivalence is repulsion and attraction toward some person, object, or act. The article mentioned that the sport of hunting for recreation was the most offensive to groups that questioned the irreverence for life on the part of the hunter. This I find questionable. Even though it's for recreation, you can still utilize hunting without isolating it down to one definable term. Given how wars are waged, finding what one would consider another’s weak spot is the place to aim first. When this is done, it seeks to undermine or invalidate the act itself.
In these arguments, topics are anchored with little more than one or two points of disdain and basis for concrete support. I find that its not the actual act of hunting that upsets most people, but the way a select few individuals express the emotions and physicality after the hunt ends through public media, especially in the case of recreation. Some hunters have a perceived cavalier attitude to taking life. The act goes from life necessity to a privilege, and this behavior can be taken as a form of conquer and not giving the sentient being or animal mutual respect in life to death.
If proponents of hunting base all their arguments on the term sport and recreation, the limited field of view should be an embarrassment against their logical mental processing abilities. If non-hunters were to win a legal battle based on a term, then that would indicate how low are society has sunk. Winning verbal battles through manipulation of word play and not exemplary problem-solving interactions is a travesty.
As for the argument for logical supremacy that screams human arrogance; Nature is not logical or even predictable sometimes, but the need to control everything from a human standpoint is a parody of errors, germinating out of human thinking and behavior. Clearly, if one is wanting to be the winner of such a battle then the reasons behind the exchange are not moral or noble.
If someone complains they are disappointed in responses from outside sources on the morals or ethics of hunting, would need to remove the burden of responsibility off of an outside source. Then look to ones own sense of values. If and when you look to someone else for guidance on an internal struggle would be a sad day in human nature, for you do not have that well defined code ingrained into your being. If you falter in your beliefs, they weren’t that strong to start with. Your beliefs are ripe for picking when a stronger more charismatic types comes to brainwash you with thought reform. You lose your sense of self and the world around you. Morals and values, unless strictly defined by a society, are not absolute. They change with the situation. To live so rigidly in the defining parameters would surely choke a man. You can have a moral, value, or way of life but, two different individuals have their set perception of how those morals, values or way of life should be defined.
Using hunting as a form of aggression therapy to temper members of society that are already cramped is one way governments can allow an outlet for living in too rigid a lifestyle. Otherwise, governments would have to devise a murderous way to monitor species population in the most impersonal way. It would be like a slaughter house, except the body would be downed in an area with little regard for reverence, studied, then cast aside. Albeit an extreme scenario, there are other options on the outcome.
How can a non-hunter morally think this is having reverence for life, either if they are producing a situation that brings it about? It would be no more than population control.
The article also mentioned the core of the problem of hunting morals was the conundrum of hunting, having a reverence for nature and life, but killing the animal the hunter stalks. One argument for why this seems to be hard to approach is quite simple. It’s a closed remark that doesn’t take into consideration the other necessary parts of the psyche of a hunter that is rooted in Nature or the act itself. It is stated in a way or what you would comprehend as the hunter being excluded from the ecological system that he or she was born into. With this exclusion one would imagine that the hunter has no right to meddle in the life of a natural born animal of that system.
People already accept they are separated by civilization stress this point subconsciously or openly. Being civilized means casting away what they would call back in the day being a savage, even though civilization puts you in a different artificial landscape that mimics Nature but falls short of glory. The conundrum is not a contradiction based on the fact it is an inborn requirement passed down from your ancestors. To deny that would lower all those things evolutionary wise your ancestors suffered to get their DNA to you or you as a human being accept your genetic histories and move away from it though transcendence.
Given that to condemn one individual for deciding a different path, when two or more are offered, is blatantly irreverent to the other individual life. I find this a lot in human to human contact. There is a mutual discord for individuals against one another when a clash of what is compared to be based in morals or upbringing from infancy. Its easy for one individual to find fault with another and thus condemn them as irrelevant and not worth wasting time on. Throughout history some groups have eradicated cultures or ethnic groups for this difference of credence.
