The Value of Tradition
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the discussion we’re just wrapping up over at Tovar’s Mindful Carnivore blog. While I definitely recommend that, if you haven’t, you should go check out the discussion there, I’ll summarize some of it.
It all began with Tovar’s post regarding one of the biggest threats to hunting. It wasn’t anti-hunters he pointed out, but folks from within our own ranks… the slobs.
As you might expect, there was a lot of general agreement from the hunters who read and comment on his blog. It’s the folks giving us the black eye on the public stage who contribute the most to negative opinions about hunters. Those negative opinions turn into negative votes when issues affecting hunters come before the voters. It’s made worse when these exceptions are made to look like the rule in animal rights/anti-hunting campaigns. Etc. Etc…. I’ve written about this many times, as has almost every hunting blogger, columnist, and author who’s ever discussed ethics.
The discussion might have dropped off pretty quickly, if not for the appearance of “Ingrid“, a non-hunter who works in animal rehabilitation. Ingrid has joined in more than one conversation on Tovar’s blog, and has dropped in at Holly’s NorCal Cazadora blog as well (I don’t think she’s ever posted here). While Ingrid is quick to point out that she’s not outright opposed to hunting, she has a lot of issues with what she sees as an overly cavalier attitude by most hunters toward the well-being of the animals we hunt… an attitude that even fosters outright cruelty. She’s a loud proponent of the idea that hunters should take a deeper consideration for the animals’ welfare, and should change our behaviors accordingly. This includes curtailing certain methods of hunting, although I can’t say I’ve heard her actually enumerate specific behaviors or methods (she certainly didn’t in this discussion thread).
This spurred a lot of thoughtful responses on the blog, and the conversation took a lot of interesting twists. I won’t try to recap it all here, but there’s one tangent she hit on that I wanted to address at the time. Her point was that a lot of hunters, when challenged on a method or practice, tend to fall back on the “it’s tradition” argument. To her, that’s a worthless argument. I tried to craft a reply at the time, but I was too busy with work and the conversation quickly left that point behind before I could get back to it. I got involved in other points, and left that one lay for the time being.
It might have stayed there in the dust if I hadn’t hit on this recent post over on Eric Nuse’s Fair Chase blog. Actually, the post is a re-print of a piece from the Outdoor Wire in which Simon Roosevelt (Great, great grandson of Theodore) has challenged Boone and Crockett record-holders to be public and vocal about their love of hunting, why they do it, and who they are. Roosevelt’s argument is that by doing so, these hunters will present a positive image to the public that will help to counteract the negative stereotypes, bad press, and myths that so many non-hunters now hold.
Here’s part of what the piece said:
Simon Roosevelt, whose great, great grandfather was the 26th President of the United States, legendary sportsman, consummate conservationist and founder of the Boone and Crockett Club, delivered the remarks as part of his keynote address at the Club’s recent 27th Big Game Awards in Reno, Nev.
Roosevelt said all hunters share a legacy with early Club members who developed the hunter-funded, science-based system that helped to recover that era’s devastated wildlife and habitat. That system remains the lifeblood of conservation still today. But those who achieve special status within the hunting community have a chance to join TR and his contemporaries in accomplishing “something even more important-more crucial for the long-term success of conservation-that is, fundamentally changing the way Americans think,” he said.
Although 80 percent of U.S. citizens now live in cities, they understand the importance of natural resources and sustainable use, says Roosevelt, but, “What they don’t understand is how we as hunters fit, or maybe better said, that we fit, and why we’re important. If we fail to get this message across, we will continue to lose hunters and hunting access, and ‘hunting’ may well come to mean nothing more than high-fence farms and park culling.”
Boone and Crockett record holders openly communicating who they are, what they do and their love of doing it-even when they don’t take an animal-will lead to greater public support of hunting, says Roosevelt. And that, in turn, will spur more resources for today’s conservation challenges: climate change, habitat loss and fragmentation, and diseases.
As I read this, I thought back to Ingrid’s point. At first, I had sort of agreed with what she was saying. Simply claiming that we hunt a certain way because it’s traditional is not a very good justification for a practice or method. But that point of view didn’t sit completely well, and I was having trouble putting my finger on why. I mean, I do agree that if a certain hunting practice is damaging the habitat, the resource, or private property then there’s no justification… tradition or otherwise. And I do realize that, for some people, poaching, tresspassing, and illegal behavior could certainly be considered tradition. But many positive aspects of the hunt such as conservation, woodsmanship, and marksmanship, are completely defensible on the strength of their roots in tradition… and vice versa, hunting as a tradition is defensible because of what that tradition instills.
