Hunting is Murder on Animals
|Part VI -- The Starvation Argument
But in justifying their so-called sport, the hunters claim that their murdering ways
are ethical, and in fact are beneficial to the hunted species!
This is so ludicrous it's almost funny. But even more astonishing is the fact
that most people in our culture actually believe this rationalization of hunting.
Before I had the truth driven home to me, I believed it myself: so let's examine this argument.
This argument runs as follows:
There are too many animals born in the wild to survive.
So, some will die of natural causes, including starvation. Starvation is a slow, painful death.
The hunters are actually providing a humane service to these animals
by putting them out of their potential misery.
There are three things wrong with this argument.
Number one: It doesn't work. As we'll see, hunting does not reduce the hunted species' population in the long run.
If this weren't true we wouldn't have hunting seasons year after year.
Number two: It's not really what the hunters and the DNR are attempting to do.
They are, in fact, attempting to do just the opposite: namely to increase the populations of hunted species
in order to perpetuate hunting.
And, number three: The whole idea is immoral.
We only have to look at our own species to see this.
If anyone suggested that we open a hunting season on people because 40,000 children die of starvation every day,
they would rightly be regarded as deranged.
Random murder is not a humane solution to overpopulation: ours or anyone else's.
The very fact that hunters feel a need to justify what they're doing by assigning their actions a moral justification
shows that we feel instinctively that hunting is immoral.