Factory Farming Versus Hunting

[The Felonius Pope]

About a year ago my relatives offered to take me on a hunting trip. I was a vegetarian, but I figured that the trip would be

fun so I decided to go with them. For two days we roamed the Sonoran Desert, searching for our prey and doing our

best to ignore the triple-digit temperature. I wasn't going to shoot anything, but it was fun walking around with a group of

people armed with AR-15s... Getting back to the topic: I realized during that trip that hunting, done properly, can be more

humane than getting meat from a factory farm (that's my take on it). Earlier today I tried to explain my sentiments in an

online discussion, to no avail. Any opinions on the subject? Thoughts, comments?

 

[Inferno]

How would you produce enough meat? I'm in a family of hunters and I plan to get my licence some time in the foreseeable future, so I dare say I know quite a bit about it. As I may have mentioned, I live in Austria so things aren't as huge as they are in the US. The largest hunting trip I've been on was with about 30-40 people on a wild boar hunt, though obviously other animals were shot, too. In one day, I reckon about 100-150 animals were shot, convert that into "cow equivalence units" I'd say you're looking at a 1:6 or even 1:7 ratio. (Boars weigh about 100kg and Deer anywhere between 50-300kg, though the typical ones you'd shoot in Europe are no heavier than 100kg, Cattle about 600kg.)

Do you see the problem? A typical slaughterhouse gets through about 30.000 and more cattle a DAY! How on earth are you going to keep up? You'd need to raise the animals in similar conditions as now, possibly even worse because they're so light, and then hunt them, something that includes a high uncertainty level.
If you actually were to release them into the wild, they'd absolutely chew through the forests, you'd have no trees within months. And I am absolutely sure about that last bit.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

How would you produce enough meat?

Hunting alone would not produce enough, you're right. My argument is that hunting is just as moral, if not more so, than factory farming. A woman online, however, told me that hunting (as opposed to getting meat from the store) is immoral. How do I respond to that?

 

[Inferno]

Hunting alone would not produce enough, you're right. My argument is that hunting is just as moral, if not more so, than factory farming. A woman online, however, told me that hunting (as opposed to getting meat from the store) is immoral. How do I respond to that?

She's an idiot, done.

Granted, there are some idiotic hunters (also called "Sonntagsjäger" or Sundayhunters in Austria) who shoot deer in the stomach and make them die slowly, but that doesn't happen often and because the stomach bursts, the meat can't be eaten.

Tell her to go on a hunting trip, if she doesn't understand then she won't understand it ever.

 

[bluejatheist]

Here's a question. Assuming you don't believe in an afterlife; If an animal is dead, it is dead, and thus can't suffer nor remember suffering, and doesn't have the community/culture like humans where pain would remain with the family/friends- does it matter if they suffer before dying if they will end up dead anyway?

 

[The Felonius Pope]

She's an idiot, done.

Granted, there are some idiotic hunters (also called "Sonntagsjäger" or Sundayhunters in Austria) who shoot deer in the stomach and make them die slowly, but that doesn't happen often and because the stomach bursts, the meat can't be eaten.

Tell her to go on a hunting trip, if she doesn't understand then she won't understand it ever.

I told her, but I don't think she wants to listen...

Here's a question. Assuming you don't believe in an afterlife; If an animal is dead, it is dead, and thus can't suffer nor remember suffering, and doesn't have the community/culture like humans where pain would remain with the family/friends- does it matter if they suffer before dying if they will end up dead anyway?

I think it does matter if the animal suffers, but the people I was with made sure that the animals would suffer as little as possible. Besides, animals in the wilderness, like the snakes we were hunting, get to live free lives, a luxury not afforded to animals on a farm. I fail to see how hunting is worse...

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Has anyone here read either of Peter Singer's books, Animal Liberation or Practical Ethics?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dean]

Greetings,

Has anyone here read either of Peter Singer's books, Animal Liberation or Practical Ethics?

Kindest regards,

James

I have read the former, though not the latter. Perhaps I ought to ... but Animal Liberation was rather compelling. Singer's work is often described as most influential due to his thoroughgoing honesty, i.e. his willingness to always follow his reason to their just conclusion. Applied ethics is a fascinating topic in its own right, and Singer is a good place to start for an outline of this field of ethics.

Here's a question. Assuming you don't believe in an afterlife; If an animal is dead, it is dead, and thus can't suffer nor remember suffering, and doesn't have the community/culture like humans where pain would remain with the family/friends- does it matter if they suffer before dying if they will end up dead anyway?

Quite honestly, I'm struggling to see how moral considerations carry any logical weight behind them at all, if the don't concern themselves with the suffering of sentient life, whilst alive, if indeed "you don't believe in an afterlife", rendering the premise somewhat redundant, logically. Nor do I see how , if this reasoning is valid , how or why you couldn't apply this standard to human life.

To show the point (and in accordance with this reasoning), one may just as well claim:

• "Assuming you don't believe in an afterlife, if the human is dead, it is dead, and thus (s)he cannot suffer nor remember suffering, and if for example they have no family or friends close to them at all; does it really matter if they suffer before dying if they end up dead anyway?"

Surely ethics ought to concern itself with the suffering of sentient life as it is still in existence, since ethics carries limited weight when the individuals concerned are dead, as you say? I feel that the absence of suffering upon death may be irrelevant in this case (or in all cases).

 

[bluejatheist]

Dean:
My point is, if an animal suffers, then dies, then it is no longer suffering and it seems it doesn't matter that it did unless you let it matter to you. So what is there to even discuss?

 

[devilsadvocate]

Why are you talking in the past tense? Nobody is saying we need to re-make dead animals lives more comfortable.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Greetings,

Has anyone here read either of Peter Singer's books, Animal Liberation or Practical Ethics?

Kindest regards,

James

No, I haven't read anything by Singer. I've read a little of Eating Animals but I haven't had time to finish it or investigate the author's sources

 

[bluejatheist]

Why are you talking in the past tense? Nobody is saying we need to re-make dead animals lives more comfortable.

Because that is the end result of the living animal's situation. Once they complete their cycle through the factory farm they'll be dead, packaged and shipped. Does the meat taste better if the animal was comfy? Would business be more efficient if the consciences of the factory farm employees were eased by more humane policies? What exactly would be the difference besides putting a band aid on all the bleeding hearts that chime in on this?

 

[devilsadvocate]

What exactly would be the difference besides putting a band aid on all the bleeding hearts that chime in on this?

You're missing the obvious here: Currently living animals would have somewhat more tolerable lives.

To be honest, I don't see why you would even care if the meat tasted better to us or if the food-producing businesses are more or less efficient, since the end result of all human lives that benefit from these are just as much ultimately dead as any animal's. You can't apply a principle willy-nilly to different groups without explaining why they should deserve different treatment.

 

[bluejatheist]

You're missing the obvious here: Currently living animals would have somewhat more tolerable lives.

And my question is, why should I care to make this so? Consider me neutral rather than opposed.

To be honest, I don't see why you would even care if the meat tasted better to us or if the food-producing businesses are more or less efficient, since the end result of all human lives that benefit from these are just as much ultimately dead as any animal's.

You also missed the point, though I probably didn't put enough effort in phrasing it. I mean to ask, how would being more humane to these animals affect my life? Would it lead to a better product and therefore give me a demonstrable reason to invest in more humane policies?

You can't apply a principle willy-nilly to different groups without explaining why they should deserve different treatment.

I never did.