JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ENVIROETHICS Archives


ENVIROETHICS Archives

ENVIROETHICS Archives


enviroethics@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ENVIROETHICS Home

ENVIROETHICS Home

ENVIROETHICS  1999

ENVIROETHICS 1999

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Hunting as Play, Part 1 was Re: Enviroethics and the Problem ofSuffering

From:

"Bryan Hyden" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:01:27 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (248 lines)

Jim Tantillo wrote...

>I know you won't like where I go with this one, but you've just given one
>of the best defenses of hunting I can think of.  "I personally feel most
>fully alive and concious when involved in play."

This is a good "defense" of play.  It's not necessarily a good defense of
hunting.  The fact is that there are many ways to "play."  The more central
issue, as I understand it, is whether or not hunting is a justifiable form
of play.

>Part of what makes sport hunting sport hunting, then, and not mere killing
>or butchery, is the adherance to a set of rules (or "obstacles" as stated
>above) that define the boundaries of permitted activity.  It is this set of
>unnecessary rules that defines hunting as a sport.

I agree that hunting can be defined as a sport.  But I still question if it
is a fair sport, and if killing is a justifiable part of any sport.

>As far as I know, no one considers the use of hand grenades, missiles,
>machine guns, flame throwers, biological weapons and the like
>"sporting"--which helps capture some of the rationale behind labeling the
>activity "sport hunting" as opposed to alternatives like "meat"
>hunting/hunting for the pot, or even just "recreational hunting."  As Suits
>argues, "the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favor of less
>efficient means."

Well Jim, the situation of methods and technology used in hunting still
seems quite arbitrary to me.  A high powered rifle is clearly more efficient
in hunting than a spear.  You mention later that a high powered rifle makes
for a cleaner kill.  This I understand.  But so does a machine gun.  With a
maching gun a hunter can be more certain of the animal not running off after
being shot.  Or with a (imaginary) sonic boom weapon or some such death ray
it could be certain of killing the prey cleanly and efficiently.  Tom Brown
Jr, in "The Search" talks of some of his adventures in hunting with a spear.
He actually sneeks up on deer (using the skills of his American Indian
unbringing) and throws a spear through its heart from about 9 feet away.
It's necessarily an older, weaker deer.  In another section he describes
being next to starvation in the woods and catching a fawn with his bare
hands and eating it raw (mmmm... sounds delicious).  Now *that's* a level
playing feild.

And I agree with
>Steve Bissell, who said something to the effect that if you think "sitting
>in a treestand and simply waiting for a deer to come along" is easy, you
>should try it some time.

Oh please Jim.  It's absurdly easy.  As I've stated before I've done
treestand hunting when I was younger.  It's quite peaceful.  I love the
natural setting.  And I really and truly can see the attraction of it.  I
just don't think the killing part of it is justifiable.  I got just as much
out of the experience sitting there with a video camera as I did sitting
there with a gun.  Glimpsing the deer in it's natural setting can be
breathtaking.  Subsequently shooting it with a gun (for sport) is murderous
and cowardly.

>And this is why hunting and angling are so *very* important to the people
>who practice these activities.  When one is immersed in the predatory act
>of hunting, when one is most highly alert to one's surroundings, when one
>loses themselves in the activity--that is hunting.  That is also mountain
>climbing, running, dancing, etc. etc. etc. for devotees of those particular
>practices.

Can we say, "take up a new hobby"?  I've played many sports in my life.  If
later I realized that one of them caused x amount of pain and suffering more
than the others, it would be no problem to focus my energy in the other
sports, or perhaps to take up a new one.

Take one of these activities away from people, and you take
>away their *reason for living* in many cases.

I think that's a bit exaggerated.

>Now granted, an animal loses its life in the culmination of the hunting
>practice/game.  But a "good" hunter or a "thoughtful" hunter or a
>"reflective" hunter takes his/her responsibility for taking that life very
>seriously.

