I was struck with a rather unusual thought during class Monday and for the last 10 minutes of class I had a complex dialogue occurring inside my mind about the subject. It has never occurred to me before to feel morally guilty about the sport of hunting. But faced with the dilemma of animal suffering, I am now forced to confront the issue. As we approach the height of “hunting season” I’m left wondering if this widely accepted “sport” should really be so thoughtlessly embraced. I must admit that my own internal torture on this subject is based primarily on my conscience’s prodding, and therefore my reasoning may be incredibly subjective.
Automatically, it seems, I would become enraged at a report of the abuse of a pet or the torture of a helpless animal. The animal shelter commercials on TV make me tear up and I adamantly avoid watching Bambi. I don’t believe in the needless suffering of animals whether they are conscious of actual “pain” or not. And yet, I’ve never found leather shoes offensive or repulsive. I enjoy a good steak just as much as the next person and I’ve never lost sleep over shooting at an animal. In the past few days I’ve killed at least a dozen gnats and I’m not remorseful in the least.
So does this reveal a moral depravity deeply ingrained within me? Am I simply subject to societal norms? Or is it simply “ok” to kill innocent creatures? I can’t help but reason that the purpose of the suffering does play a part in the argument. As a “science person”, I would argue that there is no doubt animal products are nutritionally beneficial to our bodies. I have no moral guilt over ingesting meat. If the option is kill a bear and survive the winter or starve and freeze, I’m going to shoot the bear without regrets no matter how big and sorrowful its eyes are. And so, regardless of my newly discovered dilemma, I find myself with the same conviction of actions—except now I feel slightly guilty. Thank you, philosophy.
No comments:
Post a Comment