The Ethics of Sport Hunting

In this episode, David talks about sport hunting—the practice of chasing after and killing animals for pleasure, and explores two questions:
1. Is sport hunting morally permissible?
2. Is sport hunting bad overall and in every way?

Contents:
- introduction
- what is sport?
- what is hunting?
- sport hunting
- questions to consider
- fair chase
- the altruistic hunter
- catch-and-release
- moral compass
- a necessary evil?
- alternatives and ways forward

Links:
Fair chase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_chase

My email address:
david.tonner2010@gmail.com

Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100083209401005
https://www.facebook.com/dtonner

Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/reasoned_intuitions/
https://www.instagram.com/tonner_david/

Transcript

The Ethics of Sport Hunting

Welcome to the Reasoned Intuitions podcast. My name is David Tonner, and I discuss personal ideas on moral issues in modern society and try to come up with improved ways of thinking and behaving, in the hopes of becoming a better person and causing the least amount of harm. As a disclaimer, I'd like to state that I am not an expert in either philosophy, psychology, or anything else, for that matter.

My opinions and positions are provisional and open to change with new information or an improved understanding of the issues I discuss. My intent is not to provide definitive rules or to tell anyone how they should live their life. I merely want to share my ideas and insights, in the hopes that they can be inspirational or in some way helpful.

I employ pragmatic ethics and try to reason from as broad and objective a perspective as possible. Some of my basic assumptions are that unchosen suffering is bad, and we should strive to minimize it. Joy is the most pleasurable sensation, and thus we should strive to maximize it. Empathy is universal, with some exceptions, and it should be the starting point of any good ethical system. 

Intro

Hello and welcome to another episode of Reasoned Intuitions. This is the second of three parts about animals. In the last episode, I talked about the different ways that people exploit animals, including as pets, for food, labour, testing, and entertainment. Today, I want to talk about sport hunting. Specifically, I'm going to explore the question of whether or not sport hunting is ethical.

In a nutshell, sport hunting is the activity of chasing and killing animals for fun. When I frame it this way, of course, it sounds deplorable, but does this pastime have a saving grace?

What is sport?

First, let's pick apart some basic terms. What is sport? According to Wikipedia, sport is any form of competitive, physical activity or game. Personally, I would say that an activity doesn't necessarily have to be competitive in order to qualify as a sport. In fact, hunting is arguably one of these activities, unless one considers the pursued animal to be the competition. 

What is hunting?

What is hunting, then? Again, according to my favourite website, hunting is the practice of seeking, pursuing, capturing, or killing of an animal.

Humans hunt for three main reasons: food, sport, and management. Hunting for food is still an important source of sustenance and a key cultural component for some human populations. In fact, many people in modern, developed nations engage in hunting for food, including fishing, though more on a recreational than a survival basis.

As for management, this is the practice of culling a certain number of animals when a species becomes overpopulated, which can cause all kinds of problems, especially to humans, such as farmers. While these two areas are both problematic in their own ways, and many people critique and challenge them, often for ethical reasons, I'm going to avoid both today and focus solely on the practice of hunting for pleasure.

Sport hunting

Let's define the activity in more detail then: sport hunting is the exclusively human practice of chasing after and killing an animal—not because one requires its flesh for consumption, nor because the animal is a pest and must be eliminated; sport hunting is done purely for pleasure and can often bring secondary rewards, such as trophies or prizes. While it is true that many hunters do in fact utilize the flesh and other parts of the animal they have killed, this is not a requirement of the sport. 

Questions to consider: first question

Here are the two main questions I will attempt to answer today:

1.    Is sport hunting morally permissible, and

2.    Is sport hunting bad overall and in every way?

Let's start by creating some context for the first question. If a person thinks of sport as an activity done for recreation rather than from necessity, in today's world, sports should not involve the infliction of unchosen suffering on a non-consenting individual. Clearly, in chasing after and killing an animal for sport, the hunter is inflicting suffering on a sentient organism, so by this criterion, sport hunting can be said to be unethical.