To catch one up to speed you need to understand the lingo in brief. When members of a society can separate right from wrong legally, religiously, or by free thought into respective categories this is called morality. These beliefs or teachings are what society dictates would constitute “a good life.” Any idea against this is amoral. Ethics addresses questions of morality where morality is the glue of moral code. Unawareness of differences toward disbelief in a set of moral principles is considered amorality.
In early civilizations, morals were constructed and defined to avoid disputes and injuries but grew to accommodate the correlation of increasing cultural/traditional melting pots. When considering the crux of hunter/non-hunter stances on the topic of hunting, the ambivalence towards the mode of elimination, gratification, and celebration, is what fuels non-hunter sentiment. This sentiment leads to non-hunters mobilizing against the hunting community to correct or shed light on hunting by pointing out non-hunter ideals, which are different from hunters, as they have a unique set of values in the way of perspective and application.
This could be indicative of amorality on the part of hunter/non-hunter. The difference arises in the way the subject of hunting or taking life is dealt with based on one’s participation. Non-hunters have indicated verbally that hunting, as a set of behaviors, do not encourage the global paradigm shift that is being pushed to a reformed world where there is absolutely no violence. Everything lives in peace and harmony without partaking of other sentient beings as a meal. Predators would be eradicated, reformed, or so closely monitored as to be a shadow of its former self. Predators would have to ask for permission to be a predator; controlled. If non-hunter agendas were followed it would end in global unity on the collective ideals that clearly favor the non-hunter ideology. This is ultimately destructive to some part of the system. There would be no balance.
Biologist contend all social animals have modified their behavior by restraining immediate selfishness in order to improve evolutionary fitness.
Non-hunters consider hunters flawed morally, or as a selfish aggressive member of the species. To implement behavior modification onto the hunter, the non-hunter strives to castrate the hunter into the mirror image of the non-hunter for comfort, security, and control. Non-hunters view the act of hunting as excessive individualism. This view could spell that species cohesion can be undermined and directed globally to an aggressive world view with little regard for pain, suffering or death.
When questioning or conversing on the morality of hunting, one must determine where do the guidelines or laws exist to define the right and wrongs. These laws can be found at local, state, and federal levels. Here at last is a option put forth from government to help define the morals or best yet alleviate the burden. With clear laws, statutes, and self regulating criteria hunters are given the option to make the decision to hunt. Its your decision personally as the individual to pick up a weapon of choice and go forth to dispatch a beast of preference for your consumption.
As humanity’s number grows, wildlife is increasing pushed onto smaller plots of land. Given good breeding season or the imbalance of prey/predator ratio, the government offers the privilege of hunting on private or public lands as a way to take your money in exchange for the hunter to do a job at his cost to help the government control numbers or gather biological information. There is also private individuals that are participating in wildlife/land management for the sake of the ecological system they inhabit as a participating predator.
All of these are rooted in idioms of the self-governing blanket term of morality.
Morally speaking, non-hunters apply what is called tribal morality onto the hunter. This tribal morality is projected onto the hunter by what is defined or perceived as normal for non-hunters. This being arbitrary, flexible, and culturally dependent, as the situation demands.
Hunters are not perceived as entitled to hunt in the non-hunter agenda, therefore are not to be treated according to the same rules. In this case non-hunters wish to enhance their own ideal of what it means to survive and thrive.
Non-hunters adopt the principle of universality. The principle of universality indicates; if an action is right or wrong for one party it should be the same for the other party. This is a selfish view. Those who do not scrape by on the minimal moral level of applying themselves to this standard can’t be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response. No matter what the hunter argues, the non-hunter will blatantly reject, even though there is no need for acceptance of the hunter's individual beliefs on the act of hunting itself.
Reciprocity being an idiom of morality is defined as: to extend a turn for something taken. Hunters in lieu of reciprocity take part in the long and short term planning with governmental agencies of wildlife and habitat to ensure a reliable, renewable ecological life cycle and the supply of essential game through natural propagation of species, etc.
