Hunting ≠ predation

Environmental Ethics 19 (4):391-404 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Holmes Rolston has defended certain forms of hunting and meat eating when these activities are seen as natural participation in the food chains in which we evolved. Ned Hettinger has suggested that some of Rolston’s principles that govern our interactions with plants and animals might appear to be inconsistent with Rolston’s defense of these activities. Hettinger attempts to show that they are not. We argue that Rolston’s principles are not consistent with hunting, given Hettinger’s modifications. In his defense of Rolston, Hettinger has challenged animal welfare ethicists to show that they can value animal predation while consistently condemning human hunting. We answer that hunting and meat eating by humans are “cultural” rather than “natural” activities

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On the morality of hunting.Ann S. Causey - 1989 - Environmental Ethics 11 (4):327-343.
Environmental Ethics and the Case for Hunting.Roger J. H. King - 1991 - Environmental Ethics 13 (1):59-85.
On the Moral Distinctiveness of Sport Hunting.Charles J. List - 2004 - Environmental Ethics 26 (2):155-169.
Is Hunting a “Sport”?John Alan Cohan - 2003 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):291-326.
The Morality of Hunting.Robert W. Loftin - 1984 - Environmental Ethics 6 (3):241-250.
Sport Hunting: Moral or Immoral?Theodore R. Vitali - 1990 - Environmental Ethics 12 (1):69-82.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
62 (#234,541)

6 months
5 (#246,492)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?