The Instigator
ArguingPerson123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dustryder
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Other Sapient Animals Should Not Be Hunted

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,195 times Debate No: 116488
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

ArguingPerson123

Pro

Lots of people tend to be okay about killing other living things that aren't human. We justify this by thinking we are the only animals that could count as sapient, and that we should only kill each other if absolutely necessary. However, when it comes other animals, we actively seek them out and kill them, or kill them if they simply show up around our house. Now, most animals are not even close to having a human's mental capacity. However, cetaceans, primates, and some other animals show many signs of sapience, consciousness, and intelligence comparable to that of a human's. Despite that, some people still hunt these creatures despite a lack of necessity. The con must show why hunting animals that fall under these categories despite no survival-based need to kill them is justified.
http://us.whales.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.iflscience.com...
https://www.theatlantic.com...
http://www.bbc.com...
dustryder

Con

Sapience is not an important factor when determining if an animal should be hunted and you've failed to demonstrate otherwise. No matter how much you anthropomorphize certain animals, they are all sub-human and a resource to be used like any other for whatever purpose is deemed necessary. Hence hunting sapient animals is entirely justified.
Debate Round No. 1
ArguingPerson123

Pro

That is not true. Most vertebrates can feel pain and have a level of sentience. However, sapient animals go beyond. They are also be able to think, problem-solve, socialize, and feel many emotions. This includes grieving. So, by killing these animals, despite a lack of necessity, we cause emotional trauma to other related individuals comparable to that of a human.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com...
https://www.mnn.com...
Would you kill a baby of someone you don't know because you would be given $1,000,000 for it? The baby is defenseless, and you have no direct attachment to it. Besides, people are extremely abundant. What harm would it do to the world? Now, you probably wouldn't. This is because A. The baby is a human being, even if it is not fully developed yet. B. It has a family who would miss it. C. It's cute. Now, the animals that I am referencing have the intelligence and awareness that is at the very least above the level of a baby's. These animals would also have individuals who would miss and mourn them. Third, there would be no survival-based necessity of it. If an elephant was murdering people and destroying property, it would be justified in killing it. If a chimp was about to attack you, it would be justified in killing it. If you were starving, and a dolphin wandered too close the shore, it would be justified in killing it. However, when people hunt these animals today, it is A. Out of pride; or B. For money. For example, the people of Japan enjoy eating the whales as a delicacy, but to them, anything that has meat is a delicacy, and they are not starving. The point is, it is wrong to kill other sapient animals out of or for pleasure.
dustryder

Con

Just because an animal may have higher cognitive abilities doesn't mean we need to regard them when it comes to our own purposes. In fact, I would argue it's entirely irrelevant, because those abilities do not significantly differentiate such animals from non-sapient animals when it comes to how they interact with us, or us to them. In the specific example of whaling, the Japanese have had a long and rich culture of whaling. It would be extremely offensive and cruel to deny them a crucial part of their heritage. Why should we put the rights of animals over those of humans? Hence hunting sapient animals is entirely justified.
Debate Round No. 2
ArguingPerson123

Pro

https://www.smithsonianmag.com...
Wouldn't it be so cruel and offensive to deny them the enjoyment of this ancient practice? The point being, it is not necessary to survival for people to whale anymore. So, would it kill the Japanese to stop whaling? No. Would it kill the whales to continue whaling? Yes. The point is, that human lives come way before animal lives, but that human luxuries and conveniences should not come before the lives of animals, especially ones that are very similar to humans in social, emotional, and intellectual ways. So no, killing other sapient animals just for the sake of culture or money is wrong.
dustryder

Con

Your entire justification seems to be that we shouldn't hunt sapient animals because you personally think it is wrong. Because sapience somehow changes the natural laws of the animal kingdom. What you think does not change objective truth. Humankind sits above the rest of the animal kingdom, and hence we have the right to hunt sapient animals as needed, regardless of justification. There are no negative downsides to doing so, only positives.
Debate Round No. 3
ArguingPerson123

Pro

Yes, we can do it. The reason I am saying we should not resonates in the moral reasons. If an assassin kills a person and makes 1,000,000 doing so, that is great for them. There is no negative effect, right? You are saying that because there is no direct consequence to humans, it is okay. That's not true. We have the capability to do it. That doesn't mean we should. Hence, "Other Sapient Animals Should Not Be Hunted." This is why we should not hunt them, and the simple answer is because these creatures A. Do not need to be killed; and B. Mourn and feel the impact of the ones we kill. Humans are supposed to be intelligent enough to have morality, and understand when it is a waste of life to kill something. When other animals kill things, aside from certain species, they usually use the kill, whether to feed themselves or other individuals. Now, humans usually use animals in the same way, or for fashion, or for the sake of killing them. That's usually fine. But when the creature you are hunting is smart, has social relations, and is similar to humans in a mental way, and you are just wasting it, or using it for unnecessary reasons, like enjoying a delicacy, for fun, or to get some cash, it is morally wrong to do so. The people in Japan who get to enjoy whaling and eating whale do it with no necessity. They aren't starving. The poachers and trophy hunters in Africa kill elephants with no necessity for it. Now, the exception in Africa is that the money from trophy hunting does help with conservation efforts, but it is still not necessary and just boosts someone's ego. The point being, we can continue to kill these animals, but it is wrong to do so. Even if they are not on the brink of extinction, there's no survival-based reason to kill them, and the world would go on just fine, and maybe even better, if we stopped.
dustryder

Con

You've argued that the animals do not need to be killed. Because poachers do not need to hunt them. Because they are not starving.

Counterpoint: How would you know? You are most likely not a poacher. Nor have you provided a source from the viewpoint of one. I would argue for the opposite, given the economic struggles of the continent, typical family size of africans and also the relative difficulty of the work. Finally, the fact that such hunting still occurs means there is a need for it.

As for sapience itself being a concern, I feel like I've already addressed this. Suffice to say just because they give you the feelies does not distinguish them from other animals and nor have you shown otherwise
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ArguingPerson123 3 years ago
ArguingPerson123
https://www.thedodo.com...
When I say poacher, I don't mean the people who do it to save themselves and their families, I mean the criminals who simply do it to make tons on the black market.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.