Hunting certain remote parts of Alaska and Canada,

is a very multidimensional issue which encompasses many different
ways to kill wild animals. Because some forms of hunting are much
more problematic than others, I will be excluding poaching and trophy
hunting; poaching because it is illegal in every part of the world,
and it entails trespassing, typically onto protected land, to hunt
endangered animals, which is misuse of hunting, and does not
represent the justness of hunting itself. I’ve excluded trophy
hunting because it does not make use of the death of the animal, it
is merely killed for fun and to keep the animal’s “heads, hides or
pelts”CITE, or even its entire taxidermied body as a trophy,
which is absolutely unethical as it leaves the rest of the animal,
including all of it’s meat, to rot. This leaves only food game
hunting and meat hunting left, which I will refer to as just hunting
from now on. These two entail hunting specified animals with the
intention of using their meat, and abiding by set regulations on the
bag limit (The maximum number of animals of a certain species one
hunter have at a time), the time of year, and location which the
hunting occurs.

opponents of hunting state that it causes undue harm to animals. This
is false. Assuming that animals suffer more when killed via hunting
rather than other natural means, it still provides food and clothing
for those that need it most, specifically in rural areas where other
foods are either unhealthy, unattainable, or end up causing even more
harm to animals. For certain remote parts of Alaska and Canada, in
the long winter there is a lack of vegetables, and most store bought
foods are either extremely taxed from import feesCITE, or are
extremely processed and harvested from abused farm animalsCITE.
That is why the vast majority of families in these locations chose to
go out and hunt, and yield tens of pounds of fresh meat and an entire
hide, which can feed and cloth their family for weeks. The alleged
“undue harm to animals”, if assumed true, is still completely
just as the consequences of this action are good and outweigh the
death of one animal life and produces the greatest amount of utility.
Thus, through the lens of utilitarianism, hunting is absolutely

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

opponents state that hunting is unnecessary, that you could take up
another non-lethal hobby and eat meat from the store for the sake of
not personally harming an animal. Hunting is not a necessity, but
that does not make it unjust. If a person decides one morning that
they will go on a hunt, bag a deer, come home and eat it all while
abiding by their local hunting regulations, nothing should prevent
them from utilizing their personal autonomy. They get fresher meat,
the hide, a day spent out in nature, all for less than the cost of
some processed beef in the store. This is clearly in the best self
interest of the person, and thus, through the lens of ethical egoism,
it is the morally justified action. It does not end there, as who is
to say that a deer has more right to live than a cow, or a chicken?
The deer is actually the more just death of the two, as it had it’s
chance to live a free natural life in the wild before its death,
while farm animals are confined to cages and slaughtered with no
chance of escape.

But this
is but one side of the issue. What happens to our Earth when hunting,
done by those who don’t absolutely need it to survive, continues for
years to come? Our great wildlife will begin weakening and its
population shrinking. As we continue expanding our cities and towns,
the places for these animals to live become smaller and smaller, and
they no longer have an escape from the hunters. They begin running
into major roads out of fearCITE and being hit by cars. The
strongest best examples of the species are plucked off by hunters
looking for the biggest, strongest buck with the most horns,
effectively negating natural selection and making it so that only the
weakest bucks end up reproducing, leaving “permanent consequences
for the species as a whole.”CITE At this rate, we will eventually
drive these animals to extinction as we nearly have in the
pastCITE, but for now many still rely on them for food and
clothing. If we don’t realize the consequences of our actions now, we
will be left with no alternative food and clothing sources for these
people when the time comes. Animals are not a renewable resource and
if we don’t develop means to rid ourselves of our dependence to
hunting animals, our utility will be completely minimized. If we
become independent of hunting as a society, the consequences of this
will be better for almost all parties, maximize utility, preserve
nature, lower the frequency of car accidents from striking deer, and
still feed and cloth those who need it most. Consequently, through
utilitarianism, hunting is entirely not just, and becoming self
sufficient as a society would make the world a better place for all.

of hunting state that hunting is an affordable way to go out, spend
some time in nature, and get some fresh meat and some hide. Is this
worth tampering with and disturbing nature and taking a life? Animals
contribute more to society than just raw material resources. They
bring great beauty, help fertilize crops, and maintain the ever
shrinking sanctity of nature. If hunting brings the small
gratification of a meal and some clothing, it is heavily outweighed
by the far reaching benefits of animal conservation. Thus, it would
be in ones best interest to not hunt, but to help conserve animals,
let them contribute to society, and keep the earth preserved.
Therefore, through ethical egoism, hunting is not justified as it is
not in ones best self interest to hunt.

As for
my own opinion, I believe it is
very easy to become emotive in your decision on hunting. Many animal
rights groups capitalize on this by utilizing sad images of animals
being hunted, abused, and tortured. I, however, will remain
objective. For hunting to be morally just, for me, it needs to meet
certain criteria. The proper regulations need to put into place and
enforced to prevent poaching, abuse, and over-hunting. Hunting must
be absolutely necessary for survival to some. Hunting for fun or to
save money and not out of necessity, in the long run, will have very
bad consequences for the animal population, and for their well-being
as a species. Because in many places the proper rules are set into
place, and many people still hunt purely out of necessity, I can
objectively say that hunting is morally just. If in the future
alternatives are readily available for those who need it most, one
would have to argue for tradition and human autonomy to keep hunting
legal, which to me does not hold much weight as an argument.

conclusion, hunting is the oldest means of man feeding himself dating
back to hunter-gatherer societies, but as time has gone on, we no
longer have a universal necessity for this action. Some, however, do
absolutely rely on hunting, and weighing the ethical wrongs of
hunting with the material needs that some people are dependent on
that only hunting provides is something that only you can decide for