-
The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
-
We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules
The weirdest question I've ever asked in public is:
- Thread starter Nutterbuster
- Start date
- Status
Emotions just aren't the slave to reason, and making predictions based on that model have for 3,000 years failed to yield results. Economists are dead wrong when they say people are "rational actors." They're emotional/subconscious-driven ones. The default setting in the human brain is to generate an intuited model, and then summon reason as a lawyer to obtain permission to believe. If confronted with a model that doesn't set with intuition, we task reason with permission to disbelieve. That's why it's almost impossible to reason somebody out of an ideology. We make a thousand decisions a day generally using brain faculties other than reason. Eggs or cereal for breakfast? Is that lady walking down the street hot or not? Should I smile or frown at the teller?
Reason can be employed with great results, and I have a proclivity to use it. So kudos to Socrates for that one. But at best humans are a cart pulled by two oxen, and I think in reality there's probably a huge team of horses responsible for navigating us through the world in a happy way, which if we're honest is what ethics is all about. No matter how reasonable something is, if those other horses pull a different way, that's where the cart's going. And that may very well be a good thing. The universe is very large, the human brain is only 3lbs on average, and most of it has no idea how to reason.
I don't think I would go so far as to put the lives of prey above my own. If me and a deer were stranded on a desert island, I can promise you who'd die first. But that's not the reality I live in. I have more food options available to me than anybody who has ever lived. And I have a huge environmental footprint, and 8 billion more of me are currently, with varying levels of awareness, wrecking the only living planet we've identified for the other 10 million or so species that are here. Most of us think we're the only ones that matter. We don't wanna think about the world that existed before the advent of written history a mere 5,000 years ago. We don't wanna think about the idea that "our" body is inhabited by something like 10,000 other species and some of them evidently actually activate parts of our genetic code and are capable of influencing our decisions. Everybody acknowledges their own life is sacred. Most acknowledge the life of at least some other homo sapiens as being so. But most genuinely feel, on some level though perhaps not in as many words, that we're "made in the image" and special. Literally 1 in millions. What are the odds? And why? Because we "reason?" That's cool, but other animals can regrow their entire body from a few cells, survive in the vacuum of space, see magnetic fields, and do all kinds of other things equally unique and cool. Why is our special ability the one that matters?
Cursed with the inconvenient knowledge we have, can we really look at any other organism the way our ancestors did? Just another resource? And am I personally ok with a utilitarian view of them? It's not like deer the species are realistically going anywhere, but can I look at the individual and not see another sentient entity who has a blip of an existence that they'd like to enjoy in their own way for as long as they can? One that's much shorter than mine already, as it is.
And since I've had 2 personal friends ask, I'm in a great place right now.
And I suspect I won't really know the answer to my question until it's time to pull a trigger. I have in the past couple of weeks switched to catch and release fishing, so that bodes poorly for me I guess. But I'm having fun with life right now. It's fun to hear people's personal thoughts and feelings on the issue.
Last edited:
tarafrost
Well-Known Member
An intriguing thread, to be sure.
Fascinating to watch someone (@Nutterbuster) try to communicate their logical & emotional decision making process on a topic complex as complex as deciding whether deer hunting is ethical or not. Very few people stop to consider such questions for themselves, with the majority making decisions on "autopilot", influenced by their upbringing, religious views or lack thereof, culture, education, life experiences, etc, and rarely resorting to thought/analysis as to what might be right for them.
It's a challenging thing to do. The world, and such ethical questions, are never black and white....just shades of grey. Where one chooses to be on the grey scale is important, and the human species could do with more folks pondering and making such choices about issues and ethical dilemmas consciously rather than unconsciously.
Some days I think the human species is a virus, and that Gaia's immune system will step up and eliminate the virus at some point, or at least reduce it's impact to a more negligible level. Covid may have been an immunological "experiment" along those lines. Or, like the waxing and waning of game animal populations, we'll hit a tipping point and do it to ourselves.