I’d even go so far as to suggest that some of the more controversial topics, such as running hounds, can be at least partially defended on the basis of tradition… if we can explain what that tradition means, where it comes from, and how important it is to the participants. Think about it. Tradition is about a lot more than a single outcome.
The fact is, when it comes to addressing public perceptions, I think it’s entirely valid to say that we do things a certain way because it is tradition. Hell, I’m pretty sure there are a lot of hunters like myself whose enjoyment of the hunt comes in part from the memories and traditions handed down through generations. It may not be the only reason we hunt of course, but it can be a pretty big part of the whole. I think of hunting camps all over the country where generations of hunters have gathered over the years and passed along stories, knowledge, and… yeah, traditions. I think of the personal traditions, passed from parent to child over and over again as each grows up and passes it along in turn. Tradition is a real and powerful motivation.
And non-hunters understand that. They know what tradition means, and for most people it carries a sort of wholesome, family-values flavor. And I believe that this is a critical part of the kind of communication Roosevelt was talking about in his speech. This “it’s tradition” angle shouldn’t be the Achilles heel of our public relations. It should be one of our strongest selling points.
Think about it. The concept is used throughout our own community and industry, whether it’s the “Hunt with your kids, not for them,” bumper-sticker slogans or the polished, Madison Avenue ad campaigns. It’s a purely emotional appeal, but that’s sort of what PR is really all about. And it works. Why would we think that, if it’s effective on hunters, it wouldn’t also sell to non-hunters?
I realize, of course, that a full-fledged defense of hunting can’t rely solely on emotion. It must include the practical, quantifiable benefits the sport provides. But we have that ammunition already at hand. If we can capture the minds of the public with fact, then there’s no reason not to go for their hearts too.
Now here’s the interactive part of this…
Sure, if you’d like to make a regular comment, go ahead. But I’m also asking for folks to share some of the hunting traditions that underlie their practices, habits, and motivation for the hunt. How was it passed down, and how will you pass it along? If you don’t come from a hunting environment, or don’t have the background of a hunting tradition, what sorts of things might you pass along as a mentor to other hunters?
Tradition? The only tradition I have is one that goes way deeper than parents, grandparents or even a hundred generations. It’s the tradition I’ve found in hunting, not what was taught to me. That’s probably one reason you don’t hear me use the word much, and possibly why I’m a bit wary of it (e.g., the cringe-inducing use of the term “traditional ammunition”).
What would I like to pass down? Well, not down, since I have no kids. But what would I like to share with all the new hunters I work with? One word: RESPECT.
Respect the animals. Don’t take their lives or deaths lightly. Afford them the kindness of the quickest death possible. When you accidentally wound, do your very best to finish the job.
Respect the environment. Don’t tear it up with ATVs and filth it up with trash. If you hauled in food and drink containers full, you can sure as hell hault them out empty.
Respect safety. It’s more important than taking that shot. It’s certainly more important than drinking.
Respect fellow hunters, even those who hunt differently, or who look different. Don’t judge them until you’ve been in their shoes. Don’t mock non-traditional (women, ethnic minorities, etc) hunters – you need them more than you realize, if you want hunting to survive.
Respect non-hunters and even anti-hunters. Instead of spouting off at them, listen to see where they’re coming from. For most, it is not a desire to spoil your good time. Their beliefs typically stem from strongly-held values. Have a civilized conversation with them instead of denigrating them. Neither of you will change your mind, but you might stop vilifying each other.
How’s that for a start?
July 16th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
That’s great for a start, Holly! Thanks!
July 16th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
I doubt that I can improve on what Holly said: Respect.
Thanks for the mention, again, Phillip. From my blog, I’ve added a link to this page.
Interestingly, I did a word search on that super-long page of comments and found that Ingrid used the word “tradition” twice, in very different ways. She wrote of “a strong sense of hunting tradition” in connection with ethical hunting. And she also wrote of “business as usual in hunting — based on age-old traditions,” which is more what you’re responding to.
Both usages resonate for me. “Tradition” can mean a lot of things, in hunting practices or elsewhere. If it’s a practice that I believe has positive value, then I see that value being enhanced by tradition. If it’s a practice that I believe is negative, then I see tradition as a very weak argument for its continuation.
