|
Post by Mr. Vitale on Jul 7, 2015 16:47:34 GMT
Write your responses to the essay "Is Hunting Ethical?" by responding to this thread.
|
|
|
Post by BridgetM on Jul 27, 2015 2:01:47 GMT
In the essay "Is Hunting Ethical?" Ann Causey describes the opposed opinions of the hunters and the anti-hunters. While Causey explained that she and her husband did their best to save and raise fawns, they also hunted deer and ate venison and game. When it came to the discussion of whether or not hunting was ethical, she never took a specific side; instead she stated her opinions in support and opposition to both groups. Although Causey explained her opinions, her words were never biased when picking apart the situation. Causey's writing style is one that I personally can respect. Not only did Causey discuss the issue, but she addressed the problem and took it head on. The main question was whether or not hunting was ethical, and Causey made it clear that when the hunters were asked this question, they did not give a clear answer. Rather than following up this question with an answer involving morality, the hunters would give explanations based more on scientific and mathematical examples. While explaining that she supported hunting, Causey also pointed out a major problem within the views of her own side, which is truly remarkable and really helped me trust and respect her views. Not only did I appreciate the style of writing this author obtained, I also agreed with her opinions. Everything that she explained involving decisions based on what the conscience was feeling was something that I agreed on, at an extreme level. "While thorough knowledge is all that's required to make prudent decisions, the making of a moral decision involves something more: conscience." It is our job to not only know what our conscience tells us, but to follow it as well. It is in my own belief that as long as a hunt is to feed a family and the meat is to be eaten, hunting is ethical. If the hunt is simply for the thrill of killing a helpless animal, then hunting is not ethical, and could really be considered a moral wrong. As Causey said that she disagreed with the statement "'Hapiness Is a Warm Gutpile.'" Which is a view within the world of hunting that I really do not support. The beliefs that Causey put forth are ones that I really support. This article is one that I found extremely informative and really helps the reader open their eyes to understanding both sides of the debate on whether or not hunting is ethical.
|
|
|
Post by amandamoustafa127 on Jul 28, 2015 17:36:46 GMT
In "Is Hunting Ethical?" Ann Causey explores the growing debate on the morality of hunting. I noticed that she started off with an example of the controversy by using herself as the model. While telling the story of the tragic loss of Sandy the fawn she reveals to us the irony of her eating venison that very night. This gives us early clues that Ann is not on either side and that she is feeling conflicted over the subject like many people in present day do. Ann uses a contradicted unsure language in her writing, giving the reader an unbiased view on the subject from the start. I appreciated this greatly because if the whole tone had been influential it would have been just another fact filled, five paragraph, persuasive essay that no teenager wants to read. Ann talks about the fact that most hunting is perfectly legal. In society today the legality of certain actions is a pressing issue. Most people conclude that if something is legal it must also be ethical. I perceive this as a way people can perform immoral actions, and face no consciences due to the fact that it isn't illegal. They use it to their advantage and abuse the law system, making themselves feel less guilty for what they have done. Hunters and anti-hunters see the question at hand in completely different ways. This concept has always boggled my mind because they can both see the same question written out using the same words, on the same paper, yet it goes through each individual's brain uniquely. This causes their answers to have absolutely nothing to do with each other, furthering the controversy. While hunters answer the question with data and facts, avoiding the question all together, anti-hunters answer with their personal values and values can not be answered with data. This whole thing also poses the question to me of whether these anti-hunters who still eat meat are being hypocritical? Because to me if you strrongly oppose the killing of animals, how can you continue to eat them on a day to day basis? Doesn't that make you a consumer of the hunter? Aren't you giving the hunters a reason to kill the animals in the first place? It interests me on what the anti-hunters would say in response to these questions. I associate this controversy with the one of war. It obviously is not as horrible as human to human murder, but it has the same basic guidelines. Both involve "commiting a crime" that in those circumstances isn't actually against the law. Both inflict a moral battle within the killers conscience leaving them with traces of doubt on whether or not what they are doing is ethically right, even if they are helping the country. In war the soldiers are saving their home by protecting the people but harming others to do so. Hunters are taking the lives of innocent animals while trying to feed their families and provide food for anyone who needs it. They tie together in the way of having people for it and against it. Ann seemed to write this to inform the reader about an extremely relevant question that will never be answered. She used her own opinions and actual research and examples to create a learning tool to each individual who reads her essay. By writing this she opened up new doors to the people who are hunters anti-hunters and everyone in between, giving them a new way to look at things without being biased. Personally I think that the morality of hunting depends on the situation. If the hunter is strictly doing his job of providing food for his family and community then that is fine, but if they are doing it for the thrill and for pleasure and they aren't even going to eat what they kill, then these people should take a moment to step back and realize that what they are doing is in no way right and they are the people giving genuine hunters a bad reputation
|
|
|
Post by sammycrossley on Jul 29, 2015 16:16:42 GMT
Before reading "Is Hunting Ethical?" by Ann Causey, I had already formed the opinion that hunting was ethical. The only reason that half of the animals are on the Earth is so that we can eat them. I think that to torture animals is wrong because of the same reasons it is wrong to torture animals. Animals also have feelings, I don't mean that in a way such as they cry during sad movies, but they feel. Something that would hurt a human would also hurt an animal, regardless, some were born to die. If we did not kill chickens,their population would be greater than the human population. Don't get me wrong, chickens are cute but that doesn't mean that would be the reason I would sacrifice having wings or some chicken parm.