Regardless, I love to hunt and look forward to the Fall season eagerly. Like most hunters, I don't hunt because I like killing things. I hunt for many complex reasons, many of which are hard to express (though there is value in the attempt to do so).....love of the outdoors/nature, love of wild game meat, the challenge, learning new things, the male bonding and cameraderie of the hunt camp which contrasts our oft politically correct society, the meditative calm of solo hunting, and so many more. Some of the most "spiritual" experiences I have had involve hunting and being part of the web of nature. I use the word advisedly, since I'm not a religious person, in fact the exact opposite, so have to restrain myself from responding to those that think promoting their particular religious beliefs on a hunting site is appropriate.
Philosophically, I'm more in tune with the native approach, showing respect and reverance for the animals we hunt and always feeling some sadness when I pull the trigger or release an arrow that finds it's mark. Always taking a moment of thoughtful silence to express both sorrow and thanks to the animal who died by my hand.
Often, I put my hand on a tree and try to communicate my thanks for it's existence and express awe at the trees majesty. When I have to cut down a live tree, I always say I'm sorry and explain why it was necessary.
Does the tree or deer care? Can it hear me? Doesn't much matter....I can hear me, and the act of showing reverence for living things is sufficient for me. It means that my actions were taken thoughtfully, purposefully, not gratuitously/unthinkingly, and in my mind that makes them ethically/morally acceptable to me, despite me having caused "harm" to something that was living.
YMMV.
Fascinating to watch someone (@Nutterbuster) try to communicate their logical & emotional decision making process on a topic complex as complex as deciding whether deer hunting is ethical or not. Very few people stop to consider such questions for themselves, with the majority making decisions on "autopilot", influenced by their upbringing, religious views or lack thereof, culture, education, life experiences, etc, and rarely resorting to thought/analysis as to what might be right for them.
It's a challenging thing to do. The world, and such ethical questions, are never black and white....just shades of grey. Where one chooses to be on the grey scale is important, and the human species could do with more folks pondering and making such choices about issues and ethical dilemmas consciously rather than unconsciously.
Some days I think the human species is a virus, and that Gaia's immune system will step up and eliminate the virus at some point, or at least reduce it's impact to a more negligible level. Covid may have been an immunological "experiment" along those lines. Or, like the waxing and waning of game animal populations, we'll hit a tipping point and do it to ourselves.
Regardless, I love to hunt and look forward to the Fall season eagerly. Like most hunters, I don't hunt because I like killing things. I hunt for many complex reasons, many of which are hard to express (though there is value in the attempt to do so).....love of the outdoors/nature, love of wild game meat, the challenge, learning new things, the male bonding and cameraderie of the hunt camp which contrasts our oft politically correct society, the meditative calm of solo hunting, and so many more. Some of the most "spiritual" experiences I have had involve hunting and being part of the web of nature. I use the word advisedly, since I'm not a religious person, in fact the exact opposite, so have to restrain myself from responding to those that think promoting their particular religious beliefs on a hunting site is appropriate.
Philosophically, I'm more in tune with the native approach, showing respect and reverance for the animals we hunt and always feeling some sadness when I pull the trigger or release an arrow that finds it's mark. Always taking a moment of thoughtful silence to express both sorrow and thanks to the animal who died by my hand.
Often, I put my hand on a tree and try to communicate my thanks for it's existence and express awe at the trees majesty. When I have to cut down a live tree, I always say I'm sorry and explain why it was necessary.
Does the tree or deer care? Can it hear me? Doesn't much matter....I can hear me, and the act of showing reverence for living things is sufficient for me. It means that my actions were taken thoughtfully, purposefully, not gratuitously/unthinkingly, and in my mind that makes them ethically/morally acceptable to me, despite me having caused "harm" to something that was living.
YMMV.