July 16th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
I was part of the conversation over there, and I’m happy to see it continuing here. I didn’t place Phillip as “Hog Blog” Phillip, so this surprised me.
I have been reading and participating in these conversations here, at Tovar’s A Mindful Carnivore, and at Holly Heyzer’s Norcalcazadora, and have been mightily impressed by the overarching intelligence with which all of the conversations have been managed. To me, this signifies that there is a large and growing community of hunters who are developing new “traditions,” those of storytelling, both written and digital.
This has been highly influential in my own hunting past. I read my dad’s Field & Stream magazines from cover to cover when I was a kid, did a lot of outdoor exploring in my teens, and had undying curiosity about the source of my belief systems when I grew old enough to question authority.
Now, since I am a very prolific writer in educational forums, it is heartening to see that the folks who are telling the hunting stories I’ve always loved are much more approachable than before in those paper magazines. It becomes a true conversation in which I can participate, and give/get feedback almost immediately. This is a vast improvement that needs to be presented to a wide audience, because it is such valuable information, and will gain the hunting community some “respectability” in the eyes of the “anti-hunting” community. I found it most amazing that “Ingrid” was treated with deep respect, and a “comraderie” or recognized commonality developed between the members of that conversation that truly should be taken as a “tradition” of tolerance and understanding, more like the tribal councils of “Native Americans.”
While I feel as if I am not really going to be working from the “tradition” standpoint, when I talk about hunting, fishing, and the great outdoors that I cherish, it is the storytelling tradition that we all share that will make these blogs places to point at and say, “I got into this conversation with these writers, and I want to share the stories with you, too.” That aspect of these new traditions will make us, both as hunters and as humans, more accessible to the youth, women, and curious older folk such as myself, when they investigate the lifestyle. That’s what keeps me coming back, it’s the people and their stories.
July 16th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Tovar, thanks for posting. And thanks as well for hosting the previous conversation. These discussions can be almost like living things, from time to time, as they grow and evolve. That’s part of what I love about the blogosphere.
As far as the different uses of “tradition”, of course that’s a fact. On one hand, there’s the deep-rooted tradition of hunting that invokes the ideas (and ideals) of woodsmanship and a close relationship with nature. And then there are those that can be construed otherwise… bigotry, for example, is certainly a tradition.
The point is, it’s up to us, as hunters, how we shape the definitions and perceptions of the hunting tradition. I think Holly embodies it well, both in her writing and as a huntress. Hunting certainly gives us some traditions, but it is its own tradition at the same time. It’s not necessarily something handed down by our “elders”. I think that’s one of the unique things about the sport.
Richard, I’m glad to see you’re digging into these conversations as well. You’ve made an interesting observation re: the accessibility of the storytellers in this new media vs. the inaccessibility of the old, hard-copy writers. It is a double-edged sword, I think, but I really like the interactive nature of the blogs and the discussions that happen here. I’ve been an active part of several online communities over the past 20 years or so, and overall, I think I like the direction it’s taking.
Literature and knowledge should be shared and not the privileged realm of the self-proclaimed cognoscenti. I believe that this is how that happens.
July 16th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Richard, that’s such an interesting point you make about the ability to interact with this new generation of hunter-storytellers. I never thought about it, as I’ve been in the hunting world not quite four years yet.
As a veteran newspaper reporter, though, I can tell you blogging is much more fun than newspaper reporting in many ways, largely because of the immediacy and interaction with readers. I’ve gotten more from my readers in three years of blogging than I did in 19 years of newspaper reporting.
July 17th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Hunting traditions, as well as fishing traditions, are huge in our family and a big reason why I hunt and fish, and why I continue to do so.
The main tradition I associate with hunting is: family!! Success, or no success, hunting and fishing has always bonded us as a family. We hunt together, fish together, tell stories together, take trips together. And it’s the main reason that my brother and I are so close, because we’ve always – no matter what was going on in our lives at the time, from when we were teenagers until now – made time to hunt and fish together.
So, for me, tradition is definitely a major reason, as well as a defense, for the hunting and fishing methods I use. And my little Abby has already, and will continue to be, a big part of all of them.
July 17th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Good article!
July 18th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Great post, Phillip. I didn’t grow up in a hunting tradition so much, but I latched onto the concept instinctively.
In debate contests, by the way, the new idea must always have a higher burden than the status quo. Tradition is a vital human construct.