The fact that a hunter recreationally—and to reiterate, there is no need for a sport hunter to engage in this practice, unlike a subsistence hunter or someone paid to eliminate a pest or cull an overpopulated group of animals—so the fact that a hunter recreationally engages in taking away the life of a sentient organism that otherwise has an interest in continuing to live seems to clearly suggest that the practice is immoral.

Fair chase

Now, a hunter might argue that according to the rules of fair chase, as long as the animal is wild and free-ranging, meaning that it lives freely in nature and is not restrained in any manner, so that it has a fair chance of successfully escaping from the hunt, then the sport essentially simulates natural conditions that the animal lives in, and it ultimately doesn't make a difference to the organism whether it is killed by a human with a rifle or a bloodthirsty predator with claws and teeth. In fact, being hunted and dispatched by a skilled shot would be a preferable way of dying if the animal had the ability to choose, since it is likely far quicker and involves less suffering than being torn to pieces by a hungry beast.

While I agree that this is technically true, it doesn't change my stance, because I'm not arguing about objectively worse experiences an animal is subjected to in the wild than by being hunted; I'm arguing about the morality of engaging in a recreational hunt at all, given that we understand the suffering it causes. If you remember, in my previous episode, I briefly talked about the naturalistic fallacy—the idea that if something is natural, it must be good. The argument I mentioned just now is in fact an invocation of the naturalistic fallacy: it is natural for an animal, such as a deer, to be hunted by a predator, such as a bear—therefore, it's fine, even correct. I disagree with this on the basis that there are many things that take place in nature, such as filicide or rape, that we do not condone in human society, so why should intentionally chasing after an animal and causing it even a small amount of suffering be any different? 

 

The altruistic hunter

“But wait”, says the philosophical, hunter, “you’ve misunderstood! I'm actually doing the animal a favour by killing it cleanly. In fact, if I had the time and the resources, wouldn't it be incumbent upon me to skillfully shoot as many antelope as possible, since if I don't, they are likely to experience a far more painful death in the jaws of a lion?”

While this may sound plausible at first, upon closer scrutiny, I detect a hint of sophistry. Not only do I have difficulty believing that the average hunter goes out to altruistically shoot animals in order to end their miserable lives and spare them a painful death; I have trouble accepting the idea that sport hunting is an activity that symbiotically benefits the animal by reducing its inevitable suffering while providing the hunter with an exciting way to spend a weekend.

Additionally, if we take this argument to its extreme, we end up with the repugnant conclusion that it is an act of mercy to kill sentient beings if we can establish that doing so will reduce the expected suffering of a natural death. To follow this rationale would also mean killing all factory-farmed livestock. Hey, maybe we should kill people whose daily life involves pain and suffering and put them out of their misery! This is an extreme example, of course, and I doubt that many hunters would resort to it as an argument in support of their hobby. The reason I bring it up is to illustrate the bizarre direction in which a purely utilitarian calculation could take us when in fact, the question I'm attempting to answer has more to do with the moral nature of sport hunting than its ultimate outcome or corollary rationalizations.

What I'm ultimately interested to answer is whether it is acceptable, in purely moral terms, to wish the death of a sentient organism solely for one's entertainment. Based on the preceding points I've made, I have to conclude that it is not.

Catch-and-release

“Aha”, says the clever angler, “when I go out fishing, I don't kill my catch, I release it right back into the water, so my pastime is ethical after all, unlike those other hunters”. Not so fast. It has now been solidly established that fish can feel pain: every time a fish bites down on a piece of bait and is hooked by its lip, this causes it distress, so even if it is later released, it has still experienced suffering for the sake of someone's enjoyment.

With all these points made, I have to conclude that sport hunting, whether the captured animal dies or not, is not morally defensible. 