Last edited:
@Nutterbuster - if a person doesn’t accept that the emotions are a slave to reason, that’s their prerogative, and I’m not going to try to convince them otherwise. (I personally don’t accept the emotions as “slave” to reason, but for me, they are capable of being thoughtfully assessed and overridden by reasoning. I suppose that’s less a “slave” and more a paid employee which can be let go.)Emotions just aren't the slave to reason, and making predictions based on that model have for 3,000 years failed to yield results. Economists are dead wrong when they say people are "rational actors." They're emotional/subconscious-driven ones. The default setting in the human brain is to generate an intuited model, and then summon reason as a lawyer to obtain permission to believe. If confronted with a model that doesn't set with intuition, we task reason with permission to disbelieve. That's why it's almost impossible to reason somebody out of an ideology. We make a thousand decisions a day generally using brain faculties other than reason. Eggs or cereal for breakfast? Is that lady walking down the street hot or not? Should I smile or frown at the teller?
Reason can be employed with great results, and I have a proclivity to use it. So kudos to Socrates for that one. But at best humans are a cart pulled by two oxen, and I think in reality there's probably a huge team of horses responsible for navigating us through the world in a happy way, which if we're honest is what ethics is all about. No matter how reasonable something is, if those other horses pull a different way, that's where the cart's going. And that may very well be a good thing. The universe is very large, the human brain is only 3lbs on average, and most of it has no idea how to reason.
I don't think I would go so far as to put the lives of prey above my own. If me and a deer were stranded on a desert island, I can promise you who'd die first. But that's not the reality I live in. I have more food options available to me than anybody who has ever lived. And I have a huge environmental footprint, and 8 billion more of me are currently, with varying levels of awareness, wrecking the only living planet we've identified for the other 10 million or so species that are here. Most of us think we're the only ones that matter. We don't wanna think about the world that existed before the advent of written history a mere 5,000 years ago. We don't wanna think about the idea that "our" body is inhabited by something like 10,000 other species and some of them evidently actually activate parts of our genetic code and are capable of influencing our decisions. Everybody acknowledges their own life is sacred. Most acknowledge the life of at least some other homo sapiens as being so. But most genuinely feel, on some level though perhaps not in as many words, that we're "made in the image" and special. Literally 1 in millions. What are the odds? And why? Because we "reason?" That's cool, but other animals can regrow their entire body from a few cells, survive in the vacuum of space, see magnetic fields, and do all kinds of other things equally unique and cool. Why is our special ability the one that matters?
Cursed with the inconvenient knowledge we have, can we really look at any other organism the way our ancestors did? Just another resource? And am I personally ok with a utilitarian view of them? It's not like deer the species are realistically going anywhere, but can I look at the individual and not see another sentient entity who has a blip of an existence that they'd like to enjoy in their own way for as long as they can? One that's much shorter than mine already, as it is.
And since I've had 2 personal friends ask, I'm in a great place right now.
That doesn’t validate emotions as a means of knowledge, however, nor does it make emotions proper or primary determinants in questions of morality. (And perhaps you agree, based on your analogy of a cart pulled by at least two different oxen.)
So enjoy your noodling of your latest intellectual chew-toy, and have a great weekend!
tarafrost
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2021
- Messages
- 5,034
I knew it had to be Kyler’s faultFirstly, I've got more experience as a steep drinker than a deep thinker, and if I have a mooring it's the thought that it's better to flow with the current than anchor up, especially at this point in time.