And this serves as a justification?  It's like the murderer getting a lesser
sentence for showing remorse.  Is being remorseful (or taking the act
seriously) better?  Yes, I think so.  But it does not justify the act.

>To return to sporting ethics: these codes of sporting ethics, or rules,
>what Suits above calls the "unnecessary obstacles," do in fact function to
>limit the human advantage over the animal.  Maxims like "Take only sure
>shots,"  "Shoot birds on the wing,"  "Do not overplay the fish,"  etc. all
>have an effect on everything from the choice of equipment used to the
>ultimate decision whether to shoot or not. . . .

I just don't see how a hunter could have any greater advantage than sitting
in a tree stand (perhaps picking his nose to pass the time, or reading a
book), waiting for a deer to walk along, and filling it full of lead (so to
speak).

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 1 was Re: Enviroethics and the Problem
ofSuffering


>Hi again everyone,
>
>Some thoughts on play. . . .
>
>>Dreamer:  The operative word in the first sentence of the above quoted
>>paragraph is "feel."  There is no compelling reason to conclude that
>>self-conciousness depends upon linguistic capabilities.  Moreover I
>>question the underlying assumption that other species do not have
>>linguistic capabilities or something analogous.  While it "may" be that
>>animals glide through the day completely unaware, I think it's just as
>>likely that many of them interact more fully and conciously with the
>>world than most humans.  A criteria that I think deserves at least as
>>much weight as linguistic capability is the capacity for play.  Play is
>>at the root of many of the institutions and practices which we consider
>>"civilized" and uniquely human: humor, drama, music, law, sports, magic,
>>and ritual of all types.  I personally feel most fully alive and
>>concious when involved in play.
>
>I know you won't like where I go with this one, but you've just given one
>of the best defenses of hunting I can think of.  "I personally feel most
>fully alive and concious when involved in play."  Part of what makes
>hunting a sport is its play aspect--sports are physical games, and games
>involve the following of (somewhat) arbitrary rules which serve to make the
>game both interesting and *challenging.*
>
>Philosopher of sport Bernard Suits writes:
>"To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state  of affairs . . .
>using only means permitted by rules .  .  .  , where the rules prohibit use
>of more efficient in favor of less efficient means . . . , and where such
>rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity . . . .  I
>also offer the following only approximately accurate, but more pithy,
>version of the above definition: _Playing a game is the voluntary attempt
>to overcome unnecessary obstacles_"   [emphasis added].
>
>Part of what makes sport hunting sport hunting, then, and not mere killing
>or butchery, is the adherance to a set of rules (or "obstacles" as stated
>above) that define the boundaries of permitted activity.  It is this set of
>unnecessary rules that defines hunting as a sport.  This relates to Bryan's
>continued questioning of methods and technology in sport hunting (and in
>angling as well, I might add):
>
>Bryan:
>>You may have missed out on a previous line of questioning of mine Chris.
It
>>seems that many of the pro-hunting contingent (and let me digress for a
>>moment.  I'm not against hunting per se.  In fact one of my theories is
that
>>every person who eats meat should have to kill their own animals.
Basically
>>I'm against killing to eat meat, which includes but is not limited to
>>hunting.  Being omnivores, we have the ability to choose a vegetarian
diet.)
>>on this list missed it as well, or just didn't choose to answer.  The
tiger
>>is not wrong for killing with his claws, teeth, speed and strength.
>>Obviously nature gave the tiger these means of finding food.  My question
>>was/is this:  At what level of our means of killing the animal is it not
>>hunting?  Hand grenades?  Missiles?  Infrared?  Machine guns?  Flame
>>throwers?  Biological weapons?!  Extrapolating from your analogy between
>>gunpowder and a tiger, you would say all of these ways are acceptable?
>
>As far as I know, no one considers the use of hand grenades, missiles,
>machine guns, flame throwers, biological weapons and the like
>"sporting"--which helps capture some of the rationale behind labeling the
>activity "sport hunting" as opposed to alternatives like "meat"
>hunting/hunting for the pot, or even just "recreational hunting."  As Suits
