Sniper & Sharpshooter Forums banner

are long range shots ethical?

  • Yes, its a judgement call- shooter's skill, correct load, correct rifle, right conditions

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, under no circumstances

    Votes: 0 0.0%

hunting ethics

14389 Views 33 Replies 10 Participants Last post by  Chubs
hey i would like to know all of your opinions on the ethics of long ranged shots
some hunters were giving me a hard time about some 600m yotes that i had gotten
they were all quick kills and i didnt take a shot unless i knew i could hit the target and kill it instantly
a modern tactical rifle in .308 with the right shooter in the right conditions i know i can take a yote 600m and way byond
1 - 5 of 34 Posts
1) Killing animals (other than humans) is morally wrong, always, and Jesus hates you all for doing it.

2) I am confused as to why animals (excluding human beings) deserve moral respect if they are also to be categorized as 'fair game.' We all are in agreement that the deprivation of life of a coyote, deer, cow or pig is not immoral. Why then, is the method or procedure used in depriving the animal of life subjected to ethical scrutiny?

Personally, I don't like to see animals hurt/killed unless I feel it was provoked (i.e., they contemplate me to be food, which I must show them that humans are superior), however, I see nothing wrong with either the hunting (quick killing) of animals, nor the hurting (slow death) of animals.

Jeff_850 said:
some hunters were giving me a hard time about some 600m yotes that i had gotten
If Jeff's objective is to end the life of a deer, on what grounds do these hunters stand upon to dictate to Jeff what methods he can use to achieve this objective? I fail to see the lack of morality involved in achieving an objective that affects only those (the deer) who the hunters themselves do not grant moral respect to to begin with. Why are they trying to prevent pain and suffering to the deer?

There is much utility in animal cruelty laws, and I support them whole-heartedly, but not because I think animals should not endure pain and suffering. Society functions better when it is not filled with humans who desire pain and suffering for animals, as it often leads them to other acts which affect those we do give moral respect to (humans). However, this basis for protection of animals is not based on morality, but pragmaticism, and therefore, Jeff's scenario does not fall into this group as he has not testified to desiring to cause the deer pain, but only death, which we've already agreed a) is not morally incongruent with society, and b) is not pragmatically incongruent with society.

Judging by the replies, it seems that an efficient kill is considered very important: I am not a hunter, so perhaps I am deprived from understanding why it is morally acceptable to kill the animal, but immoral to let it suffer (even when your motivation is not to cause it pain)?

Sorry if this seems a little confrontational, I do not mean it to be to any extent, just curious. Trying to apply my readings of Descartes (animals as machines) and Theoretical Ethics. :lol:

Scatch "Uber-Nerd" Maroo
See less See more

spade said:
1) Killing animals is morally wrong? So is killing people... things die,**** happens. This is a sniper website. As much as we would like to skirt that fact, snipers kill people sometimes.

2) Descartes was an idiot.

3) If your not a hunter why are you responding? You obviously have no frame of refrence.

4) Im not the kind of guy who likes to debate, nor am I good at it. So, that being said, we'll just leave it at that. You can feel free to help yourself to steaming, mountain grown cup of shut the **** up.
You totally and outrageously misread my post, if you bothered to read (as opposed to skim) it at all.

My first remark re: animals and Jesus was obviously a joke: why would I say Jesus would become offended by the death of an animal, but NOT a human?

Second, I specifically stated I have NO problem with the death, regardless of means, of an animal, so why are you lecturing me on the occurences of death?

Third, me not being a hunter is the reason why I'm asking why you give animals any degree of moral respect,

Fourth, why the hostility? I haven't questioned the morality of hunting at all, but rather, merely asked why hunters refrain from using certain methods of take.

Muzzleblast, I appreciate the attention you've devoted to my question, but I fear your argument for hunting goes wasted as I did not find one necessary to begin with: I see nothing wrong with hunting, irregardless of why you choose to do it.

muzzleblast said:
Since I won't stop eating meat, I'll continue to hunt, even though I technically don't need to. But, animals are dying on my behalf one way or another. Picking the tool for the job, the cleanest shot I can, and tracking like a mofo just help me to not let deer or any other animal die alone and scared in the woods with a bullet in it. Its a risk one takes when shooting an animal, but one we can all take steps to minimize.
My question was why do you bother to have concern for the animal's emotional state--why should anyone care how an animal feels prior to its death?