As human life has overpopulated the world along with domesticated animals, wildlife competing mutually, by admission of guilt of all people, has been threatened by slowly dwindling down the landscape of acreage and habitat wildlife need for their life/death cycle. Non-hunters seem to not want to manage populations but seek to embrace an imbalance ecosystem not of Mother Nature’s doing. Also to fuel emotional guilt without proper thought given to what must be done, needs to be done, or even if it is distasteful.
On one hand it could be deception through an attack of guilt and shame on hunter reputation as its questionable per their ethics. If their ethics can be skewered for self serving purposes. It would boil down to priorities and how the hierarchy of importance would be established and acted on. This could be said of special interest groups that are on the side of hunting but not necessarily for its aesthetics. Who among men are selfless? Who are appointed judge and jury on life and Nature? Nature is at best a wild animal held in the crushing grip of man’s populations and his un-natural things.
The hunter and non-hunter are no different from any other animal living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. Hunters are predators but are empathetic to their prey, where in a living system the concern for prey’s life isn’t given a thought, except to feed a belly on the part of a predator. Non-hunters empathize more with prey. Hunters are domesticated The perception of insecurity when life is messing with them brings prey emotions to the surface. The only difference is seen in the idea that humanity is suppose to be elevated to a status outside of other mammals based on intelligence, which is a gaudy arrogance. Also domesticated food supplies should be an acceptable moral choice because it's perceived as less violent, when indeed it is not. It's just undisclosed from public viewing, unless you travel there and see it with your two eyes.
The recurrent theme in wildlife is returning the favor of life and even death. I am swinging toward life on this one. There are several animals species that will starve themselves on partial meals to feed a less fortunate member.
Hunters do maintain the capacity to decide on discriminating choices, when hunting with forethought to the inputs and outputs of a ecological system, while maintaining the system itself. This is based on hunter education through different governmental agencies, self education through any material available, school, being out in the field observing and reporting, and problem solving. This is not based just on stalk, point, shoot, and kill.
Morally, hunters have empathy, reciprocity, partial altruism, cooperation and a sense of fairness as indicators of ethics, as it pertains to the scope of hunting. Hunter moral self-identity and responsibility is grounded in the keen sense to revere life by letting the hunter take part in the natural life cycles. It is based where humans are the equal to other predators with the innate right to be as a hunter is. Hunters do not find necessary to deprive wildlife of its natural state, life/death cycles, for free will but attempt to encourage it and not treat it as a domesticated pet.
Moral code on the individual level is assumed to be innate. This being the aesthetics and thus moral choice . Moral codes are coercive and are promptly and clearly indicative of human politics. Moral code is usually learned in infancy as a religious proverb that differs from culture to culture with varying importance on situations to be considered. Moral codes are founded on emotional instinct and intuition that were selected in the past because they aided in survival and reproduction.
Non-hunters do not see hunting as an aid to survival. Alternative food sources are readily available and acceptable to them. Non-hunters shouldn't undermine or bring hunters into a world where humans have elevated themselves to a fantasy of enlightenment. Hunters do not want to eliminate the deep seated traditional urges of primal rights, as human civilization after great strides in all arenas, has crumpled. Hunters individually and personally find the profane in nature for themselves without being spoon fed what someone else projects it should be. They don’t need gurus. Hunters are being without the shackles of responsibility or expectations of a society that makes life the unlivable struggle it has become. Hunters prefer the natural state of human survival and not the artificial landscape that humanity has built for itself and moves around in daily.
When values are addressed, values approach how individuals and groups understand how, why, and to what degree the those participating should value things. An individual‘s values may be dictated or assimilated after birth depending on the family or community. This can change over time as the individual moves from one communal influence to another, trying on different identities until they find themselves. Some never find themselves, because in the osmotic form are shattered pieces of different perspective on habits.
Ethical dilemmas are pointed out by non-hunters because its based on their social construct, which doesn’t necessarily exist, but is all to real to them.
