Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of ethical hunting
Why Is Hunting Morally Wrong And Acceptable
Pros and cons of ethical hunting
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and cons of ethical hunting
Cuteness is society’s devious way of preventing the loss of infant seal life. However, seals are not going extinct, so why are so many people against hunting these animals? Anti-sealing campaigns argue that it isn’t moral to kill a seal for fur, and that it is only a foolish luxury. However, the Inuit people use every part of the seal, from its fur to its meat, and even its intestines. Family, survival and tradition in the eyes of the Inuit are of great value, leading to the necessity of sealing. The common belief that seal hunters are ignorant to moral is, in fact, not true, and should be eliminated from the eyes of the public immediately.
Animal welfare groups portray the Inuit as monsters who kill animals for pleasure, but in truth, the
…show more content…
Although the Inuit were exempted from the ban, it is of no use, for once prices go down, they will no longer have the money they need in order to survive. The EU and media choose to ignore the opinions and perspectives of the Inuit. The Europeans ignore the fact that the Inuit are indeed part of the world economy. They work especially hard to provide for their families. With the environmental conditions up in the north, there are very few economical options for the Inuit. They need to hunt seals for money. By banning seal products, the main source of income for the Inuit are taken …show more content…
They are concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior, as well as the goodness and badness of human character. Their basis is understandable, as the slaughtering of animals can be seen as inhumane in the public eye. Over the years we have evolved in our way of respectful treatment of animals, and learned to put aside our superior status. However, the perspective of the European Union is narrow minded, as they do not take into account how seals are required in Inuit survival.
“The ban on seal products adopted in the European Union was a political decision that has no basis in fact or science,” said by Ed Fast, Minister of International Trade. This quote further proves the above point, as the EU’s prohibition of seal products lacks substantial substructure.
Sealing is not simply about the hunt; it’s gaining first hand knowledge about wildlife and the environment, sharing food in the community, preserving traditional skills, and celebrating cultural
The most effective piece of this documentary, however, was neither the structure of the film nor the specific questions that one is forced to answer regarding the ethical treatment of these killer whales, but the overall questions of whether or not these corporations should be allowed to continue their cycle of abuse toward the animals and whether or not we, as patrons, should encourage their behavior by giving them a monetary profit every day, every month, and every year. Ignorance is forgivable, but with the knowledge given in this documentary: the final two questions raised should be able to answer themselves.
I believe that animals should be treated with respect, but so should people. I would perhaps have a different idea about this if the whales being hunted were nearing extinction, but the truth is, it is the whalers who are nearing extinction. Even though Norway claims that national sovereignty permits them to allow whaling, public opinion is working against them. Whaling in Norway is dropping every year. (3)
The Makah people indigenous to the Pacific Northwest have a very close and long standing cultural bond to the ocean. This cultural bond is displayed in various forms such as their artwork, history, and lore. One key aspect of their culture has come scrutiny within the past twenty years—whaling. Since 1855, the Makah people have legally held the right to whale in designated waters around their reservation. In the 1920’s, the Makah decided to halt whaling due to a dwindling population of the whales. In 1986, the International Whaling Commission enacted a global moratorium on commercial whaling with two exceptions being scientific research and aboriginal subsistence. In the mid 1990’s the Makah people decided to resume their whaling practices with rising whale populations and successfully killed their first whale in roughly 70 years in 1999. This has led to much backlash from domestic governmental agencies and NGOs alike. Thus the problem lies in the question as to whether the Makah people should legally be allowed to whale with the answer being a resounding no. There many issues domestic and international issues with the continuation of the Makah people whaling with the most important being: other previously whaling states seeing the United States ‘pardon’ cultural whaling and failing to see the importance of the global whaling moratorium in effect, the possible discovery of a small population of rare resident whales in the area, and the immorality of slaughtering a highly sentient being.
Christopher McCandless, a young American who was found dead in summer of 1992 in wild land in Alaska, wrote in his diary about his moral struggle regarding killing a moose for survival. According to Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Chris had to abandon most of the meat since he lacked the knowledge of how to dismantle and preserve it (166-168). Not only did he have a moral dilemma to kill a moose, but also had a deep regret that a life he had taken was wasted because of his own fault. He then started recognizing what he ate as a precious gift from the nature and called it “Holy Food” (Krakauer 168). Exploring relationships between human beings and other animals arouses many difficult questions: Which animals are humans allowed to eat and which ones are not? To which extent can humans govern other animals? For what purposes and on which principles can we kill other animals? Above all, what does it mean for humans to eat other animals? The answer may lie in its context. Since meat-eating has been included and remained in almost every food culture in the world throughout history and is more likely to increase in the future due to the mass production of meat, there is a very small chance for vegetarianism to become a mainstream food choice and it will remain that way.
