The Human Welfare Argument
Hunting also promotes increased human welfare.
Hunting forces us to face the life and death of animals on the route to our plate. As Bruckner characterizes the act, “The hunter shows—or is forced to get—a real understanding of nature and the source of his food by participating in the hunt, killing the game, confronting the dead animal, getting splashed with blood while removing its entrails, and dragging or carrying the animal from the hunting place” (Bruckner, 325). Ethicist Lawrence Cahoone describes this process as "trophic responsibility" (Cahoone, 82). This honest relationship with the source of our food stands in strict contrast with the grocery store relationship to food, in which food is simply an item off the shelf. Such responsibility for our food can be said to promote human welfare.
Hunting reconnects us with our evolutionary past, what Cahoone deems "anachronistic self-sufficiency" (Cahoone, 82). Hunting renews man’s membership “in our archaic human lineage and in the animal sphere” (Cahoone, 82). Hunting for food places us back to our place amongst animals, reminding us of our history and place in nature. This historical flashback and reminder of our connection with the wild world may increase human welfare.
Hunting additionally requires "ecological expertise" (Cahoone, 83). Hunting requires a keen understanding of local ecology, animal trafficking patterns, etc. Such deep knowledge of the environment can also better human welfare.
Hunting meat reduces our need for factory-farmed meat, thereby reducing our need for slaughterhouses. In 2004, slaughterhouse occupational injury and illness rates rang in at 9.8%. For non-poultry slaughtering houses--13.3%. Contrast these numbers with the mere 6.6% in common manufacturing jobs (Bruckner, 319). With such high rates of injury and sickness, turnover rates at slaughterhouses can be as high as 80% to 100% (Bruckner, 319). Hunting, in its reduction of the need for slaughterhouses, increases human welfare by lowering possibilities of physical harm to humans.
Hunting forces us to face the life and death of animals on the route to our plate. As Bruckner characterizes the act, “The hunter shows—or is forced to get—a real understanding of nature and the source of his food by participating in the hunt, killing the game, confronting the dead animal, getting splashed with blood while removing its entrails, and dragging or carrying the animal from the hunting place” (Bruckner, 325). Ethicist Lawrence Cahoone describes this process as "trophic responsibility" (Cahoone, 82). This honest relationship with the source of our food stands in strict contrast with the grocery store relationship to food, in which food is simply an item off the shelf. Such responsibility for our food can be said to promote human welfare.
Hunting reconnects us with our evolutionary past, what Cahoone deems "anachronistic self-sufficiency" (Cahoone, 82). Hunting renews man’s membership “in our archaic human lineage and in the animal sphere” (Cahoone, 82). Hunting for food places us back to our place amongst animals, reminding us of our history and place in nature. This historical flashback and reminder of our connection with the wild world may increase human welfare.
Hunting additionally requires "ecological expertise" (Cahoone, 83). Hunting requires a keen understanding of local ecology, animal trafficking patterns, etc. Such deep knowledge of the environment can also better human welfare.
Hunting meat reduces our need for factory-farmed meat, thereby reducing our need for slaughterhouses. In 2004, slaughterhouse occupational injury and illness rates rang in at 9.8%. For non-poultry slaughtering houses--13.3%. Contrast these numbers with the mere 6.6% in common manufacturing jobs (Bruckner, 319). With such high rates of injury and sickness, turnover rates at slaughterhouses can be as high as 80% to 100% (Bruckner, 319). Hunting, in its reduction of the need for slaughterhouses, increases human welfare by lowering possibilities of physical harm to humans.
The following contributions to human welfare are not exclusive to hunting for food, but as such hunting comprises a part of the whole enterprise, here are some additional ways hunting can increase human welfare:
Certain game animals tend to inconvenience humans, whether through stomping on their vegetable gardens or leaving their droppings around town. Not only do they inconvenience humans but they also pose risks to human life. From July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012, there were an estimated 1.23 million collisions between deer and vehicles. These collisions not only threaten human life, but also human finances, as the average claim for said collisions was approximately $3,305 dollars this past year (www.insurancejournal.com). Wildlife is estimated to destroy $498 million in agricultural crops; and deer cause approximately $367 million in damages to the timber industry (Bruckner, 317). By hunting these animals, we lower their populations, reducing these negative societal effects, thereby increasing human welfare (Bruckner, 316).
Hunting also makes important contributions to the economy, boosting human welfare. Check out these numbers from the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation:
Hunting additionally offers many opportunities for development in proficiency as hunters are presented with lots of room for educational growth in terms of their skill sets and the instruments they may use. This opportunity for improvement adds to human welfare, especially given Rawls’s principle that “human beings take more pleasure in doing something as they become more proficient at it” (Bruckner, 318).
Hunting adds to human welfare in its promotion of social life through clubs, outings, parties, contests, and festivals. As philosopher Roger Scruton puts it, “Those who are familiar with the English countryside will know that hunting is not merely the occasional sport of the wealthy, but an elaborate social artifact, in which all country people from all walks of life participate, and which spills over into horse trails, point-to-points, the pony club, the hunt ball, hunt breakfasts and fun-rides, charity events, puppy shows and farmers; lunches—in short, every available form of social communion” (Scruton, 157). Hunting fosters positive social interaction, which certainly increases human welfare.
Certain game animals tend to inconvenience humans, whether through stomping on their vegetable gardens or leaving their droppings around town. Not only do they inconvenience humans but they also pose risks to human life. From July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012, there were an estimated 1.23 million collisions between deer and vehicles. These collisions not only threaten human life, but also human finances, as the average claim for said collisions was approximately $3,305 dollars this past year (www.insurancejournal.com). Wildlife is estimated to destroy $498 million in agricultural crops; and deer cause approximately $367 million in damages to the timber industry (Bruckner, 317). By hunting these animals, we lower their populations, reducing these negative societal effects, thereby increasing human welfare (Bruckner, 316).
Hunting also makes important contributions to the economy, boosting human welfare. Check out these numbers from the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation:
- In 2012, hunting and firearms equipment drew in $5.6 billion dollars.
- US hunters spent $24.7 billion in retail sales and generated $9.2 billion in local, state, and federal tax revenues.
- Hunter expenditures added 20 billion to the US economy in salaries, wages, and business owners’ incomes.
- Hunting supported 592,944 jobs nationwide.
- Overall, hunting had a $66 billion impact on the US economy.
Hunting additionally offers many opportunities for development in proficiency as hunters are presented with lots of room for educational growth in terms of their skill sets and the instruments they may use. This opportunity for improvement adds to human welfare, especially given Rawls’s principle that “human beings take more pleasure in doing something as they become more proficient at it” (Bruckner, 318).
Hunting adds to human welfare in its promotion of social life through clubs, outings, parties, contests, and festivals. As philosopher Roger Scruton puts it, “Those who are familiar with the English countryside will know that hunting is not merely the occasional sport of the wealthy, but an elaborate social artifact, in which all country people from all walks of life participate, and which spills over into horse trails, point-to-points, the pony club, the hunt ball, hunt breakfasts and fun-rides, charity events, puppy shows and farmers; lunches—in short, every available form of social communion” (Scruton, 157). Hunting fosters positive social interaction, which certainly increases human welfare.