I think that writing this article from an unbiased view was extremely important. This way, it wasn't like Causey was favoring one side or giving stronger points, it was even and therefore interesting to read the different points of view. She begins with how she mourned the death of the white-tailed deer she hadn't been able to save but later that night had venison for dinner. She put informative facts in there that really kept the sides balanced but gave you ideas where both sides were coming from. If you had not already formed an opinion about this topic, this essay would be a great one to read because it gives support on both sides which would help gether an opinion.
The debate of deciding whether hunting is or is not ethical is a hard one to wrap your head around. Causey makes great point on both sides, starting with "how much the economy is stimulated by hunting-related expenditures." Then she rebuttals it saying," Anti-hunters are not asking whether hunting is an affective management tool...rather they're asking, Is it ethical to kill animals for sport?" It is nearly impossible to get an actual answer to whether or not it is ethical because it is each persons own opinion. There are statements that would favor both sides of the argument and therefore there really is no solid answer.
|
|
|
Post by kadindonahue on Jul 30, 2015 3:42:28 GMT
I have always looked upon hunting and felt indifferent about it. In "Is Hunting Ethical?" Ann Causey goes back and forth between her opinions on hunting providing excellent reasoning behind each side. Even after reading this I still can't pick a side entirely. Determining whether hunting is or is not ethical depends on the following questions. Ann Causey writes about the morality of hunting while remaining neutral in the argument without being biased and one sided. She also uses vivid language describing the hunters and the anti-hunters as equally ethical and not ethical. Determining whether hunting is or is not ethical depends on the following questions. Why was it done and what are your intentions after? Answers to these questions can cause me to go both ways which leads me to being indecisive.
Some people say hunting is ethical because they need the meat to survive, in this case yes it is okay. But when facing this idea you also have to understand that we as human beings have also driven entire species to extinction because of our desire to hunt. At a certain point a line must been drawn in order to protect the hunted species and these lines have been drawn. Even with these lines hunters do not hesitate when it comes to stretching the limits. Ann Causey says, "While many immoral activities are prohibited by law, not all behavior within that law can be considered ethical." In the hunters mind as the long as the law is not broken then they are ethical but the animals are still impacted greatly. When looking at this you have to consider the greater good on both sides in order to determine if it is ethical or not.
It is hard to decide on the argument pertaining hunting when i have been indecisive for so long. I personally do not like hunting but that does not determine my opinion on it being ethical or not. There are some people who really require hunting for survival or population control which is completely ethical. The idea of hunting for sport however, is one that is not ethical and is something that i have no problem going against. When you kill something just to have a good time or get more points than the next guy what makes you think thats okay? Hunting for sport leads to me believe that you have little or no respect for nature and is one of the reasons why a lot of species are barely existing. But at its center hunting is a necessity to the survival of many people and is required. Whether hunting is ethical depends entirely on the situation which leads me to feeling indecisive. I guess the real question is how would you feel if you were being hunted?