>argues, "the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favor of less
>efficient means."  If one is motivated by hunger and hunger alone, it seems
>that one might use *any means possible* to capture the prey and fill one's
>belly.  But voluntarily limiting one's technological advantage is (partly)
>what makes sport hunting and sport fishing what they are.  And I agree with
>Steve Bissell, who said something to the effect that if you think "sitting
>in a treestand and simply waiting for a deer to come along" is easy, you
>should try it some time.  I have a friend who simply cannot sit still--he
>is neither an effective hunter nor a good angler (at times).  Occasionally
>he's a pretty good trout fisher, but that's a very active "sport."
>
>Dreamer again:
>>It is also part of the specialness of
>>play that when you are most involved in it, you come closest to losing
>>your "self"-conciousness, that is your fixation on the particular
>>identity that you wear before and after the play.  (I enjoy Huizinga's
>>exploration of the play topic in Homo Ludens: Man, the Player.)
>
>And this is why hunting and angling are so *very* important to the people
>who practice these activities.  When one is immersed in the predatory act
>of hunting, when one is most highly alert to one's surroundings, when one
>loses themselves in the activity--that is hunting.  That is also mountain
>climbing, running, dancing, etc. etc. etc. for devotees of those particular
>practices.  Take one of these activities away from people, and you take
>away their *reason for living* in many cases.
>
>Now granted, an animal loses its life in the culmination of the hunting
>practice/game.  But a "good" hunter or a "thoughtful" hunter or a
>"reflective" hunter takes his/her responsibility for taking that life very
>seriously. This is why at least historically there has been so much
>emphasis on the idea of a sporting code of ethics.  A sporting ethic is one
>which restrains, for example, the nearly inevitable "beginner's enthusiasm"
>which many commentators rightly describe as game hoggery.  When one starts
>out hunting and fishing, there is a desire to demonstrate proficiency and
>yes, "success," which leads to killing more animals necessary (necessary,
>that is, either for food or for sport).  With time, the hunter/angler
>becomes comfortable with his/her level of proficiency and then doesn't need
>to show off as much.  Lots of this has to do with simple human
>psychological development: the young and immature need to show off as many
>"trophies" as possible to show that they know what they are doing and to
>prove that they are successful.  The older, wiser hunter/angler doesn't
>have such a compulsive need to prove himself in the eyes of others.
>
>AS AN ASIDE, lest anyone go off on a "trophy-hunter-bashing" thread, it
>seems to me that a similar dynamic operates in other realms.  Take academia
>for example: many academic departments proudly show off their faculty
>publications in prominent locations out in the hallways, display cases,
>etc.  Since every publication is a coup of sorts, the more "pubs" one has
>on the wall, the more status one has in others' eyes.  I don't think it's
>too far a stretch to refer to the "publish or perish" phenomenon as simply
>another form of "trophy hunting."  :)
>
>To return to sporting ethics: these codes of sporting ethics, or rules,
>what Suits above calls the "unnecessary obstacles," do in fact function to
>limit the human advantage over the animal.  Maxims like "Take only sure
>shots,"  "Shoot birds on the wing,"  "Do not overplay the fish,"  etc. all
>have an effect on everything from the choice of equipment used to the
>ultimate decision whether to shoot or not. . . .
>
>Now, Dreamer anticipated many of the above reflections about play when
>he/she responded to Chris Perley and added more about play.  So I'll
>respond to those comments in Part 2 of this email.
>
>Jim T.
>
>p.s. the Suits cite (now say *that* ten times fast):
>Suits, Bernard.  "The Elements of Sport."  The Philosophy of Sport: A
>Collection of Original Essays.  Ed. Robert G. Osterhoudt.  Springfield, IL:
>Charles C. Thomas, 1973.  48-64.





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
May 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
September 2016
August 2016
June 2016
May 2016
March 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
October 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
July 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
October 2008
September 2008
July 2008
June 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager