Is it wrong to claim moral superiority?When people say a guy is unethical and wrong because he wants to kill things in way that more closely resembles how predators in nature hunt, they are in fact claiming moral superiority by it's very definition. They claim he is wrong and their way is right. What they do is good and what he does is bad. Moral superiority is as close of a definition I can think of in the English language what what is being done by those trashing him.
Maybe someone else can enlighten me on a better way of phrasing what is happening when others react in disgust for how this guy chooses to legally hunt....and then compare his way to their own way as being ethically inferior.
That’s a fair point.If this guy was hunting wolves like this (impossible I know, but hypothetically), how many would have the same opposition?
No. Not at all. And saying so would be the definition of it...Is it wrong to claim moral superiority?
I just find it funny that a typical ethics conversation regarding methods of take usually boils down to claiming one method is more fair chase than another, and therefore somehow better and more ethical... then this guy comes along and tries for years to actually run down the fastest land animal on the continent and kill it and he is bashed for being unethical.You don't have to claim moral superiority to have a discussion on the ethics surrounding a method of take. The world isn't divided between the ethical and unethical. Just people who make a mixture of ethical and unethical decisions. The people against discussions of ethics sure like to wade in and declare who is morally superior and the real reasons why people hold their views.
Nobody here is calling for a ban on persistence hunting, so the hand wringing over people sharing their opinions on the practice is overblown. This is a forum, "a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged."
I just find it funny that a typical ethics conversation regarding methods of take usually boils down to claiming one method is more fair chase than another, and therefore somehow better and more ethical... then this guy comes along and tries for years to actually run down the fastest land animal on the continent and kill it and he is bashed for being unethical.
I’m not in it to argue either. I was posing the question because I see the inconsistency all the time and it drives me nuts.I don’t think I would feel the same way, but then again, I am perfectly fine with folks trapping wolves, yet the thought of a pronghorn in a foothold trap bothers me. Am I being inconsistent? Maybe. I think there’s a lot of nuance and perfectly defendable speciesism involved in why we’re ok with different methods of harvest for different critters. I think it’s a long conversation and I definitely don’t want to argue over it.
I think you're overthinking this topicNo. Not at all. And saying so would be the definition of it...
It does, however, seem incongruous to claim moral superiority, then deny claiming it, then proceed to bash and mock someone for bringing it up as if stating it is somehow taboo.
I would agree that I think it is fair chase. I see what you are saying and do think it is a valid reaction. I do not participate in trapping for similar reasons, although I think trapping and hunting are intertwined and will always advocate for the legality of both.Well, to be clear, I think what he is doing is the definition of fair chase. I also think that the pursuit of fair chase and ethical kills (defined by the reduction of suffering to the greatest extent possible) are at odds. We can chase animals down until they suffer heat stroke and be completely fair chase or we can use the latest gizmos to blow an animal away with ease. My personal definition of an ethical hunt balances the two. Again, good luck to him. Not my cup of tea and I won't try to stop him.