Also by the way, I found a great clip of Fred Bear that I put up at my blog, if you are interested in some tradition.
Thanks for posting.
July 18th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Arthur that whole concept of family tradition is a big one among many hunters, and it’s a classic example.
Josh, I wish I’d taken a debate class or two. Good stuff there. Oh, and folks like Fred Bear and Saxton Pope… excellent examples and role models (although ssome folks might look askance at their “experimentation” with the limits and abilities of themselves and their archery tackle).
July 19th, 2010 at 4:41 am
Hi, Phillip, thanks for the link — and for elaborating seriously on a point made in our previous discussion. It would have been far too time-consuming to read every comment in detail, I realize. But Tovar’s search for the word “tradition” did render the result I would have pointed to, had Tovar not said it first.
I did, in fact, use tradition twice in different contexts. I don’t see tradition, as a rule, as wrong. But I see “tradition” used to justify dubious practices as, well, dubious.
Without enumerating the many instances throughout human history when tradition led to brutality, suffice to say that any number of atrocious acts toward humans and non-humans have been rationalized by the concept of “tradition.” And to this day, practices I would consider cruel and certainly outside the framework of what many of us deem “civil,” persist in the face of “tradition” arguments.
So, to suggest that my comment disparaged all tradition would be a different reasoning than the one I presented. My argument wasn’t “tradition has been used to justify atrocities . . . and because some good practices fall under the auspices of tradition . . . therefore all tradition is bad.” It’s that *when* tradition is used to defend questionable practices on the basis of tradition alone, it’s a tenuous argument. Particularly in the face of the precedents we have, where tradition was used in precisely this way.
As far as specific hunting experiences I’ve had, I mentioned also at Tovar’s blog that I’d be happy to list a few. I just didn’t want to repeat myself at Tovar’s expense, since we’ve had that discussion over there before. I grew up around hunting, have been presented with a lot of scenarios that left me, sadly, stronger in the positions I tend to take about the sport.
One last thing in response to Josh (hi) — it’s not necessarily true in debate, that the burden is much heavier for the new idea. You can get into natural and artificial presumption which I’m quite rusty on. But when we debated, there wasn’t a presumption of “rightness” inherent in the status quo. The opposition simply had to show that the new resolution would not incur more damage than the system already in place (i.e. SQ). In many cases, that is not difficult to do, particularly if the person defending the status quo doesn’t provide solid resolution to their own initial contentions.
July 20th, 2010 at 2:52 am
Hi Ingrid and many thanks for dropping in.
I’m not sure my intent was so much to elaborate on the point from the previous discussion, as it was to riff off of it. The idea spawned more ideas, so to speak, so I took it to see where it would go.
As far as direct reference to your point, beyond serving as a catalyst, I certainly wouldn’t say that you “disparaged all tradition.” What you did (or what I understood), and what is often done in the discussion of hunting pros and cons, was suggest that tradition is not a good enough argument for defending certain hunting practices which you deem cruel or unsporting. And that, in itself, isn’t a point of contention. I actually agree… at that basic level.
I know for a fact that a lot of folks defend certain things, behaviors, practices, etc., on the basis of, “it’s tradition. It’s how we’ve always done it.”
I grew up in a part of the country that was still pretty divided along color lines. I saw the realities of racism and bigotry, and saw that kind of thing handed down within families and even whole communities. In the eyes of many of those people on both sides of the divide, it was a traditional way of living and thinking.
When it comes specifically to hunting, I’ve seen it there too, in long-standing tradition of poaching and refusal to accept or follow game laws. I know fathers who taught their children to spotlight deer, to gather shellfish from closed areas, and to despise and distrust the “Green Man.”
I understand the deadly trap of “tradition” when it applies to bad things.
At the same time, what I’m saying here is that you can’t discount tradition as a rationale for continuing a lifestyle or a practice either… especially when the lifestyle is a positive thing. And hunting, lawfully and within some generally accepted ethical parameters, can be a very positive thing. It offers a range of great traditions, from the hunt itself to the things that accompany the hunt. That’s what I’ve asked folks to share here, because I believe that too many people outside of our community don’t see that. There are many traditions that are absolutely worth keeping alive, even if for their own sake.
So I’m not trying to put words into your keyboard, or reconstrue what you’ve said. I’m just taking the germ of an idea and putting it into a new medium to see if it grows.