The unit readings argue that anthropologists insist that global flows also partake in affecting local practices. The beliefs and customs of the Inuit are accounted for their interaction with the environment, but these factors also interrelate with neighbouring societies, global capitalism, and international NGOs, as Martha of the North describes. The Inuit were used by the Canadian government in a form of racism and cruelty. To affirm sovereignty in the vast arctic land, Canada had to have permanent residences residing within these territories. They had created a façade that they were providing the Inuit with the opportunity of a better life when in reality, they did not care about them at all. The government had less than honest intentions. What the people who represented the nation did to the relocation of the Inuit is unacceptable and its effect can be explained through holism but also goes beyond the concept on an international scale. Global practices influenced the local practices of the Inuit in the High Arctic. The government representatives of Canada at that time did not value the lives of these people and only cared about their own
In the Vancouver Aquarium, there are many aquatic animals that have been encaged for research purposes and entertainment. Some people may say animals have a right to life, and human have no right to interfere in their natural lives because they are living creatures just like us. However, Kant (239) suggests that “animals are not included in the moral community because they lack rational autonomy”. Based on this principle, in Kant’s view, disagrees having animal right that people do not have an obligation to treat animals as same as other human beings.
Ascione’s (1993) definition of animal cruelty is defined as “socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or distress to and/or death of an animal” exclusive of socially condoned behavior, such as legal hunting and certain agricultural and veterinary practices. Not all violent individuals have been previously cruel to animals but studies have shown that a great number of them have exhibited this behavior. A great majority of the literature calls for a better understandin...
Animals are used today for many sources of protection, food, clothing, transportation, sports, entertainment, and labor, but millions of these animals die each year from abuse. “Most of the reasons that people give for denying animals rights are: animals do not have souls, god gave humans dominion over the animals, humans are intellectually superior to animals, humans are intellectually superior to animals, animals do not reason, think, or feel pain like humans do, animals are a natural resource to used as humans see fit, and animals kill each other” (Evans). It all started in the nineteenth century, when people began abusing animals by beating them, feeding them poorly, providing them with no shelter or poor shelter, left to die if they were sick or old, or by cruel sports. Most of the organized efforts to improve human treatment of animals all started in England. Around the 1800s, there was signs of rising concern for animal welfare in the United States.
For example, in the local school, stereotypes such as the image of the ‘wild man’ are consolidated by claiming that there was cannibalism among the indigenous people of the northwest coast (Soper-Jones 2009, 20; Robinson 2010, 68f.). Moreover, native people are still considered to be second-class citizens, which is pointed out by Lisamarie’s aunt Trudy, when she has been harassed by some white guys in a car: “[Y]ou’re a mouthy Indian, and everyone thinks we’re born sluts. Those guys would have said you were asking for it and got off scot-free”
Kristof begins his article by engaging his readers to answer a simple question, “Which large American mammal kills the most humans each year?” He follows that up with a list of animals known for their predatory nature such as the bear, wolf and cougar only to reveal the actual culprit is a deer. The way the question is presented it sounds misleading, as if the animal intentionally meant to do a human harm. Instead of using the word “kill,” perhaps the words “are involved with the deaths of” may have been more appropriate. In this way, they do not imply the death was intentional.
The DFO says that they monitor all aspects closely of the seal hunt from the licensing of hunters, examining the duties of sealers, dock inspections, to inspections at the buying and processing plants. But in reality, it shows that the DFO has given more fines to other animal rights groups then to the hunters in the seal industry. That has changed many people’s minds on the outlook of the nature of the DFO’s duties. Due to the DFO holding out on fining the hunters and stopping them from hunting over their quota, they are still continuing to do as they want without any implications to them.
Anti-hunters are opposed to the explicit acts of hunters in Africa because of the environmental degradation it can lead to. What I want to be of focus, though, is that controversy over the act of hunting is not solely in line with hunting endangered African mammals. The results of all kinds of hunts and the drives hunters have to pursue these hunts differ because of the uniqueness of the goods the hunters seek in their adventures. What non-hunters and anti-hunters easily overlook is the anthropocentric values that the hunter seeks to fulfill and achieve, and how it expresses an interaction with nature.
In June Robison’s article,”Frosty’s story illustrates scope of animal cruelty”, she argues that animal cruelty is wrong and attempts to persuade the reader to feel sympathy for animals. Animal cruelty is indeed wrong and it must stop. The author made some strong points in her editorial; however, she left out several substantial sources. This evaluation will review Robison’s article and state the main points.
Michael Pollan presents many convincing arguments that strengthen his position on whether slaughtering animals is ethical or not. He believes that every living being on this planet deserves an equal amount of respect regardless of it being an animal or human, after all humans are also animals. “An Animal’s place” by Michael Pollan is an opinionated piece that states his beliefs on whether animals should be slaughtered and killed to be someone’s meal or not. In his article, Pollan does not just state his opinions as a writer but also analyzes them from a reader’s point of view, thus answering any questions that the reader might raise. Although Pollan does consider killing and slaughtering of animals unethical, using environmental and ethical
For animal welfare and the causes of animal abuse new research has been created. Since animal abuse is fairly a new subject, new research is constantly brought up. In the Bahamas a study was done in the College of Bahamas, and it states that, “…dogs were equally likely to be considered members of the household in homes without domestic violence,” (Fielding 197). Homes with violence show that humans substitute human victims for animal victims. Animal rights activists are trying to break down symbolic boundaries betw...