"Is Hunting Ethical?" by Ann F. Causey
In Causey’s essay, “Is Hunting Ethical”, Causey discusses views of hunting from every angle. She begins by pointing out that the first point to consider is a person’s conscience. Ethical hunters do not mindlessly follow rules and lobby for regulations that serve their interests; rather, they follow their consciences, sometimes setting their own interests aside. In short, ethics are guided by conscience. The first question Causey asks is, is hunting a morally acceptable activity? She makes the point that pro-hunters use data to establish their side of the debate. Enumerate the acres of habitat protected by hunting-generated funds; and how much the economy is stimulated by hunting-related expenditure. Causey then continues to point out that anti-hunters could care less is hunting is “economically advisable,” or “whether hunters love and appreciate nature”. Hunters say that it is ethical to kill for sport while anti-hunters say no. Causey begins to distinguish between legality and morality. The pro-hunter answers the question about ethics with facts but the anti-hunter is answering rather a different question about whether or not hunting is moral. Causey begins to discuss what hunters see in hunting as a sport. “It has been said that hunting is the most uncivilized and primitive activity in which a modern person can legally engage”. “Hunting is one of few activities that allow an individual to participate directly in the life and death cycles on which all natural systems depend.
To move the essay along Causey asks more and more questions such as “Does killing and animal to profess to honor and respect, primarily in order to obtain a trophy, demonstrate reverence for the animal as a sentient creature?. Causey’s argument is hardly black and white. Ethics can be interpreted in many ways, and morals very from one person to another person.
I believe she points out her...