I have an appreciation for what western philosophy has accomplished, and an appreciation for the fact that we've been trying it out for 3000 years and it simply hasn't delivered all the things it's claimed to deliver. I believe that of most ideologies. They're all human inventions that when you look at them in context with the time period, made sense and were probably an improvement over their predecessor. Sun and corn god makes more sense than animal god and forest spirits as you switch to ag, humanistic pantheons make more sense as you switch to a larger society where human relationships become more important (Olympus was full of petty politics), and monotheism makes more sense when you finally unite the warring tribes under a monarch. That kinda thing. The way I see it, philosophers are probably best as advisors to scientists currently. Neuroscience has learned more about the nature of man in 50 years than we have in the last 5,000 that we've been able to keep up the big campfire talk that is philosophy. It's not an insult, Socrates and Kant just didn't have the tools for observation we have now. The world changed in a huge way when we figured out the curved lens and could look at the universe beyond the naked eye, and since then we've continued to make new observational aids at a dazzling rate. We can graph what we used to have to theorize, and take pictures of metaphors.
That said, here's my stab at filling in the boxes you've offered:
Metaphysics -I'd say that we can make a working model of the universe where it appears that everything in the universe is comprised of objective reality. I don't think we need the anything outside of that (supernatural) to make a working model. I imply nothing there beyond what I've stated. We can make what appears to be a working model of a universe comprised of objective reality.
Epistemology - I think the ultimate nature of reality is likely indeterminable but life's more fun if we assume we can know some things about it. Our instruments transmit data to our senses, which transmit to our brains, which work to make predictions based on recurring patterns in that data. Frequently, those predictions can be tested and found to "work" in the pattern. So I think to play the game, we can assume we can know true things about the universe. We "know" that the universe seems pretty orderly in the sense that we make these predictions and get outcomes. But my definition of "know" is probably different from most folks'. Given that we generally register only a small sliver of say, the electromagnetic spectrum, what are the odds we're biologically incapable of picking up some data streams that if received would radically alter what we currently "know?" I read "The Case Against Reality" at ole kyler's recommendation a while back, and I couldn't disagree with its premise. We're playing a video game in a sense, and being able to read the 1s and 0s that make the "real" game wouldn't be as useful to us as players as "seeing" Mario jumping on goomba heads on the tv screen. My biggest beef with a large chunk of western philosophy is the idea that the emotions are slave to reason. I'd say that consciousness contains rational thought and a host of other subsystems that also work on the whole in ways we're just beginning to understand. Also, an estimated 10 million other terrestrial species seem to be navigating the universe quite successfully with just those subsystems and no "rational thought" module. I belive the human brain comes prewired with a few basic systems, and more can be added. Files can be transferred between brains.
Politics - All that said, we can and have to make deductions, choices, and choose courses of action, if for no other reason than we're absolutely incapable of doing otherwise. Nihilists and absurdists and other similar folk who say "nothing matters" have a really hard time practicing what they preach. Decide to lie down and do nothing because it's all absurd, and see how long you can resist the burning desire to do otherwise. I'm currently trying to satisfy my human nature to act upon what it perceives as the universe, with all of the above in mind. Hence, I'm trying to play all the games humans play and play them well, while treating them like games. You know, something fun that we want to do and that shouldn't be taken so deadly serious as work.
Pretty nondeterminate, right? I'd say my current musings are the latest symptom of an adult mental life largely spent irresistibly examining comfortable thoughts I've observed by osmosis from my society. I don't like my neurons treading the same old path they've always tread. When the rubik's cube is in order, it's nowhere near as fun. This little puzzle is, I guess, in a way the new chewtoy for my brain. College and some stressful life events kinda killed that joy for a bit, and then @kyler1945 managed to poke me enough to get me reading new books with new and fun puzzles.
The "new" doubt that's surfaced is also really a recognizing of something about me I'd forgotten. I love animals. I wasn't a truck or lego kid, I was a bug and bird kid. Here in Alabama, an acceptable role to play in society as a less social, rural male who liked animals was The Hunter. I've played that role with gusto. It's been very fun. But last year I ended up dragged into a local conservation issue that, combined with some reexamining of life in general, made me question how comfortable I was with that role, and if there was a better one to play. Is it in my nature, as somebody who is enraptured by the remarkably similar yet totally alien sentience found in other terrestrial species, to view them strictly as assets to be utilized? If my gut feeling is to preserve as much as possible of that sentience, if for no other reason than that I'm very fond of it, is viewing it through a lens inherited from people with different desires in different circumstances going to be in my best interest? Hunting made since for grandad, but does it make sense for me? Does it enhance or inhibit my love for the animals around me? Have I squashed those sentiments somewhere between the 1st and the 50th deer I've killed? Is hunting the next "fix" to abandon after ditching caffeine, sugar, and alcohol? Is sobriety better than addiction when it comes to whitetail addiction?