|
|
|
Post by davidc on Jul 30, 2015 4:02:10 GMT
In the essay Is Hunting Ethical? Ann Causey starts the essay off with a situation in which it clearly shows that she loves deer and animals, she also makes it clear that her husband is a hunter and that they have eaten venison many times. What I really like about this essay is that she showed arguments for both sides and wasn't biased. I personally connected with Causey because of my thoughts towards hunting “Ethical hunters do not mindlessly follow rules and lobby for regulations that serve their interests; rather, they follow their consciences, sometimes setting their own interests aside. In short, ethics are guided by conscience” It depends if you have the conscience to be able to take an animals life and that is what separates pro-hunters and anti-hunters. The one thing people don't understand is that hunting is more ethical than how you get your meat from the supermarket. Animals are kept in crates their whole lives, fed like crazy to get fat then butchered for the meat. That is why I believe strongly that hunting is ethical. That is my belief and everyone is entitled to their own belief, "Neither side can offer one answer for all; we can only answer this question for ourself, and even then we must be prepared to offer valid, consistent moral arguments in support of our conclusion." Causey is leaving the choice up to you as a reader and gets you thinking about why you made that choice.
|
|
|
Post by tomg03 on Jul 30, 2015 20:28:09 GMT
In "Is Hunting Ethical?" Ann Causey describes both side of where people stand on hunting, the people who are all for hunting and the people who are against it. Ann and her husband were hunters and did eat venison but she never gave us her view on hunting only both sides views and she was not biased. When i started to read this essay I already knew how i felt on this topic and I knew nothing she said would swing me to the opposite side but she did make some very good points. There are a lot of people out there that just hunt to kill an animal and I strongly disagree with that for the mere fact that you are not using it for anything and your taking a animals life for no apparent reason. You should at least have the decency to eat the animal and use its fur for something so it doesn't just rot.
In my opinion hunting is ethical because it is the only way for us to get any sort of meat and you need meat to become stronger and healthier. Also killing animals does lots of things like kills diseases because they form on the animal and they transport them from place to place. It also stops them from overpopulating and running rampid throughout the streets of our neighborhoods because there is no room left in the woods or food left for them. Also they will all begin to kill eachother for territory and there bodies will go to waste so why not we kill them and use there bodies for sometihng useful not for them to just sit there and do nothing useful but attract bugs and let them breed there.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Hedum on Jul 31, 2015 20:24:14 GMT
Hunting is one of the most contriversial descussions that fight the freedom to hunt and the fight to protect the animals. Before reading "Is Hunting Ethical?" I saw the title as a attention grabber, because I was intrested in this question. I formed a conclusion on this question before reading, which was that hunting was not ethical. Hunting is more as a sport or a survival tactic. While reading the essay, Ann Causey, does a good job at portraying both sides of the argument with what would be stated about the topic and the common answer that would portain from people. Ann in my mind while reading this seemd to be more towards the hunter side rather then being a antihunter. The Quote "How can anyone both revere life and seek to extinguish it in pursuit of recreation" is one quote that stuck out to me the most. The way i interpreted it was that, how could someone kill something without feeling remorse in any way. This quote also goes back to my initial though of how can such a thing be done without intended or needed reason? Yet people still do it. On the other hand, hunting can be more then helpful and sometimes it is. It reduces overpopulation from occuring, food can be gained from each animal, and it provides clothing and furnature in some ways. Ann states that "Hunting is one of few activities that allows an individual to participate directly in the life and death cycles on which all natural systems depend." She is defently right about this because otherwise we would just be in the middle of the life and death cycles in which nature deals with, considering we dont have other people to be afraid that they will kill us for food. I can still say that I dont agree with hunting being ethical, but it is defently a nessesity in situations, and this essay defently made me switch back and forth between which side was better.
|
|
tonyg
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by tonyg on Jul 31, 2015 21:35:30 GMT
In the essay, "Is Hunting Ethical?" Ann Causey discusses the issues with the morality of hunting. She is able to provide an informational and unbiased essay by remaining neutral in the arguement. She provides information from the point of view of both the hunter, and the anti-hunter. Early in her essay she tells the reader about her and her husband, a wildlife biologist, giving CPR to a dying fawn named Sandy. Despite their efforts to save Sandy, she died in Ann Causey's arms. She then tells the reader of a party she went to later that day, for which her and her husband prepared a venicen-based meal. This gives her insight from both points of view. Ann Causey uses a comparison between the responses to the question of the moral issues of hunting, that helped me to better understand what she was trying to argue. When hunters are asked a question of moral right and wrong, they respond with a data-based answer that usually says, it's legal so it's right. The anti-hunters are looking for an answer that refers to the hunters conscience. Ann Causey describes this by saying, "It's as though one was asking what day it is and the other responded with the time. While the answer might be correct, it is meaningless in the context of the question asked." This helped me to realize that both sides are stuck on two entirely different questions. One on the moral issues of hunting, the other on the legality of hunting. Before reading this essay I had never given my opinion of hunting much thought. But after reading this essay I began to wonder, if it was me holding the gun pointed at an animal, would I pull the trigger? After thinking about this, I do not think that I could. However I am still neutral in this topic. I believe that if you can pull the trigger with no remorse, and as long as it is within the limits of the law, you can hunt as you please.