A person that lived could say I have a few more things to do before I die. I’m satisfied where I stand.
Hunters do not wish to transcend to an illusionary sense of omnipotence, where life cycles are altered for human politics. Hunters merely wish to take their rightful place as part of the silent conversation of the ecological life cycle. Hunters want to be much like a dog. A dog just wants to be a dog he strives for nothing else. If he did, he would be mutually as unhappy as humans are today by having placed to many artificial burdens.
Besides, individuals are on different paths, if life circles back to the same appointed spot, then so be it.
Existing in a majestic or mundane place, the wonder of a much earlier world still plays itself out in a nature state. You realize how small and insignificant you are and your imagination is uncovered as reality slaps you in the back for all the human diatribes that have been spoken to you or taught; the hunter reflects. Concerns of life and death are relegated to the trunk after responsibility and pursing the illusionary American dream.
Hunting shows you, for those that take that path in life, even if momentarily, the mundane and the profane.
On one hand, non-hunters empathize on the perceived violent death of the game animal by the hunter. Then again, that same game animal could suffer death at the mouth of a predator animal in the life/death cycle. This would seem more ideal because it is deemed a part of nature. In this mentality, humanity is separated out like an interloping species that doesn’t necessarily belong or having a relegated influence on the life cycles themselves.
Man casts man out of Nature. Instead of man being a part of nature, he is no more than a tourist of his own life cycle. Man is a detached being in itself and is not considered sentient but alien.
Years have past on man’s descent from Nature. As a creature that is known for conquering, controlling, and devastating Nature, man to some extremes has excised himself from early man primal lineage. Latent instincts in a hunter to get back to Nature and her cycles calls.
Non-hunters who want one unified love do not understand the righteous indignation from meddling in Mother Nature’s affairs.
Non hunter imply and cite ethical dilemmas in an attempt to refute the ethical law-based governmental system that subjugates the complete burden of morality’s question on the sport of hunting, as well as the world view that encompasses it.
This can take the form of a collective militant advance on questioning or manipulating law by feeding the super ego via the Hero complex. Most endeavors end in the insult to the hunting community, revision of laws or respective an avoidable deaths of the very animal species they purport to revere and protect. If you have done nothing but eventuate the death of an animal, how is it different? This could be rooted in intention.
This is all revolving around human politics and not morals because individuals can make a choice on what they believe is right or wrong, then act accordingly.
Morally, hunters do sacrifice self-interest in the service of a greater good every time they plant food for wildlife, decided not to shoot that buck and let him grow, breed, monitor wildlife for disease or changes in populations, offer financing and jobs to others, plant trees, raise wild game and turn them loose. Or follow the laws set down for conservation and ecology. The list is much longer than you think. It's getting credit for your endeavors that fall short. Otherwise immorally, they could say no to all of the above and wait till the last piece of dirt is covered by concrete. Hunters go far beyond prudence. They are looking out for the mutual benefit of ecological systems and those sentient beings living within them. Hunters don’t have obligations, they take on obligations to the ecological system and have a conscience about it which validates moral meaning at least to the individual, even if it is misunderstood by a non-hunter.
Policing an individual's behavior, when the hunter is minding all of the legal laws, is left up to the hunter himself and what he can live with. One of the greater questions in life a person can ask is: Can you live with what you have done?
To truly demonstrate humanity at its best would be for both sides to think of the things they have in common and build a compromise from there. The two differing world views can be compatible. Both sides can find points of compromise and attrition to those that are problematic and journey to a livable accord.
Even as the battle rages on in the tribal realms of defining morality for hunters and non-hunters, a new point of struggle lays in territorial morality with questions of public lands, hunters rights, and the political landscapes the conversations exist on.
What is the moral thing to do? Does anyone really know?
Written by: W Harley Bloodworth
Angelia Y Larrimore
Note: It was some pau wau on this topic, I tell you.
~Courtesy of the AOFH~