All the other talk is good, but that's the most honest and coherent answer I can give this late in the day. Tomorrow morning me is probably gonna wonder what 10pm me was thinking. Should be good times...
I was going to say… have some kids if he hasn’t. It will change the way you think about life.
Vtbow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2018
- Messages
- 5,516
This couldn't be more true.....there are some USA issues going on right now that I won't specifically bring up...but i will say my willingness to compromise on many former beliefs has been greatly swayed since having kids and reevaluating what is really important and matters to me, my life. And my family.
Vtbow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2018
- Messages
- 5,516
Oh. And one more thing.
These kinds of conversations are extremely healthy and important. Being intentional and aware of oneself and the actions you make as well as how they impact life around you is a positive attribute to character, being and personal fulfillment. Those who go blindly through life without asking a lot of the tough questions and answering them for themselves are just living in the roots and beliefs of those who raised them and the influential society around them.
"To know others is wisdom, to know oneself is enlightenment" -Lao Tzu
These kinds of conversations are extremely healthy and important. Being intentional and aware of oneself and the actions you make as well as how they impact life around you is a positive attribute to character, being and personal fulfillment. Those who go blindly through life without asking a lot of the tough questions and answering them for themselves are just living in the roots and beliefs of those who raised them and the influential society around them.
"To know others is wisdom, to know oneself is enlightenment" -Lao Tzu
I'm gonna open my big mouth as I have been following along here and my take on this might even p*ss some of you off but this is still America and I'm entitled to my opinion like everybody else so. I could personally shoot a ''this years fawn" between the eyes with my 615 grain arrow and not even bat an eyelash. I'm out bow hunting because I love it and love being out in the woods hunting down animals. My goal is to out wit and kill hopefully my pb buck and it's kind of pointless sitting in a tree for hours and not killing something. If I wanted to just watch wildlife, which I do enjoy, then I'd just carry a camera instead of my Mathews. Whether it's humane or not just never enters my mind because the way I look at it is, will it really make a difference in the grand scheme of things 150,000 years from now that I took an animals life? I doubt it. Great thread by the way @Nutterbuster
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2019
- Messages
- 6,284
it's relatively difficult to cut out all animal proteins and still maintain a healthy diet with all the various micronutrients (edit: i knew a vegan that would periodically feel sick due to some deficiencies she couldn't figure out and would force herself to eat a small amount of meat periodically and she said she felt better almost immediately), i'd bet that a diet with a moderate amount of animal protein is superior to any vegan or vegetarian option, but i'm open to being wrong there
unfortunately, my method of dealing with this isn't very fun or debate worthy, after stewing around thinking of this previously
i believe that evolution by natural selection takes place and as such it is baked into my dna to be at least somewhat selfish and this is rational if we have an eye towards survival
so, i just have a cut off beyond which i don't torture myself about things...i care about deer, but mostly don't want to be wasteful and also want to kill them humanely, and i feel bittersweet a little after a harvest....but anymore it just stops there
it's very different, but me buying a saddle instead of donating that money to charity is selfish, but if i begin giving away all i have to the less fortunate, then what is the stopping criteria? once i have barely enough to survive or the whole world is doing okay? so, past a certain place, i've just convinced myself not to worry about it (edit: i've already decided i can't or won't be morally perfect, so now it is mostly about figuring out if something falls in the category of it really bothering me or not)
i won't set out to do unnecessary harm, but i will not make myself suffer unless there is an immediate gain towards someone in my life and i can see that the sacrifice did them well
unfortunately, my method of dealing with this isn't very fun or debate worthy, after stewing around thinking of this previously
i believe that evolution by natural selection takes place and as such it is baked into my dna to be at least somewhat selfish and this is rational if we have an eye towards survival