SubThermal answers this question, to his extent possible: he sees all hunting as immoral. However, I am interested to know why those who see hunting as moral still find it immoral to go about certain methods.

Jeff_850 said:
animals have rights or no rights doesnt matter bottom line is if you can avoid suffering do so... clean kill means better meat and you will need 1 shot so its more efficient..
This is a utilitarian reason, which I understand completely, but the question is:

jeff_850 said:
be more humain twards the animal and why not do that when its helping you?
Why should I be humane to something I do not intend to eat? If I'm varminting, I'm killing animals purely for the pleasure of hitting a moving target--so although it is giving me entertainment, I do not plan to eat it, so why should I be efficient with my kills if it will limit my enjoyment?

I do not mean to sound like a broken record, but no one has really answered my question, and some have somehow read something completely different. I am NOT anti-hunting. I am simply curious as to why some people think it is objectively wrong to not grant deer and coyotes a degree of moral respect. Please, please, please read what I write before you make outrageous comments like telling me to sip on cups of bull ****.

Scatch "Misunderstood" Maroo

P.S. I'm a strong believer that Jesus loves everyone, regardless of how horrible a person we might think they are, and as weird as Descartes may have been, to call one of history's most brilliant minds (this is an objective fact) an 'idiot' is a sign of ignorance of the man's greatest accomplishments.
See less See more
spade said:
****, do we really have to do this?

1) If your comment about jesus was obviously a joke then i would have treated it as such.

2) Lectured because of the first statement. Its not my fault your were unclear and contridicted yourself in the entirety of your post.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have attempted the joke at all considering the sensitive subject of animal rights and hunting.

spade said:
3) The part about you not being a hunter was pointed out, to show that this is not the place for a debate on the morality of hunting in its entirety, I am quite tired of you and yimmy and others derivating from a post's subject to berate or question something that someone said. Instead of fufilling a posts initial purpose, all it does is cause a big ass fight and make people mad because you all feel the need to debate. I am sure that there are forums for this on other parts of the web.
Please do not lump me into categories with other people: I ask questions because I am ignorant of the answer, and truly desire knowledge, where others make statements as facts and form judgments on those statements.

I have not berated anyone, nor have I maliciously or insultingly 'questioned' anyone's post. I posed what I saw as a contradiction, and inquired as to why it was not a contradiction. I did not mean to establish that I knew it to be a contradiction, but only thought it was a contradiction, and had hoped someone much more enlightened than myself could explain to me why it was not, in fact, a contradiction.

spade said:
4) I am quite aware of what descartes did. The man was a sadist and an idiot.
I agree that history tells us he was quite the ass, but that does not blemish his achievements in mathematics and geometry, for which credit is due and should be given.

spade said:
For whatever reason you do it, make it quick and clean. IF you feel the need to hurt animals simply to watch things suffer, then you have issues and should seek counseling.
What I don't understand is why should we abstain from the kill if we cannot make it quick and clean? Whether I'm really hungry, or just hunting for the pleasure of the sport, if I cannot get a clean shot (but still a lethal one), why should I not take any shot at all?

spade said:
5) The comment about you sipping on a hot cup of bullshit, it wasnt outrageous. It was honest.

To answer your question re: my feelings toward killing an animal, it's an odd emotional disfunction, I suppose. :) When an animal attacks a person (or even another animal), I see the animal as ruthless and chaotic, a threat to the well-being of things. When I see an animal in this measure, I do not feel a discomfort in seeing it put down because I no longer see the animal as 'innocent.' Animals which I do not see/know of to be a ruthless predator I take to be cute and fuzzy, and therefore, feel emotional discomfort at the thought of it being hurt. This emotional state is obviously void of reason as I completely disregard the cycle of the ecosystem, and it is because I recognize this emotional state to be void of reason that I disregard it as a founded opinion... it's just how I feel inside.

muzzleblast said:
As simply as I can put it, it is wrong NOT to have concern for the animals emotional and mental state because I belive animals have feeling and are capable of emotion. At the very least they do feel pain.
I do not intend to put words into your mouth, but tell me if this is a proper interpretation of your thinking:

Animals' (other than humans) lives, their existence itself, has no moral worth and thus, nothing is lost if you deprive an animal of its life because it was worth nothing to begin with. However, the animal's state of mind does have value, and the disruption of this state of mind is immoral; this disruption of the mind can be caused by both physical and mental pain.