Moral compass

Now, having said that, I want to clarify that I don't think sport hunters are necessarily morally compromised. In fact, I know that good, conscientious hunters do their very best to kill cleanly and cause as little suffering as possible. Their intention is certainly not to hurt the animal or cause it to suffer.

As I may have mentioned before, each of our individual moral compasses points somewhere along a spectrum, and their direction varies depending on the issue and a person's own degree of investment or identification with that particular issue. What I mean is that even people who commit grave atrocities, such as murder and torture, are still able to go home and love their children, be kind to their friends and family, donate to charities, etc.

Morality isn't an either–or, a black-or-white. Our moral decisions range along a spectrum between pure good and pure evil, and sometimes, where we stand on that spectrum can even change from day to day. However, if we were all able to evaluate a situation from the most objective perspective possible, using logical principles as well as a common agreement on what constitutes the basis of morality, I am convinced that even sport hunters would agree that their chosen pastime is not ethical.

Let me put it another way: there are three scenarios that can explain why someone would continue to perform a morally impermissible action, in this case, sport hunting. The first one is that I am mistaken in some way, or that I have missed something, and that it is in fact morally permissible to hunt animals for pleasure. If you, my listener, believe this to be the case and can identify the mistake I am making, I strongly encourage you to share it with me so that I can update my position.

The second scenario is the most likely one, in my opinion: most people who hunt for sport are otherwise no more or less ethical in their daily lives than anybody else; they have simply not adopted the correct perspective on this activity, and perhaps the reward they gain from it is so strong that it prevents them from doing so. This could also entail a form of cognitive dissonance, a phenomenon we are already familiar with from previous episodes.

The third scenario—and I do think it is a valid one—is that some small percentage of sport hunters, just like a small section of the overall population, exhibits sociopathic personality traits which prevent them from empathizing to a sufficient degree with other sentient beings, and thus they are not able to make the correct moral choice.

Second question

Okay, that seemed simple enough. Now, let's complicate things a little. While I've established that the practice of sport hunting is impermissible from an ethical standpoint, my second question is, is sport hunting bad overall and in every way? Is it possible that it has benefits that could perhaps justify it, at least in the short?

Sport hunting is a lucrative industry. Depending on the country, it can bring in a significant chunk of revenue to the state's coffers. For example, a 2018 report suggests that trophy hunters spent over $250 million per year in South Africa alone. Licenses and fees for hunting, fishing, tracking, trapping, outfitting, and all other activities related to pursuing and killing animals benefit local economies. In many places, especially in democratic nations, such as Canada, a portion of this income goes toward funding wildlife preserves. In essence, we take money from people who want to kill animals and invest it in the welfare of not only those same animals but many others, as well as entire ecosystems. According to this scenario, if a country decided to ban sport hunting or even to reduce the number of licenses issued, this revenue would decline, and that would mean less funding for the types of ecosystems that we all support, where plants and animals can thrive.

It appears then that unless a completely separate and ideally equivalent source of revenue can be allocated toward the same purposes, if we reduce or eliminate sport hunting on moral grounds, we will consequently be creating other harms—harms that, from a utilitarian perspective, are perhaps even more significant than the killing of a few individual animals. To make matters worse, places where hunting activities generate the greatest benefits also happen to be some of the poorest in the world, such as sub-Saharan African wildlife sanctuaries that largely depend on trophy hunting for their survival.

A necessary evil?

What does this mean? If we agree that banning the recreational killing of animals will create more harmful consequences and likely lead to the death of a greater number of animals, should we condone the sport for the time being, maybe even encourage it? Sadly, I am not sufficiently informed on economic matters, so I'm not able to speculate what sources of revenue could be substituted for the money we would lose if we banned sport hunting.

Additionally, this question would theoretically have to be answered according to the specific context of each place where that type of policy was put in effect. On the surface of it, it seems to me that for the time being, sport hunting is a necessary evil that we must tolerate for the good that it brings, at least until we can come up with better alternatives.

