Killing for the sake of killing is inherently wrong. Sometimes you have to kill in self defense and sometimes you have kill for food. But killing for sport with no intention other than to kill is wrong.

I feel like someone will bring up hunting for sport but hunters generally eat the meat they kill. Hunting is also sometimes used as population control. Without population control the masses of that animal or other animals on the food chain will suffer due to lack of resources.

quote:
At other times a baby will get protected by a member of a completely different species.

Why is that objectively good?

How could you argue that its anything but good?

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Dawgfanman

Member since Jun 2015

22635 posts

Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:36 am to Bert Macklin FBI

quote:
At other times a baby will get protected by a member of a completely different species. Why is that objectively good? How could you argue that its anything but good?

Well, what if the hunter is trying to feed its own offspring?

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by JiminyCricket

Member since Jun 2017

3637 posts

Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:45 am to Bert Macklin FBI

quote:
Killing for the sake of killing is inherently wrong.

I'm not disagreeing with you in principle. I'm asking why it's wrong.

quote:
But killing for sport with no intention other than to kill is wrong.

Again, not disagreeing, just asking why it's wrong.

quote:
How could you argue that its anything but good?

I agree it's good. But by what measure do we say that it is good?

I agree 100% that it's a good thing to protect innocent life and a bad thing to take innocent life for entertainment only. That's not the question. The question is what objective (meaning not influenced by personal feelings or opinion) measure says that it is wrong?

This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 9:47 am

0 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board