A diver has died after an attack by a suspected 4.5-meter shark near Michaelmas Island. It is the third fatal shark attack in Australia in three weeks.
A diver has died after an attack by a suspected 4.5-meter shark near Michaelmas Island. It is the third fatal shark attack in Australia in three weeks.
How does a method being traditional make it more ethical? Aren’t more ethical methods of hunting about minimising agony of an animal when killed using all available technology? So a firearm shot would be more ethical than slow-to-kill arrow?
1st. I’m an omnivore. You are too. We are not hevibores. It’s a survival trait. Rats, bears, and a few other animals are too. There is the question of choice, of course. I choose to remain what evolution has made me. That said, I try to eat as much free range meat/fish (I’m still trying to figure out the problem of aquaculture vs intensive and destructive fishing) as I possibly can.
2nd. Animals are part of a freeding chain, except for a few, like us, Orcas, etc. who are apex predators.
3rd. I don’t hunt anymore, but I still fish. I feel better if the animal, my adversary, is in somewhat even terms. Call it some twisted atavic logic, but to me it makes it ethically acceptable.
BTW, I do get a pleasure from winning that fight, but I don’t derive pleasure from the death itself.
Also, if minimizing the agony means that the animal has no chance, I know what I’d choose, having a chance.
But that’s just me. However, just as I respect the choice of vegetarians and vegans, I do not acknowledge the rights of others judging me for being what evolution has made me. I do, however , try to be a “better” animal eater.
I consider your argument the more ethical one. If an animal is going to die, isn’t the most humane method the most ethical? However, I also see the other side, which is giving the animal the chance to kill the human first. It’s kinda twisted logic. If you’re going that route then the most humane method would be not kill them at all.