|
|
|
Post by Katie Mayer on Aug 1, 2015 1:48:53 GMT
Ann Causey delt with expressing views on a very controversial topical in the best way possible, not taking any side. Throughout the piece she touched on both sides of the morality of hunting highlighting how someone could feel about it. I really enjoyed her writing style because it allowed me to open my mind up despite my own opinions. In the beginning of the essay Causey explained how she and her husband were hunters, but within limits. With this knowledge it is evident that Causey has the trait that not most writers have, and that is to fully analyze both sides of a topic and then discuss the topic at hand un-biased; therefore as a reader the same open mind should be present. Personally, I have always been against hunting to an extent. I still eat meat and would never frown upon people who do, however when thinking about the ethics of the matter I simply cannot be fully accepting of it. Hunting should be just for the necessity of having the food, and should be down to the minimum, no sport mentality should be taken at all. A sport is when the opponents are equal and that is not the case with hunting. After reading Causey's essay I was more aware of the opposing side however my standing did not wavier. I agree with the writer when she goes to say that hunting shouldn't really be a "fun hobby". Once again, despite the admiration I have for Causey being able to write on a controversial topic un-biasedly, I don't believe hunting is ethical as a sport, only for a minimal amount of food.
|
|
|
Post by ZacLambert on Aug 1, 2015 1:54:59 GMT
In the essay "Is Hunting Ethical" Ann Causey describes her love for her deer and how she cherishes them with their every last breath. Ann treats the deer as humans and cares for them as humans and is heartbroken when one of her fawns dies. Ann talks about hunting without being biased which I think is great because not everyone has the same feeling about hunting. I myself think that hunting and killing wildlife should only be done when the season is right and if the animal is being put to good use.
When people kill animals just to kill them, it breaks my heart to think that it's remains will just rot without use. I myself have have only killed 1 deer but put it to good use for a family meal. To me, hunting is ethical because without killing animals, we would not be able to get the proteins we need to live and sustain good health. Ann doesn't say what she thinks is right, she gives good advice and knowledge about both sides and I commend her for doing that. Ann says " If any one word characterizes most people's feelings when they reflect on the morality of killing an animal for sport, it is "ambivalence." I agree with Ann because most people are uncertain when it comes to choosing what's right and what is wrong. There is no right or wrong when it comes to hunting, it's only what you feel is right and think is right.
|
|
bobby
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by bobby on Aug 1, 2015 3:41:39 GMT
Before I get into the discussion I chose this essay to review because it has come up many times before in conversations I have had. I see hunting two different ways, there are those who hunt to survive and those who do it as a recreational thing, BUT, those who do it as a sport do not end up leaving the dead animal. They will most likely still end up eating and/or selling their kill to someone who will use it to their advantage.
Hunting is has always been a big deal between those who want the freedom to hunt but also those who would do anything to protect these animals from being hunted. I see it as if you need to hunt to survive it is ethical but if you are hunting for sport and wont do anything with it, that is very unethical and all you are doing is killing off the population of that animal.
Causey I can easily say shows love and affection for these animals but on the other hand does not have a problem eating one when she needs to. I liked that she explain arguments from both sides of the table without being biased about the situation. Causey is not on either side of this on going argument and she is not in the middle of the conflict either.
