'Morals' are just a self important way of saying 'what I think' - other people and societies have different morals, yours aren't superior to theirs except in your own head.
Ignoring your characteristically abrasive tone for a moment...
That is an extremely bleak world view. There are clearly some actions which are, as objectively as is possible, pointlessly cruel.
You have a tendency on these boards to attack anyone who objects to anything on moral grounds as "self important". I feel a bit sorry for you.
You have a tendency on these boards to attack anyone who objects to anything on moral grounds as "self important".
Really, I can't recall having ever used the phrase on this site before, but I am sure you will be able to point me to it. Or perhaps you'll be able to put forward a cogent argument and explain why you think that one person or societies morals outweigh another's, so we can have an intelligent debate about it, rather than relying on a passive-agressive sideswipe that adds nothing to the debate?
I feel a bit sorry for you
Well, thanks (I guess?) but don't you think that expecting me to really care about what you think of me is a bit, well... self important?
the only difference is that you stand one step further away from doing the evil deed yourself
If slaughterers were posing on Facebook with the piles of chickens they'd just killed your argument might have merit.
What's the difference?
[img] 
?format=2500w[/img]
Fail
No thanks necessary, old chap.
But back to the issue of trophy hunting, whilst (as I think you're arguing) it is culturally acceptable to some, do you think this is, in itself, a justification?
If so, can that justification be applied to other practices, considered acceptable to some but barbaric to most?
Female genital mutilation is acceptable in some cultures. Are the objectors "self-important"?
Or to stick with animal rights if you prefer: How about bear baiting? Is it "self-important" to object to this practice?
whilst (as I think you're arguing) it is culturally acceptable to some, do you think this is, in itself, a justification?
No, of course it isn't
I'm saying that moral/cultural arguments are entirely neutral, they are no more justification than they are reason for castigation, they are entirely a social construct whereby you choose to project your opinion of what is right or wrong on another person.
If there are valid arguments to be made on, for example, the importance of biodiversity or the inherent value of other species and mans role in the ecosystem, then let's make them, but claiming moral superiority is merely a comfortable sideline that carries no weight in and of itself.
Edit:
The trophy hunter, for example, sits there and says that they spend thousands of pounds killing an animal that was going to be killed anyway, and that money goes into the local economy, providing income and jobs and a better lifestyle for marginal communities, and engenders wildlife populations with an economic value that means those communities benefit from them, protecting them rather than suffering crop and livestock losses, or resorting to unplanned and unmanaged poaching, selling ivory to get money.
If the only argument you have in return is 'well, I don't like it' (which is essentially all that the moral argument is) then you bring nothing to the debating table, you might as well say 'because God says so'.
No, of course it isn't
I'm saying that moral/cultural arguments are entirely neutral, they are no more justification than they are reason for castigation
I'm aware of moral relativism as a philosophical position, but don't know many people who make real-world moral decisions in that manner.
Everyone has a personal set of morals. At the basis of most people's would be "do not inflict needless violence on another creature, human or animal".
In my view, this is a valid argument in itself against trophy hunting.
If there are valid arguments to be made on, for example, the importance of biodiversity or the inherent value of other species and many role in the ecosystem, then let's make them
I don't think these arguments are necessary. I think "it is wrong to shoot a sentient creature purely for the pleasure of doing it" trumps any idea that some creatures are more or less deserving of shooting, due to their position in an ecosystem.
Re your edit:
The trophy hunter, for example, sits there and says that they spend thousands of pounds killing an animal that was going to be killed anyway, and that money goes into the local economy, providing income and jobs and a better lifestyle for marginal communities, and engenders wildlife populations with an economic value that means those communities benefit from them, protecting them rather than suffering crop and livestock losses, or resorting to unplanned and unmanaged poaching, selling ivory to get money.
Once again, you take an extreme philosophical position (in this case utilitarianism) to justify hunting. I think we've been over this. In short, there are many barbaric practices which might make money, but that is no reason to do them.
If the only argument you have in return is 'well, I don't like it' (which is essentially all that the moral argument is)
If you just don't see anything wrong with shooting animals for fun, then we're back where we were 20 minutes ago, with me feeling a bit sorry for you and you thinking I'm self-important.
Have a good one.
All trips up on that word needless though doesn't it?
Who really 'needs' to eat meat? Short of a tiny number of aboriginal hunter gatherers in extreme climates, none of us.
Beyond that it's just arbitrary lines.
