Jim Tantillo wrote...
>Well, I don't think it's like that at all. Bryan's fascination with bigger
>and better pyrotechnics as they pertain to "hunting" has no basis at all in
>"hunting reality."
Huh? What fascination? Do I note a bit of projection here? I was only
trying to point out the arbitrary nature of where the line is drawn in the
methods and technologies used in hunting.
The thesis Bryan is trying to develop, that "modern weaponry has
>seriously diminished the sporting element in hunting," could be *either*
>true or false, depending on what you are talking about. As a
>generalization it is a GROSS generalization.
What am I generalizing? I'm simply saying that I think the use of high
powered rifles (ect.) are not a "fair" part of the "game." How can that be
a generalization? You can disagree with me. You can say that I'm wrong.
But you cannot say that I'm generalizing, much less GROSSLY generalizing.
Please be more clear.
>For example, one of the standard items in any typical, run-of-the-mill,
>generic, "ye olde" code of sporting ethics, is the moral injunction: "Thou
>shalt try for a quick clean kill." This "law" is *necessarily* balanced in
>tension with the opposite play-theory commandment of: "Thou shalt seek to
>limit and/or otherwise voluntarily reduce your advantage."
And do you know why there is the tension in this balance? Because this
"game" involves killing. Really it does not serve to compare this game to
other games becuase all other games involve humans vs. humans. And those
games can be made completely fair. Both sides must play by the same rules.
If we make the rules such that humans only hunt animals that can also kill
them, AND the rules are such that there is literally an equal chance of the
hunter or the prey dying, then I say THAT is a fair game. Give the hunter
his high-powered rifle. Let him hunt a water buffalo. Make it so he can
only shoot at the animal when it is in full charge (at the hunter) and not
sooner than when the animal is six paces distant.
Now a rifle may look to nonhunters like a sure sign of
>*advantage* over the prey, but I'm not so sure it *automatically* is.
Jim, I may not be able to hit the bulls eye ten times straight with a rifle,
but I damned sure cannot throw a spear even as far as the target. To state
that a rifle is not necessarily an advantage over prey is ludicrous. Even
if someone misses the shot, they still start out with a gross advantage.
If it is true that
>the ruffed grouse is conscious and cognitively self-aware, and thus
>rationally thinking, then maybe it's the most parsimonious interpretation
>of his behavior to consider his flight away from the hunter as an emphatic
>statement of "Got you that time, sucka. . . ."
Going along with your somewhat facetious example, the grouse could only say
"Got you sucka" if it flew over and pecked the hunter's eyes out. Otherwise
it would not have "gotten" him or her at all.
Evolution has made them pretty good at it. [And as
>an aside to Bryan who thinks sitting in a tree stand makes it an unfair
>contest over the deer--watch the deer use its nose sometime. . . . ]
I've seen this too. If the deer smells you, no more deer. If you're
downwind or there is no wind and you can sit still, it's bloody murder (and
I realize that murder is a term reserved for specific killings of humans,
but I like it for emphasis).
Bryan H.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Tantillo <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 5:10 PM
Subject: Hunting as Play, Part 2 was Re: Enviroethics and the Problem
ofSuffering
>Hi again,
>
>>Chris Perley wrote:>
>>> Sorry, I know that is somewhat of a red herring, but I think all this
>>> obsession with the motivation and (by association) the morality of
hunters
>>> has the scent of a red-tinted kipper about it as well. If a hunter gets
a
>>> kick out of being a predator, couldn't this be some genetic urge, some
>>> deeper yearning to leave the supermarket aisles and get back to roots.
It
>>> doesn't mean he is bad or mean. The moral issue is not death, but
sadistic
>>> pain - and we ALL AGREE that if a person (I won't call them "hunters",
to
>>> avoid association) takes sadistic pleasure in prolonged pain of another
>>> animal then any moral code will condemn him.
>>
>>Dreamer: I'm not sure sadistic pain is the only moral issue. I'd like
>>to return to the "play" concept I spoke of earlier, and suggest that a
>>special set of play-morals may be relevant. I'd mentioned that the
>>capacity for "play" might be an indicator of self-conciousness or some
>>other quality which might be recognized as meriting a special level of
>>moral standing for animals. The idea has special relevance in a
>>discussion of hunting, which is typically justified (and which has been
>>justified on this list) as a sort of sacred, primordial form of play.