July 20th, 2010 at 4:57 am
Phillip . . . but I came here to buy an argument!
(Sorry, bad M. Python reference.)
I see your point. And I agree with your assertions. The only thing I will say, coming from the non-hunting camp, is that tradition as a defense of hunting isn’t that easy because of a point you made earlier in your post: ” . . . if we can explain what that tradition means, where it comes from, and how important it is to the participants.”
It’s last bit, “how important it is to the participants.” I’m sure you’ve encountered this in people who oppose hunting. And I certainly carry some of this in me as well. It’s the idea that the enjoyment of the participants is enough to sway consensus toward a certain practice.
I think that’s probably why hunting groups revert to arguments about resources and sustainability — the hard, tangible numbers that attempt to refute emotion. Because it’s a tough sell to a non-hunter (in general terms), to suggest that a person’s personal fulfillment supersedes the harm inflicted by that enjoyment.
Believe it or not, I’m inclined to truncate my idea there and let it sit. That’s not my pattern, is it? Cheers.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:30 am
p.s. Oh why did I truncate?
I should have clarified that in using the word “harm” I mean to suggest — harm as in, a practice enjoyable to participants, but which involves harming another for that enjoyment. Not the type of large-scale harm to which you alluded in your writings (poaching, resources, etc). which is a separate issue.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Well, I’d written the majority of a very un-truncated response, but then I had a conference call and my network hiccuped and… well… I couldn’t recreate the genius of that last reply if I tried, and I don’t have the energy left today to try.
In something of a nutshell, though…
What I’ve actually found, even here in the “liberal” Bay Area, is that many non-hunters are actually quite receptive to hearing about hunting, even though I think many of them think of it as little more than an anachronism. While I doubt many of the people I’ve spoken to are going to run right out and get their Hunter Safety certificate and pick up a license and gun, most are quite interested in learning more from a “real hunter”.
These folks often do want to know more about the hunting traditions, and I have spoken to several who told me that I have given them a much more positive opinion of hunters. The fact that we kill animals for sport seems pretty inconsequential compared to their interest in our methods, weapons used, and whether or not we eat the animals we hunt.
I know that Holly and several other folks in this little corner of the blogosphere can attest to similar experiences.
The thing is, far too many hunters go out of their way to keep their activities shuttered from public view. I know guys in this area who practically sneak out to their truck to go hunt for the weekend, and sneak back home to sequester their prize in the freezer. Fear of confrontation or ostracization keeps them from talking about the sport to their co-workers or in social situations.
And as a result, the ignorant stay ignorant. Stereotypes prevail when there is no contrary evidence.
I believe this is what Roosevelt was talking about in his speech to the Boone and Crockett record holders. Instead of keeping our sport as our dirty little secret, share it with the public. Let them know how important the sport is to us, how it’s changed or shaped our lives, and what it’s meant to family and friends. Evangelicize!
OK, maybe not quite that extreme… but the gist is there.
The non-hunting public is more receptive to the idea than some folks may believe. Public opinion is still tilted positively toward sport hunting, despite the propaganda inroads made by anti-hunting/animal rights organizations. By showing that we really are human, and that our traditions go so far beyond simply killing stuff, I believe we can dispel many of the negative myths and sway concensus even more in our favor.
That said, I do believe that the final defense of the sport rests on quantifiable data, and not on emotion. Public opinion is important, but it’s not the alpha and the omega.
When it comes to decisions restricting or expanding hunting opportunity, methods, or access, the science and the facts should ALWAYS trump emotion. Wildlife management, habitat protection, and in some cases, economic interests should be considered before we worry about how some people feel about the issue… and in most cases, I do apply this to “controversial” practices such as baiting, high fences, and hound hunting.
This is one of my pet philosophies, though, and I’ve written about it too many times to repeat it all now.
July 20th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Thanks, Phillip. And since I’m now holding down the fort on behalf of non-hunters at three different blogs this week (yours, Holly’s, Tovar’s), I’ll make this shorter than before. But I don’t mean to diminish the effort you made to rehash what was lost in your networking blip by not responding in full to your comment.
I had a similar event recently at Holly’s blog, btw, after I’d composed a reasonably coherent response to her question. I tried to reconstruct, but it was nothing like the original. And it’s exhausting, to say the least. So I appreciate your analysis and the personal expenditure involved.
