This is an interesting parallel, but I feel like I missed some key part of it.
In the US, at least, we historically killed off a lot of deer’s natural predators - mostly wolves - and as a result, the deer population can get out of control, causing serious problems to the ecosystem. Hunters help to remedy that. The relatively small violences that they perform on an individual basis add up to improving the overall ecosystem.
That isn’t the same as being a bigot, or a sexist, or a fascist… and I don’t know why anyone would assume that a person holds those views because they’re mean and petty. They hold those views for a variety of reasons - sometimes because they’re a child or barely an adult and that’s just what they learned, and they either don’t know any better or haven’t cared enough to think it through; sometimes because they’ve been conditioned to think that way; sometimes because they’re sociopaths who recognize that it’s easier to oppress that particular group.
It doesn’t really matter what their reason is. Either way, they’re a worse person because of it, and often they’re overall a bad person, regardless of the rest of their views, actions, and contributions.
Being a hunter, by contrast, is neutral leaning positive.
It makes sense that a rational person who loves being in nature, who loves animals, who wants their local ecosystem to be successful, would as a result want to help out in some small way, even if that means they have to kill an animal to do so. It doesn’t make sense that a rational person who loves all people, who wants their local communities to be successful, would as a result want to oppress and harm the people in already marginalized groups.
I don’t think equating being bigoted with holding unjustifiable opinions does it justice. The way we use the word opinion generally applies to things that are trivial or unimportant, that don’t ultimately matter, e.g., likes and dislikes. Being a bigot is a viewpoint; it shapes you. For many bigots, their entire perspective is warped and wrong. And there’s a common misunderstanding that you can’t argue with someone’s opinions; because it’s just how they “feel.” But being a bigot, whether you’re sexist, racist, transphobic, queerphobic, homophobic, biphobic, etc., is a belief, and it’s one that, in most cases, the bigot chooses (consciously or not) to keep believing.
If an adult with functioning cognitive abilities refuses to question their bigoted beliefs, then they’ve made a choice to be a bigot.
This is an interesting parallel, but I feel like I missed some key part of it.
Or I have ¯\(ツ)/¯
In the US, at least, we historically killed off a lot of deer’s natural predators - mostly wolves - and as a result, the deer population can get out of control, causing serious problems to the ecosystem. Hunters help to remedy that. The relatively small violences that they perform on an individual basis add up to improving the overall ecosystem.
Hunters can help remedy that, but isn’t it fixing the wrong problem? Hunters weren’t able to prevent large scale degradation of Yellowstone; only re-introduction of wolves allowed the park to self-heal. We have the same issue in Minnesota (and, it’s probably common in the states, but I’m only familiar with MN): we killed all the cougars. The coyote population exploded, and now people bitch about coyotes taking their dogs and are worried about their kids. This wasn’t a recent thing, but we’re disruptive enough when we develop land; eliminating apex predators only exacerbates the situation. PA had the same problem deer problem. Hunting or not, every decade or so they have to go in and do a massive cull because they (we) eliminated all of their natural predators.
I think the hunter argument is a little disingenuous, and is as much used by hunters to justify hunting as it is anything else. IMHO. Again, Minnesota has this weird cycle of banning wolf hunting, and then after a few years there’s a flurry of media about how daaaangerous the wolves are becoming, and for a few years they shell out a bunch of wolf hunting permits until they’re all gone, and then people freak out about the environmental imbalance and the damage being done by the loss of an apex predator and the cycle continues.
That isn’t the same as being a bigot, or a sexist, or a fascist…
I agree. Being a hunter is not the same as being a sociopath, or holding any contemptible opinions about humans. Most people simply don’t put non-humans on the same level as humans. Heck, I’m a meat-eater, and while I buy only non-factory-farmed animal products, I still personally recognize a difference between different life forms. Apes, monkeys, cetaceans, are on a different level for me than cows and sheep, which are on a different level than slugs, snails, and insects. I’m not even certain that it’s justifiable, but if I think about it enough, I come to the conclusion that the only truly ethical option is to kill myself so that I’m not killing anything else. Why do cows deserve more life than a carrot? I feel bad trimming branches off the house plants. I feel horrible taking down even a diseased tree, much less some healthy bush that’s in the wrong place. It all seems somewhat arbitrary to me, based entirely on emotional reaction to the animal.
Vegetarians draw the line elsewhere; vegans draw it even somewhere else. Hunters, at least in my opinion, are doing their own dirty work, which I can’t help but give them credit for. Except trophy hunters; those people are fuckers.
It doesn’t really matter what their reason is.
Again, I agree. I had a martial arts instructor once whose argument for not getting in fights was – in my experience – fairly unique. He said: say you get in a fight. You have training, and you win. They’re going to feel humiliated. They might go home and kick their dog, or hit their kid – they’re going to take it out, somehow, on someone else. And all you need to do to prevent that is avoid that fight.
Now, he wasn’t saying to never fight, but there’s self defense, and then there’s not just walking away when you can. Anyway, his point was: there are cascading effects from the things we do, and I think this is what you’re saying about people with bad opinions. It’s an explanation, not a justification.
Being a hunter, by contrast, is neutral leaning positive.
If you’re not a vegan, yes. But we agree that’s from our (mostly mutual?) moral framework, right?
It makes sense that a rational person who loves being in nature, who loves animals, who wants their local ecosystem to be successful, would as a result want to help out in some small way, even if that means they have to kill an animal to do so.