>>The objects of the hunt are referred to as "game." The animals hunted
>>are those which have special advantages which give them a "sporting"
>>chance of eluding the hunter. The British are much clearer on these
>>aspects of the hunt than Americans; the game laws (rules of the game)
>>are very elaborate around fox hunting for instance, and used to be even
>>more elaborate (see Blackstone's commentaries on the law).
>
>Tantillo,
>Just a brief comment: although I think overall you are basically correct
>about the British being "clearer" about their sporting code or ethic, I
>think it's too easy to assume most Americans pay no attention to such a
>code/ethic. Historically the British were responsible for developing the
>very idea of a highly refined "sporting ethic," and this was exported to
>other countries over time. (Of course a cynical view which can be
>developed sees this as simply another manifestation of British cultural
>imperialism, etc. etc. Others have developed that interpretation. I don't
>necessarily want to get into that but simply note it in passing.) But I
>think the claim, "The British are much clearer on these aspects of the hunt
>than Americans" is a bit of an overstatement that needs a lot of further
>qualifying.
>
>
>>Dreamer:
>>To the extent that hunting is a sanctified, primordial ritual or game,
>>it should be governed by the ethics of play. These ethics have evolved
>>over the millenia. One concept is the "level playing field." Deer,
>>geese, etc. were designated as "game" in an era pre-dating modern
>>weaponry. When people were hunting with spears and arrows, the "game"
>>animals really did have a reasonable chance of escape. As Bryan and
>>others have noted, modern weaponry has seriously diminished the sporting
>>element in hunting. It's rather like having two boxers go at one
>>another in the ring, but allowing one of them to be furnished with a
>>machete.
>
>Well, I don't think it's like that at all. Bryan's fascination with bigger
>and better pyrotechnics as they pertain to "hunting" has no basis at all in
>"hunting reality." Likewise, machetes have no place in boxing, as we know
>it. The thesis Bryan is trying to develop, that "modern weaponry has
>seriously diminished the sporting element in hunting," could be *either*
>true or false, depending on what you are talking about. As a
>generalization it is a GROSS generalization.
>
>For example, one of the standard items in any typical, run-of-the-mill,
>generic, "ye olde" code of sporting ethics, is the moral injunction: "Thou
>shalt try for a quick clean kill." This "law" is *necessarily* balanced in
>tension with the opposite play-theory commandment of: "Thou shalt seek to
>limit and/or otherwise voluntarily reduce your advantage." Using a high
>powered rifle with a scope is not inevitably _ prima facie _ evidence that
>a hunter has some sort of a psychological Rambo complex, but rather is a
>genuine attempt to honor the spirit of that first commandment. A hunter's
>seeing the point of aim more clearly, with a scope or whatever else, can
>help *ensure* (but not guarantee) that the shot goes where the hunter most
>sincerely hopes it goes--into the "killing zone" (my apologies to the
>squeamish here, but there isn't really a better term coming into my mind at
>the moment)--rather than into some other nonlethal area of the prey
>animal's anatomy. Now a rifle may look to nonhunters like a sure sign of
>*advantage* over the prey, but I'm not so sure it *automatically* is. (If
>rifle shooting were so easy, wouldn't everyone score 100-10x--that's ten
>bulls-eyes--everytime?) I am pretty sure that the choice of appropriate
>"firepower" is a reflection of the trade-off between the two conflicting
>rules of the hunting "game" mentioned above.
>
>>(By way of contrast, the passage in Abbey's "Desert Solitaire"
>>in which he hunts a rabbit with a rock is worth a read.)
>
>And this is why we don't hunt (generally) with rocks: too much chance of
>crippling losses. Bare hands is obviously the ultimate in voluntary
>reduction of technological advantage. . . . but then that would "give the
>game away" to the animal. <s> And, besides, how would you ever mount a
>scope to a rock? :)
>
>>Dreamer:
>>Another concept is that of voluntariness. If two people voluntarily
>>choose to meet in a boxing ring, it might be considered sport. But when
>>someone sneaks up behind me in an alley without a prior understanding
>>between us and starts hammering me with blows, it is not considered a
>>sport, it is battery. When two people mutually caress one another
>>(fore"play") and go on to make love, a beautiful primordial ritual, or
>>play, is re-enacted. But when one side has not consented to the play,
>>it is called rape, and is condemned.
