Paul T
Well-Known Member
Nothing quick about being hounded across the countryside for miles. Nothing quick about being disembowelled alive, either.
You choose to flush them from their earths using a terrier and blast them with a gun, Labour didn't make you do this. Do you generally deny all personal responsibility for your actions, or does this only happen when you go hunting?
Personally I think the most important quality that sets us apart from other animals is our ability to empathise and put ourselves in the position of others. It allows us to appreciate the suffering endured by others. I also believe this quality brings with it a responsibility to act humanely, and kill animals only where it is necessary to do so.
I've it heard all before. It's claimed hunting is humane and involves the least amount of suffering, and that hunts are really doing their quarry a favour by hounding them to death. There's little debate about whether killing the animals in the first place is necessary, let alone effective. It's just assumed, for example, that any fox that may be killing livestock will be the one hunted to death (as if hunts have the ability to be that selective), and ignores the propensity of other foxes to quickly move into vacant territories. It assumes that hunting somehow helps keep the fox population at an optimum level (whatever that is). Of course, any enjoyment derived out of a day's hunting is purely incidental.
Some have argued that foxes 'enjoy' killing chickens and that justifies any enjoyment derived from killing foxes. We're not foxes, and our interpretation of their behaviour should not be used as a moral yardstick for our actions.
You choose to flush them from their earths using a terrier and blast them with a gun, Labour didn't make you do this. Do you generally deny all personal responsibility for your actions, or does this only happen when you go hunting?
Personally I think the most important quality that sets us apart from other animals is our ability to empathise and put ourselves in the position of others. It allows us to appreciate the suffering endured by others. I also believe this quality brings with it a responsibility to act humanely, and kill animals only where it is necessary to do so.
I've it heard all before. It's claimed hunting is humane and involves the least amount of suffering, and that hunts are really doing their quarry a favour by hounding them to death. There's little debate about whether killing the animals in the first place is necessary, let alone effective. It's just assumed, for example, that any fox that may be killing livestock will be the one hunted to death (as if hunts have the ability to be that selective), and ignores the propensity of other foxes to quickly move into vacant territories. It assumes that hunting somehow helps keep the fox population at an optimum level (whatever that is). Of course, any enjoyment derived out of a day's hunting is purely incidental.
Some have argued that foxes 'enjoy' killing chickens and that justifies any enjoyment derived from killing foxes. We're not foxes, and our interpretation of their behaviour should not be used as a moral yardstick for our actions.
