Dear Jim and All
A belated response due to heavy commitments.
The banning of "hunting with dogs" is due for government consideration but
what is unclear is whether there is any possibility of an Act being passed.
Setting asside the issue of the wildlife itself the debate is frequently
discusssed in terms a polarisation between urban/rural communities and
between upper anld lower class. (this is the UK so you would expect us too
think in class warfare terms). Whether the sentiment of the general
population splits along these lines is very unclear . The two sides of the
debate seem to enlist or vilify (through generalisations) large swaithes
of the community in order to provide their rhetoric with some number based
authority. The ultra cynical might suggest that the proposed ban satisfies
one group of voters but the failure of it to be accepted will appease the
others. (hence all content).
My ethical postion is also confused. I would not go fox hunting, otter
hunting etc and on balance I consider them rather ugly and cruel
passtimes. But should we regulate by law all actions that we dissaprove of?
Is legislation the only weapon that ethics has available to deploy? Is it
not a weapon of last resort and disproportionately powerful in relation to
our sense of offense?
I repeat the "ugly and cruel" part in case the world falls in on my head.
Regards Paul K
PS thanks for tips about energy use. If anything interesting comes out of
it I will let you know.
|