>>
>>Because animals have not volunteered for the contest, and because the
>>contest has become so one-sided and risk-free for the human hunter, all
>>the sanctimonious justifications of hunting in terms of "sport,"
>>primordial "identification" etc. ring a little hollow.
>
>Well, well, Dreamer. . . . "sanctimonious"? Ouch. :-) But ok, I'll let
>you have that one.
>
>Despite the risk of sanctimony, however, I would add that the labeling of
>sport hunting as "sport" is at one level simply an empirical or
>definitional claim. If organized play constitutes a game, and a physical
>game is a sport, then it merely follows that hunting is a sport. The
>further justification of hunting then is a separate issue to be worked out,
>either in terms of utilitarianism, virtue ethics, or whatever. . . . But
>it is possible to build upon your fundamental insight that play is
>important to people and reason from there (somehow) that hunting is
>important to people. The moral *significance* of hunting's importance to
>people is something that people of good will can still continue to disagree
>about.
>
>With regard to voluntariness of the prey: I think that is a good, and
>troubling, issue to raise. You're exactly right that what differentiates
>hunting from other games is that the "opponent" here (and I don't mean
>opponent in an adversarial, war-like sense, but in a play-like sense of
>"contestant") does not *choose* to play.
>
>But of course <smile>, that *could* simply be an anthropomorphic projection
>of our best guess about what the animal is thinking. If it is true that
>the ruffed grouse is conscious and cognitively self-aware, and thus
>rationally thinking, then maybe it's the most parsimonious interpretation
>of his behavior to consider his flight away from the hunter as an emphatic
>statement of "Got you that time, sucka. . . ." <s> Thus in this sense,
>maybe the grouse *does* "choose" to play: otherwise why wouldn't he just
>sit still on the ground? Where, I might add, no sporting hunter worth his
>code of ethics would simply pot him. I'm being somewhat facetious here,
>and I don't have a quick response to the voluntariness issue, except to
>note that what makes prey, prey, is that they are in the business full-time
>of eluding predation. Evolution has made them pretty good at it. [And as
>an aside to Bryan who thinks sitting in a tree stand makes it an unfair
>contest over the deer--watch the deer use its nose sometime. . . . ]
>
>[interesting civil disobedience stuff from a former lawyer deleted]
>>
>>Perley: But to judge the act of
>>> killing (and therefore hunters) is a little too precious, and too
fraught
>>> with hypocrisy and myth for my blood, especially if we take a
perspective
>>> out to the way this universe and its life support systems have been
working
>>> for the past 4 billion odd year.
>>
>>Dreamer: Too "precious?" Why then not allow the hunting and killing of
>>people? It is worth noting that the organized killing of other humans
>>(war) has traditionally been justified in the same way as animal
>>hunting, as violence somehow "sanctified" by layers of ritual, as the
>>ultimately solemn, high-stakes form of play.
>
>Hmmmm. . . . seems to me it's one thing to "interpret" war as a highly
>ritualized, even aesthetic (at times) activity, and another thing to
>justify particular war(s). Wars are an evil--yes. The act of causing that
>known evil to come about needs a very specific explanation about how (a)
>the actual cost in lives lost will bring about (b) benefits that outweigh
>the cost. (Ahah, utilitarian just war theory). Or, a different kind of
>justification that says we need to prevent a greater evil via the lesser
>evil of war--e.g. the Hitler example--i.e. deontological just war theory.
>War theory is not my specialty either; but I think the slide from sport
>hunting to war is too disingenuous to let pass without comment.
>
>And in closing I just want to echo what Chris Lees wrote:
>
>>As an aside, I would like to compliment the various participants in this
>>debate for a rare degree of civility and courtesy whilst discussing what
>>can be a very emotive topic.
>>
>>Chris.
>
>Agreed. Respectfully,
>Jim Tantillo
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|