As a lurker on this list for some time, I think it's time to contribute.
Quick intro: I'm a student at Queen's University in Canada who is presently
working on a thesis paper which attempts to justify intrinsic value for
non-human entities. but enough intro...here's my question/contribution.
Bryan Hyden wrote:
>I will end with an aside. I
>find it far more acceptable (if not actually acceptable) to hunt in this
>manner if the deer is actually cooked and eaten by the hunter and his family
>and/or others, which is usually the case (as opposed to the impulsive
>slaughter of buffaloes in the old west).
Is it acceptable if there are clear alternative sources of non-sentient
protein, easily recognized by rational humans, which do not require hunting
and the infliction of pain on animals? It seems that the eating of an
animal that one has hunted and killed is more often simply a subsequent
benefit of hunting rather than the purpose. And even if it was the
purpose, I'm not sure it is justified given the ready alternatives.
Lorin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|