How is killing cows to eat them, even though we don't really need to, morally acceptable?
Is eating dogs and cats morally acceptable? Horses? A lot of people in the UK would say no. It's entirely arbitrary.
All trips up on that word needless though doesn't it?
Who really 'needs' to eat meat? Short of a tiny number of aboriginal hunter gatherers in extreme climates, none of us.
Beyond that it's just arbitrary lines.
How is killing cows to eat them, even though we don't really need to, morally acceptable?
Is eating dogs and cats morally acceptable? Horses? A lot of people in the UK would say no. It's entirely arbitrary.
I don't disagree with any of that.
But beware of the logical trap of "whataboutery". Just because some other cruel things happen, doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about any cruel things at all.
Just because some other cruel things happen, doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about any cruel things at all.
I don't think it does either
I just think that 'morals' are a self indulgent sideline that draws us away from the real issues. They add nothing to the debate.
I just think that morals are a self indulgent sideline
Yes I get that. I just doubt you'd stick to this position if someone burgled your house 😉
Anyway I have to go but its been fun 🙂
killing an animal that was going to be killed anyway
Do we know that to be true? I was under the impression (rightly or wrongly) that a lot of these 'big game' animals are becoming endangered. We're running out of tigers, are we not?
Even if they do need to be controlled, the idea of a rich white man doing it for the lols leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There's a reason I have the username I do.
There's a reason I have the username I do.
You are a sexually agressive, middle aged woman ain't ya?
Don't tell me all my flirting has been for naught!
I assumed the goatee was kinda an HRT thing but I'm not that fussy 😉
Also......'mon the big cats!
Do we know that to be true? I was under the impression (rightly or wrongly) that a lot of these 'big game' animals are becoming endangered. We're running out of tigers, are we not?
I think the honest answer is that 'it varies' but where it is under permit there are agreed numbers and a conservation basis on which to make that decision, for example where there is a big old bull elephant selected for culling so as to allow a younger one to come through and replace him, often if it's a limited population and they want to prevent inbreeding. From what I understand with Tigers, most of the licences are given for maneaters, and the clients are on a waiting list, so willing to fly over at the drop of a hat if a licence is issued.
I clearly wouldn't equate this with canned hunting, which I don't support in any way, but I see no problem with a sustainable 'crop' of wild animals that are being culled for predominantly conservation reasons being used to maximise revenues for the communities (see the WWF discussion) though I also recognise that even within these programmes there is a risk of corruption, but that seems to be endemic in many areas of the public sector in some African/Indian etc. Countries, and needs to be well managed to prevent.
Even if they do need to be controlled, the idea of a rich white man doing it for the lols leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There's a reason I have the username I do.
I think my simple answer there is "does it really make any practical difference to the animal being culled" and as such I do have reservations about the American fascination with bow hunting. I think that if you are doing any culling it ought to be with the highest principles of animal welfare, and anyone planning to do it should be able to demonstrate an understanding of and ability to reach a competent standard of marksmanship etc. Which I certainly had to do with deer management (albeit I originally trained to do that as a career)
I wasn't happy to see him alive, shooting beautiful animals. Don't give a shit that he's dead. One way of stopping him, I suppose.
You are a sexually agressive, middle aged woman ain't ya?
I get that a lot.
Whilst I definitely don't understand what trophy hunters enjoy about killing such an animal, I don't judge them when it is done legally as it can be a huge source of income (and meat) for the local economy and normally what funds the parks conservation and anti-poaching staff.
Also it is often the fact it has such a value to the rich white man with the gun that it is still alive. If it was worthless, the locals would of killed it as a pest as who wants a giant mammal trampling their crops or eating their livestock. Whilst we might view it as beautiful to see on holiday, if you had it strolling through your garden you would most likely view it differently.
ninfan - Member
"Also, those so called conservation areas in Africa are often areas that have been cleared of the native population to create them. The animals were there in plenty when the locals lived there; maybe accepting humans are an active part of the landscape is the best way to conserve wildlife."
...Seen little evidence of this, in fact most of the 'campfire' type hunting programmes are the exact opposite, they involve the local communities and by generating income from 'rich white trophy hunters' they give the wildlife value as an important resource for the community...
You won't see much evidence, the actual locals having been removed a couple of generations back.
. Whilst we might view it as beautiful to see on holiday, if you had it strolling through your garden you would most likely view it differently
If I had a lion wandering around my garden I'd lock the door and gaze in admiration through the window, rather than digging out my bow.
