Humans have an innate moral sense, while in some people it is suppressed by poor upbringing or desensitized by a corrupt lifestyle, we generally have a feeling when something wrong has occurred, and this is the case with the shooting of the Zimbabwean lion, Cecil. The hunter states that he did not know the full facts of the case before shooting, and I will pass no comment on the truth or otherwise of this assertion, but it is clear that his guides did know. So what tells us that what happened was wrong?
Let's take the case of a stone age hunter gatherer, and there are still people who follow this lifestyle today, though they are few in number.He went and killed for meat without which he and his family would perish. But the hunter used as much of the animal as possible, so none was wasted. The bones were for tools, the skin for clothes, and the sinews were for twine. Moreover, the hunters revered the animals that they slew, and they honoured their spirits. The cave paintings of Europe show celebrations of the hunt, a cultus that continued over thousands of years. Who can say that these people were wrong? Theirs was a good reason to hunt and kill, it was integral to the cycle of life and death that characterizes nature, of which we are all part.
Now take Cecil's case. He was shot by a man who did not need his meat for food, a dentist rich enough to pay thousands for the dubious honour of killing a lion, but merely wanted the excitement and the trophy that could be gained, so Cecil's body was left to rot. The life of any creature is a very precious thing, not to be wasted. Sometimes we must kill, but killing for pleasure of any kind is absolutely immoral, for a life lived is more precious than a life ended. There must be a good reason to kill, and pleasure is a triviality compared to the value of life. A living creature is a source of joy, certainly to many in this case who respected, even loved, the lion.
Worse, the killing was slow, as it was done with an unsuitable weapon, a crossbow. This is a very accurate weapon, but its impact is not as great as that of a bullet, so the death is slow and painful. Cecil needed to be tracked through fourteen hours of pain before a rifle bullet finished him off. If you must kill an animal, do it quickly and as painlessly as possible.
To kill for a trophy is an abomination. To have pride in killing is to boost the ego, the false self that swells as another is diminished. and what is more diminishing to the other than death, and that is the ultimate ego-swelling act, and a grave act of selfishness. The lion's head mounted on the wall of such a killer should not be a source of pride, but should stand to condemn him for his pointless slaying.
Comments
Thanks Katie, I always appreciate your comments.
We are all so different. I have always, since a small child, felt the killing of any animal for food or not is horrific. I have a very deep connection to animals, and coil at the thought or knowledge of harm. Great piece, glad to have found it.
I am in agreement with what you have said. Personally, I would seek a use even for the antlers, as I believe that you should always use as much of the animal as possible and never waste. Some artists or crafts people can find a use for them. I was completely horrified by the big game hunter who paid to shoot the largest elephant in an African reserve. This was a mere ego boosting exercise and therefore gravely immoral.
Excellent discussion of the ethics of hunting. Where I live we have a large deer population, and accidents between deer and our vehicles are common. So we have a (short) hunting season without which I am sure we'd have far too many deer and even more accidents! It seems that we removed the natural predators of the deer, namely wolves. The result seems to be that we are now responsible to keep the deer population in check - by hunting. I've no desire to hunt, but I don't mind if others hunt responsibly and eat, or sell, the meat. And as far as I am concerned they can even hang the antlers on their wall if that makes them feel good (as long as the kill was humane and the meat eaten). But killing endangered species (big cats etc) for fun is quite a different story.
This problem occurs with foraging as well, for several mushroom species in Britain are under threat.
Still another problem with excessive hunting is depletion of species. How many species have we had to place on endangered lists? In this area many hunt ducks, geese, rabbit, deer, and squirrel, And have depleted populations so seasons and strict limits have had to be placed. and limits on many dwindling fish populations have been needed. This reflects taking of animals for sport and to the excess. If taken, it must be used.
I was not singling you out when I spoke of the usage of the word we, but I was thinking of the moral horizon that is often implicit when using it. When some people use the term they think of only a narrow group of their own kind, but others use it in a broader sense.
Thanks for the information on bandicoots. They are not found in this country, for which I am thankful.
Well - I should be careful of the subtle difference of the usage of we, I usually refer to the human race when I use "we".
My thinking is - the majority of us (human beings) are generous and kind. Correct me if I am wrong. I hope good virtues prevail, otherwise we are doomed. It is only few ruthless people who indulge in slaughtering animals for fun.
Bandicoots are big rats, I have seen plenty of them. They thrive in the drainage and are big nuisances. They can jump inside the house from the open windows and are hard to chase away. They also dig my garden and make big holes ruining the small plants I grow. They usually are in search of leftovers and make the surroundings filthy.
You have hit on a vital point. When we use the word "we" do we mean only our own species or other species. The difference in usage matters, as if we mean our own species we exclude others, whereas if we include other animals we include them in our moral concern. The difference matters. It determines which animals we respect and which we don't.
You, Shradda, cannot understand how people can be so cruel as to kill for pleasure, that's because you are a kind and sensitive person. I will explain. The word that explains the evil is ego, the false self that swells by diminishing another. The ego is the pride that bloats by harming and diminishing. To kill another creature is to swell one's self esteem/pride. The trophy head on the wall boosts the ego of the shooter, but it is a false pride that is based on evil doing.
We have rats over here, but no bandicoots. Can you explain why they are a problem?
Killing for fun and entertainment is unethical. I can understand killing for food but beyond that, it is lacking morality, it is unjust and wrong. I cannot understand how people can be so cruel.
Inflicting pain and torture to animals is equally condemnable. Poaching is another criminal activity that is going on for ages. It seems as the human race is ready to wipe out all flora and fauna from this beautiful planet.
There are some instances in which killing can be justified. You have rightly given such circumstances and examples where it is necessary to eliminate them. Rats and bandicoots are sources of diseases, so it is necessary to check their population. Similarly, cockroaches and mosquitoes are some other nuisances that mankind is trying to get rid of. I cannot imagine how getting rid of them can be a crime.
Nature balances the population of species in the eco-system where one species feeds on other. Disregarding this equation by poaching and erasing jungles that house animal habitats is a definite passport to humanity's elimination in the long course.