I agree with your assessment of the non-hunting community. Frankly, I came of age in an era where I knew more people who could not, to save themselves, kill an animal for sport. I’m seeing less of that sentiment which — as you might imagine — from my perspective, is distressing. But for hunters, it’s a positive development.
The only thing I will add is something I’ve also mentioned to Tovar. And that is, my opinion of hunting is a long time in forming. I was not this committed to my point of view, even as a young, new vegan. I became a vegan at that time, because I saw the hypocrisy in eating meat but not killing my own animals. And I realized I could never engage in the slaughter and hunting I’d witnessed as a child, even though most of my hunting experience as a child involved the aftermath — the dead animal, not the hunt itself. Even then, though, I appreciated hunting for its “walk your talk” methodology.
What changed for me was getting involved in wildlife photography and then wildlife work. I began to share outdoor spaces with hunters since, as you might imagine, the same places you go to hunt, we go to photograph, observe or, sometimes, rescue. And that put me face to face with hunting event after hunting event, many of which I simply could not reconcile — especially as I began to learn, intimately, how wild animals react to pain and stress.
The most life-changing incident was an archery hunt of a deer where the deer thrashed and struggled and took a very long time to die. I felt like I was going to jump out of my skin and die, it was so brutal. And I was helpless to do anything. I’ve had a similar experience with an elk, not quite as long a death.
But those things motivated me to get involved in wildlife rescue and it also made me realize that the descriptions I’d heard of hunting, across the board, in no way represented what I was witnessing. What I witnessed was brutal, often cruel (from my perspective) in the hands of the inept, and pure agony for someone who cared as much as I do about compassion toward our fellow earthlings.
So, non-hunters may embrace hunting intellectually, as I did. And some may have no issue with the things I’ve seen, the things that constitute the hunt. I suppose it serves hunting that the majority of non-hunters are urban and suburban, and don’t venture into the enclaves you mention . . . the secret place of the hunt. On one level, as you say, it seems to benefit hunters to share that experience. On the other hand, people would not want to know a lot of what happens in the context of some hunts.
I guess you could say that’s my pet philosophy.
July 20th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Not shorter than before. Oh well. The best intentions . . .
July 20th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
There’s those intentions again…
Ingrid, I totally respect and appreciate where you’re coming from. (I was actually familiar with your background from Tovar’s blog.) You’re living by your convictions, and that’s all I’d ask of anyone, whether I share those convictions or not.
I’m pretty sure that our fundamental differences are irreconcilable, but that doesn’t mean I don’t welcome your input and comments here… and on the other blogs. There is always something new to learn.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Ingrid, here’s a good article on status quo (presumption) in debate:
http://www.parlidebate.org/pdf/vol10no2.pdf
What you describe, CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis) is an important method, but it isn’t always the best way to analyze environmental concerns (in fact, I recently blogged about its parent ethos, utilitarianism, and the disconnect it can have vis a vis environmentalism): http://enviroethics.blogspot.com/2010/06/utilitarian-environmentalism.html)
July 21st, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Woops, try this Ingrid (if you don’t mind, Phillip. If you do, just delete this):
http://enviroethics.blogspot.com/2010/06/utilitarian-environmentalism.html
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:26 am
Josh and Ingrid, I’ve got no problem with the tangential discussion… it’s not that far off topic, when you think about it.
And Ingrid, I don’t know why this one got flagged. I don’t see any specific keywords that would cause it… but anyway, here it is.
I also find it interesting that your points regarding the personal nature of “ethics” actually mirror my own pretty closely. This is the basis of my general feeling that we have to be very, very careful about trying to apply one set of hunting ethics across the board. It’s a discussion I’ve had here and on other blogs in the past, and one in which Josh and I don’t always see eye-to-eye.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:46 am
Ingrid, if you read along my blog, you’ll notice that I’m not a hunting blogger by any real stretch. My blog is about ethics and the environment – the ethics behind all kinds of environmental decisions (hunting, farming, eating, driving, climate change, etc.). I would sincerely appreciate any comments you’d like to make there.
As for the personal nature of ethics, Phillip is right. I’m no ethical social relativist… I’m closer to what one would think of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (that there is a constant in there).
I’ll also quickly disagree with your conclusion that each “modality is inherently flawed”. I don’t agree with your premise that they all originate from a human mind, though I recognize the flaws that appear as it is projected through human consciousness. But that’s alright, I really enjoy your comments, and I appreciate your love and compassion.
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:24 pm