|
Answering Arguments Against Animal Rights |
| Part IV -- Argument Three: If we don't kill animals, they will die more horrible deaths |
Argument Three: If we don't kill animals, they will die more horrible deaths.
|
This excuse for killing animals is most often voiced by recreational hunters.
They say that a quick bullet in the head is preferable to death by starvation or
being torn apart by another wild animal.
I have devoted an hour-long program to this issue
[see Bloodsports: the joy of murder]
so I won't go into any great detail here.
|
I will simply ask if those hunters
who voice these arguments are willing to receive a bullet in their own heads
since 40,000 of their own species die of starvation daily, while thousands
of others meet with violent deaths.
This is one of the many problems with the argument. Hunters do not seek out
starving animals, or animals about to be devoured by predators. They don't
know which animals are starving or in danger: and they don't care.
|
They seek out the healthiest animals: which will make the best trophies.
Or they just shoot the first animal they see.
|
This would be equivalent to us opening random fire on people because
some people will starve and meet with violent deaths!
It is certainly not a moral justification for murder.
|
This argument also ignores the fact that predators have a right to live too.
And that means they have a right to kill other animals for food (since they
are carnivores.) Humans -- who are not carnivores -- do not
have this right, and are interfering with nature when they kill animals.
The jaws of a wolf may be more painful than a well placed bullet, but the
fact is, ...
|
...at least one out of every three bullets are not well placed,
and the wounded animals probably suffer longer than they would if they
had been killed by a natural predator.
Starvation may seem cruel to us, but it is one of nature's checks and
balances which prevents overpopulation and environmental degradation.
A natural death may not be pleasant: but neither is it immoral.
|