|
|
|
Post by briannadavids on Aug 18, 2015 23:00:36 GMT
Ann S. Causey’s “Is Hunting Ethical?” is an unbiased speech about the morality of hunting that takes both sides of the hunter and anti hunter. She creates an argument that sparks the readers thought process right from her own personal experience into other’s opinions on the ethicality of hunting. The definition of hunting is the act of a person, animal or thing to chase or search for game or wild animals for the purpose of catching or killing. However, there are two kinds of hunters, one who chooses to kill to put dinner on the table, and the other who hunts for the thrill of the kill, just to watch the animal suffer. I believe only the hunters who hunt to put dinner on the table should be allowed to hunt because the morality of the other hunter is wrong to me. Hunting for thrill is a scary thing, not only because they think it is “fun” to kill, but also because there are people who have taken it too far and become murderers since they loved that high of killing so much. Moreover, I can also agree with the assumption that Causey presents to the reader when she says “Moral controversy cannot be resolved by examination of data or by appeal to scientific studies.” Hunting is really all about your morals, whether or not you agree or disagree with it. Since hunting is a moral controversy, it is an issue that will never be resolved. Unfortunately, you will still have the people fighting about it since they cannot realize that it is a never ending war. Causey also brings up a point when she says, “The first is confusing prudence with morality. Prudence is acting with one’s overall best interest in mind, while morality sometimes requires that one sacrifice self-interest in the service of a greater good.” Her statement validates the question many anti hunters would ask, is hunting based on your morals? There is no good answer to any of these questions besides saying that there is never going to be a good answer on who’s morals are ethically correct. Causey uses her speech to make that as clear as possible without being biased and taking sides. Her writing style makes it easy to understand what she is saying, while also keeping you sucked in to anything she says. I personally agreed with her beliefs, especially when she brought up that anti hunting comments cannot be “biased by personal opinions.” She gave hunting critics a sense go hope that their comments are being heard and they do have a voice to the hunters, because her husband was a hunter himself. Causey gives the reader room to make an opinion by giving facts of both sides, without favoring another, and gives many reasons to support either side.
|
|
|
Post by bcastellucci on Aug 24, 2015 23:11:03 GMT
"Is Hunting Ethical?" by Ann S. Causey has you look at hunting through two different perspectives as she talks about both sides of hunting, the hunters and the anti hunters. This was an alluring read for me because I personally never understood nor liked the idea of hunting, although I may sound like a hypocrite because I do eat meat, but I could never do the actual act of killing. I can understand when people need to hunt for food to keep themselves alive, it is the circle of life. However what I do not understand one bit is when people find it okay to hunt as a "sport" or for fun. That is beyond me and is sickening. The last time I checked a sport is an athletic hobby to keep yourself healthy with a little competition. Not killing off other life to get a trophy. That to me is not okay. But everyone has their own opinions. Causey starts off the essay about a dying fawn and how she wanted so bad for it to live. "Come on Sandy, wake up. Please wake up!" This shows that she clearly has a love for animals. She also states that her husband is a wildlife biologist, a job that only an animal lover could have. But ironically enough, the night that Sandy died the couple prepares a roast that Ann's husband hunted and she butchered. A deer that was a fawn once like Sandy. This is confusing to read about two people so upset over a fawns death doing this to another deer. The author talks about how hunters say they kill as a sport but still maintain a reverence for life. What I do not understand is how you could have a reverence for life when you are ending lives as a sport. The essay goes back and fourth in debate between hunters and anti hunters. Is hunting a morally accepting activity? This was the big question. In my opinion hunting is morally acceptable when you are doing it in NEED of food or clothing. It is not morally acceptable to end animals lives for fun. The author states, "That wild animals should die to feed us? To clothes us? To decorate our bodies and den walls? To provide us with entertainment and sport?" When it is put into that terrible way of describing it, it is hard to believe that people actually do such an act. "It has been said that hunting is the most uncivilized and primitive activity in which a modern person can legally engage." I agree with that. To kill innocent animals for entertainment or to obtain a trophy does not make any sense and only makes me sick. "To inflict death without meaningful and significant purpose, to kill carelessly or casually, or to take a life without solemn gratitude is inconsistent with genuine reverence for life." Is hunting ethical? It is really something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by skylartsosie on Aug 30, 2015 19:52:53 GMT
While reading "Is Hunting Ethical?", I repeatedly asked my self this very question. Is hunting ethical? In my opinion, hunting should only be for people who kill the animal to consume the meat. In other words, Hunting an animal for the sole purpose of sport, is wrong. Also the killing of baby animals or adult animals with new born babies should now be aloud. Each animal should be able to live as long as possible. Although, the author does not say her preference on this topic. Over hunting is another problem we have. Take the Dodo bird as an example. Once the island, Mauritius, had plenty of the birds, But then Dutch settlers came and unknowingly wiped out the species by killing too many too fast. The author and I both have compassion for animals. However we both see its sad to see them go, especially ones we have created bonds with, but certain animals must go, like cows, pigs, chickens, and fish, so that humans have meat to eat.
|
|