So in the end, it appears that we are faced with a dilemma: sport hunting is an unethical practice, but abolishing it could possibly lead to worse outcomes than allowing it to continue. I don't know if I can resolve this conundrum, but perhaps we can look at some alternatives to sport hunting and possible ways to fund conservation that don't involve suffering.

Alternatives and ways forward: first issue

There are two problems to be addressed: One, if we ban sport hunting, what type of activity can we offer those who are passionate about and derive pleasure from this pursuit and two, how can we replace the revenue derived from this unethical sport in a way that is just as beneficial but doesn't lead to animal suffering and death?

The psychology of hunting, or the appeal it holds for certain people is complex and not fully understood. I don't want to delve into this area for fear of demonizing hunters…hang on, that's a cool name for a TV show—"Demonized Hunters”, now on Netflix—so instead, I'd like to offer possible ways that folks who are passionate about chasing and killing animals can substitute their bloody hobby for one that is equally exhilarating. Here are a few ideas:

In this day and age, technology is advancing at such a rapid pace, I would be surprised if we couldn't come up with techniques, tools, or simulations to replace hunting. For example, could we devise a bullet that completely eliminates any pain an animal experiences when it is shot? This would still permit the hunter to chase and shoot it, but as soon as the animal was struck, the bullet would release an instant and powerful painkiller, so the critter wouldn't realize that it was injured or dying. I know this doesn't completely resolve the moral problem, since the animal still loses its life, but I'm actually more concerned about suffering than life and death itself. Perhaps I'll talk more about that in a later episode.

What about a sport that is sufficiently similar to real hunting and is equally satisfying, both physically and mentally, but doesn't inflict any suffering? As an analogy, we invented paintball and airsoft to simulate gunfights and warfare. Couldn't we do something similar for hunting? Perhaps our camouflaged nimrods could hunt drones instead, or some kind of mechanical animal.

The technology probably isn't quite where we would need it to be to accurately mimic the hunting experience, but I suspect that has more to do with a lack of interest and investment than any real technical obstacle. If the market for this type of technology existed, I have no doubt that we could come up with something that would even enhance the experience for hunters, so that going after live animals would eventually pale in comparison.

The biggest challenge in this scenario would be acceptance, especially by purists or people who are not convinced that what they are engaged in is a harmful practice. Ultimately, that is a hurdle best overcome through education and eventually, time, since trends change, as do habits and moral standards, and what was once inconceivable eventually becomes normalized. Let's not forget that human history is littered with examples of pastimes that were once glorified but today few would consider humane or acceptable, such as gladiatorial games, various types of animal fights, or minstrel shows.

Second issue

Our second problem, the question of replacing revenue generated from trophy hunting, may prove to be quite a bit more complex than our first one. My initial suggestion would be photo tourism, where people shoot animals using cameras instead of rifles. Adventure tourism is another, similar option. Of course, these activities already exist and do generate a significant amount of funding for a variety of projects and for regional economies, but the data seems rather mixed on whether or not it is adequately lucrative to replace money generated from big-game trophies.

I don't have the required expertise in this area to properly parse the evidence, and a cursory search suggests that even experts in the field struggle to come up with satisfactory solutions to this problem. Still, as I've said before, I have faith in human ingenuity and believe that if a sufficient amount of effort is invested in exploring morally neutral sources of revenue for natural conservation, we will eventually find a happy compromise.

 

Conclusion

I am sure my position on this topic will prove controversial with many people, so as always, I encourage you to share your thoughts and feedback with me and let me know how much you love me…I mean, let me know if you think I'm mistaken or if I missed any crucial points. I'm always open to changing my views with new and improved information and perspectives. 

I'll put all my links in the show notes, so please don't hesitate to reach out. The best way to support me is to share my podcast and to leave me a rating or review. Thank you again for listening, and until next time.