Why Recreational Hunting Of Western Canada Is Morally Justified Essay

Better Essays

In his letter titled “Why Recreational Hunting in Western Canada is Morally Justified,” Sven states that he is arguing for “responsible hunting where the primary benefits are the pleasure of hunting animals in the wilderness and eating their meat.” Despite several strengths, his weaknesses in reasoning outweigh the few positives. Thus, the letter’s overall worth is negligible. The letter’s weaknesses in reasoning lie in Sven’s central justifications for recreational hunting, being human pleasure and eating meat, in his supporting argument for animal suffering, and in his failure to define recreational hunting’s necessity. To begin, I will address the strengths of Sven’s letter. The first strength is that Sven defines his argument’s parameters, allowing him to eliminate several counterarguments against his claim. Sven specifies that the hunting type he argues for does not include killing for protection or sustenance, nor negligent hunting practices that promote needless harm to humans, property, or wildlife. Additionally, Sven rejects using bait or vehicles. Sven’s most significant strength is when he defines the moral relationship between humans and animals, stating, “[a]nimals deserve respect, but so do humans, and when there is conflict of interests, the interest that humans have in feeding their families must prevail.” Stuart Rachels, in his evaluation of Utilitarianism, argues that humans are special in many ways but are not the only beings capable of suffering, and thus

Get Access