Well. Again, I think that’s rationalization. We kill the apex predators and create a justification for hunting. I think I don’t agree with that. On the other hand, your point is valid in general: sometimes a vet has to euthanize an animal because it has an infectious disease.
I don’t think equating being bigoted with holding unjustifiable opinions does it justice.
I agree, and I think even the vegan argument that killing animals is immoral would arguably put them on the same level, even if they believe it’s wrong.
This is an interesting parallel, but I feel like I missed some key part of it.
In the US, at least, we historically killed off a lot of deer’s natural predators - mostly wolves - and as a result, the deer population can get out of control, causing serious problems to the ecosystem. Hunters help to remedy that. The relatively small violences that they perform on an individual basis add up to improving the overall ecosystem.
That isn’t the same as being a bigot, or a sexist, or a fascist… and I don’t know why anyone would assume that a person holds those views because they’re mean and petty. They hold those views for a variety of reasons - sometimes because they’re a child or barely an adult and that’s just what they learned, and they either don’t know any better or haven’t cared enough to think it through; sometimes because they’ve been conditioned to think that way; sometimes because they’re sociopaths who recognize that it’s easier to oppress that particular group.
It doesn’t really matter what their reason is. Either way, they’re a worse person because of it, and often they’re overall a bad person, regardless of the rest of their views, actions, and contributions.
Being a hunter, by contrast, is neutral leaning positive.
It makes sense that a rational person who loves being in nature, who loves animals, who wants their local ecosystem to be successful, would as a result want to help out in some small way, even if that means they have to kill an animal to do so. It doesn’t make sense that a rational person who loves all people, who wants their local communities to be successful, would as a result want to oppress and harm the people in already marginalized groups.
I don’t think equating being bigoted with holding unjustifiable opinions does it justice. The way we use the word opinion generally applies to things that are trivial or unimportant, that don’t ultimately matter, e.g., likes and dislikes. Being a bigot is a viewpoint; it shapes you. For many bigots, their entire perspective is warped and wrong. And there’s a common misunderstanding that you can’t argue with someone’s opinions; because it’s just how they “feel.” But being a bigot, whether you’re sexist, racist, transphobic, queerphobic, homophobic, biphobic, etc., is a belief, and it’s one that, in most cases, the bigot chooses (consciously or not) to keep believing.
If an adult with functioning cognitive abilities refuses to question their bigoted beliefs, then they’ve made a choice to be a bigot.
Or I have ¯\(ツ)/¯
Hunters can help remedy that, but isn’t it fixing the wrong problem? Hunters weren’t able to prevent large scale degradation of Yellowstone; only re-introduction of wolves allowed the park to self-heal. We have the same issue in Minnesota (and, it’s probably common in the states, but I’m only familiar with MN): we killed all the cougars. The coyote population exploded, and now people bitch about coyotes taking their dogs and are worried about their kids. This wasn’t a recent thing, but we’re disruptive enough when we develop land; eliminating apex predators only exacerbates the situation. PA had the same problem deer problem. Hunting or not, every decade or so they have to go in and do a massive cull because they (we) eliminated all of their natural predators.
I think the hunter argument is a little disingenuous, and is as much used by hunters to justify hunting as it is anything else. IMHO. Again, Minnesota has this weird cycle of banning wolf hunting, and then after a few years there’s a flurry of media about how daaaangerous the wolves are becoming, and for a few years they shell out a bunch of wolf hunting permits until they’re all gone, and then people freak out about the environmental imbalance and the damage being done by the loss of an apex predator and the cycle continues.
I agree. Being a hunter is not the same as being a sociopath, or holding any contemptible opinions about humans. Most people simply don’t put non-humans on the same level as humans. Heck, I’m a meat-eater, and while I buy only non-factory-farmed animal products, I still personally recognize a difference between different life forms. Apes, monkeys, cetaceans, are on a different level for me than cows and sheep, which are on a different level than slugs, snails, and insects. I’m not even certain that it’s justifiable, but if I think about it enough, I come to the conclusion that the only truly ethical option is to kill myself so that I’m not killing anything else. Why do cows deserve more life than a carrot? I feel bad trimming branches off the house plants. I feel horrible taking down even a diseased tree, much less some healthy bush that’s in the wrong place. It all seems somewhat arbitrary to me, based entirely on emotional reaction to the animal.
Vegetarians draw the line elsewhere; vegans draw it even somewhere else. Hunters, at least in my opinion, are doing their own dirty work, which I can’t help but give them credit for. Except trophy hunters; those people are fuckers.
Again, I agree. I had a martial arts instructor once whose argument for not getting in fights was – in my experience – fairly unique. He said: say you get in a fight. You have training, and you win. They’re going to feel humiliated. They might go home and kick their dog, or hit their kid – they’re going to take it out, somehow, on someone else. And all you need to do to prevent that is avoid that fight.
Now, he wasn’t saying to never fight, but there’s self defense, and then there’s not just walking away when you can. Anyway, his point was: there are cascading effects from the things we do, and I think this is what you’re saying about people with bad opinions. It’s an explanation, not a justification.
If you’re not a vegan, yes. But we agree that’s from our (mostly mutual?) moral framework, right?
Well. Again, I think that’s rationalization. We kill the apex predators and create a justification for hunting. I think I don’t agree with that. On the other hand, your point is valid in general: sometimes a vet has to euthanize an animal because it has an infectious disease.
I agree, and I think even the vegan argument that killing animals is immoral would arguably put them on the same level, even if they believe it’s wrong.