so, i just have a cut off beyond which i don't torture myself about things...i care about deer, but mostly don't want to be wasteful and also want to kill them humanely, and i feel bittersweet a little after a harvest....but anymore it just stops there
it's very different, but me buying a saddle instead of donating that money to charity is selfish, but if i begin giving away all i have to the less fortunate, then what is the stopping criteria? once i have barely enough to survive or the whole world is doing okay? so, past a certain place, i've just convinced myself not to worry about it (edit: i've already decided i can't or won't be morally perfect, so now it is mostly about figuring out if something falls in the category of it really bothering me or not)
i won't set out to do unnecessary harm, but i will not make myself suffer unless there is an immediate gain towards someone in my life and i can see that the sacrifice did them well
Last edited:
Ever hear of William MacAskill? Contemporary Scottish philosopher who promotes the idea of effective altruism. Wife and I have been chewing on this daily for months. He basically capped his salary at median income for his country, made a career out of promoting effective altruism, and donates anything above the median he makes to charities that can prove where their money goes and what it impacts. He found that an effective charity can be as much as a hundred times more effective than an ineffective one. He's a utilitarian, so he also promotes putting money/effort into concerns with the greatest impact to the most people, and considers future generations as well as current. He's big on climate change research, AI risk mitigation, alternative energy, nuclear disarmament, etc. He also promotes giving to third world countries if you're giving money because most of our problems can't be solved by more money. Dysentery and malaria can.
Cool dude. Right now we're barely at the median, so for me it feels right to address how I eat since that's a big impact on the world I can change.
I am not trying to inject religion into this. But ultimately is boils down to that question. Do you believe in God? If you answer is yes. I suggest you become more concerned about if your living your life the way he intended. If your answer is no. Then wth does it matter? If their is no eternal life. Kill all the animals that make you happy and burry your self in what makes you happy. Why bind your self to any rules "man" has created? It's a short time living and long time dead. So really IMO their is only one question. You either believe in a god and want to do everything possible for him that he asks of you. Or you don't and this life is just free floating and is over when your dead. If you believe their is a god, but not sure which one? Then you better figure out which one it is. I personally don't see anything in-between.
Vtbow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2018
- Messages
- 5,516
100% No disrespect meant to you, your religion, or anybody else's religion or faith.
There are too many different religions and faiths out there to even generalize what is or isn't acceptable in regards to this discussion. I would argue that even if a person is strictly religious, it is harder to ask themselves these questions and develop strong personal morals and beliefs intrinsically than it is to blindly follow a list of rules that were written out for mankind by a " greater being". Also, it needs to be kept in mind that many of these rules/teachings are often interpreted differently even by those within the same faith.
Religion needs ro be left out of this discussion.
Last edited:
I don't agree at all. There are many people that do believe in God that don't live their lives by his rules. Will they be sorry in the end? Maybe or maybe not but it's their choice to take that chance or not. No skin off my nose either way.
This has been an interesting thread with lots of individual takes on why to (or not) hunt. IMO none are right or wrong, its up to each individual and their personal outlook. Lets please not delve into the religious arguments of this and get it shut down.
Likely more appropriate than “mental masturbation”…..
If I believe that animals can suffer (I do), and that it is unethical to induce unnecessary suffering (I do)...I really can't personally square hunting with ethical behavior. I could live the rest of my life in health and (relative) happiness and never kill another game animal.
So who's rules are we following for ethical behavior? Who decides what is ethical and what isn't?
So who's rules are we following for ethical behavior? Who decides what is ethical and what isn't?
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2022
- Messages
- 3,091
- Status