Does this make sense, and if so, is this what you mean to any degree?

Thank you MuzzleBlast for your continued efforts to help me understand, and entertaining me with a discipline I thoroughly enjoy... and Jeff, I hope you don't find this off topic, but rather, a mere deeper investigation into your original question. :)

Scatch Maroo
See less See more
spade said:
...all living beings concious of themselves and capable of emotion are living.
I agree with this definition, but I am really unsure of whether or not I believe other animals are capable of self-recognition. My first philosophy paper was: "Do cats think?" I argued that they did not, but were completely instinctual (emotion being reflexive, I argued the cat was incapable of realizing the meaning of its own emotional state). The paper was merely an exercise in critical thought, as we had no previous education in cognitive science, and so I wouldn't give any weight to my paper nor my opinion. However, if anyone believes they have a substantial dissertation re: animals and their capabilities of self-recognition, I'd be more than interested to read it!

As usual, I digress...

Spade, Muzzleblast, I hope I can summarize your positions regarding the ethics of hunting, which must meet two criteria:

1) All life is important, and so it is important to only take life when it is needed (i.e., for food, clothing, etc.). 2) When life must be taken, it should be done in a manner which is as humane as possible.

Does this mean the two of you personally do not agree with varminting as it fails to meet the first premise for ethical hunting? If so, then I see nothing troubling with this line of thought.

My confusion arose when Jeff was scolded by hunters who were bothered not by Jeff failing to fulfill the first premise, but rather, only the second. I simply do not understand why a hunter who does not value an animal's life to preserve it lest he needs to take it, would still find it necessary to extend enough moral respect to the animal to fulfill the second premise. If my interpretation of your opinions of varminting is accurate (please correct me if it is not, and let me apologize well in advance), then I suspect you might not be able to help me overcome my confusion lest you have had it explained to you by someone of the same mind who scolded Jeff.

Again, thank you all who've contributed to this thread, and my apologies Jeff if you've felt that I hijacked your thread, but I sincerely believe your original question is still being discussed, only to a much more thorough and satisfactory degree.

Scatch Maroo
See less See more
spade said:
On a personal note : I cant stand you scratch,
The name is Scatch: S-C-A-T-C-H. :)

spade said:
but your making me actually put what i know to be true into clear and concise thought (as best as i can, work in progress) so ive gotta give you that.
The point of the exercise, to show me that what you speak is not randomized opinion.

spade said:
Your still a dickhead though.
A rather ridiculous assertion, and one I would beg you drag through the same punishment your argument regarding animal rights has endured, as I seriously do not understand how my stimulation of your intellect could ever be considered equatable to the actions of a 'dickhead.'

spade said:
Im american, i shouldnt be forced to think, LMAO. Let me just know im right and not be able to explain why.
Do not think to any extent that I am not American, or am not proud to be American. Rather, I think critical thought is the MOST American attribute as how can we have a democracy function properly if we do not scrutinize our candidates to a sharp degree? Of course we don't, and that's why we have the politics we do today...

You've demonstrated that killing coyotes definitely has a pragmatic result, and I find it a satisfiable response, regarding coyotes. What would you say to a person who varmints for squirrels/ground hog out in the desert, where no one lives nor is affected by the squirrel/ground hog population?

Muzzleblast said:
ah, lets not get anyone in trouble over this
He is either only half serious, or he's rather irritable: what other type of person would take such argumentation so personally? He is, however, participating in the proper fashion so I am ecstatic he is at least doing that.

Scatch Maroo
See less See more
1 - 5 of 34 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.