Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on the morality of hunting
Essay on the morality of hunting
Is hunting morally acceptable
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our capacity to embrace all living creatures” This quote by Albert Einstein perfectly shows that animals deserve to be treated with respect, and their population should be preserved. However, the killing of Cecil the Lion by Walter James Palmer displays the exact opposite and is an unlawful crime. Cecil was a prized lion who brought many tourists to the Hwange National Park, and was a favorite among visitors (Don Melvin, cnn.com).In July of 2015, Walter Palmer and his tour guides enticed Cecil out of Hwange National Park, and shot him with a bow and arrow (Owen Jonathan, the independent). Cecil was able to survive, but was pursued for forty hours, and was later shot again, skinned, and decapitated …show more content…
(w). The killer claims he had a permit, payed fifty thousand dollars to participate in the hunt, and that he had no idea that it was Cecil. In reality, he illegally lured the lion outside of the national park, and then unlawfully slaughtered Cecil in an unpermitted area (Don Melvin, cnn.com). The killing of Cecil the lion was both illegal and morally wrong. The actions of Walter Palmer and his hunting crew were absolutely wrong as they killed Cecil illegally and intentionally, and murdered an endangered species simply for game. To further this point, Walter Palmer has taken illegal actions involving animals in the past. First of all, the killing of Cecil the lion was wrong because Walter Palmer and his guide lured him away from the safety of the National Park.
After hiring professional hunter Theo Bronkhorst and paying fifty thousand dollars, the hunt began at Antoinette farm, which was very close to the National Park where Cecil lived (Marc Dorian, Lauren Putrino, Cat Rakowski, Alexa Valiente, abcnews.go.com). This land was not an approved area to hunt for lions, therefore making it illegal to kill Cecil or any lion (abcnews.go.com). Walter Palmer and Bronkhorst then tied an elephant carcass to their car, and attempted to draw a lion towards their car, and then kill it (abcnews.go.com). A lion known as Jericho appeared, but the hunters did not pursue him (abcnews.go.com)! This clearly shows that Walter Palmer had every intention of killing Cecil and wanted to kill one of the world’s greatest lions. If Walter Palmer didn’t know that he was going to kill Cecil, why didn’t he pursue the first lion? Finally, Cecil arrived, was shot with an arrow, and was later killed (abcnews.go.com). Again, this evidence shows how Walter Palmer was wrong for killing Cecil, and committed an actual crime. In addition, Cecil was part of an Oxford University study and was outfitted with a GPS, therefore, it can be proven that Cecil was lured out, and that she was killed in an illegal area …show more content…
(cnn.com). Besides the fact that Cecil was killed illegally, he was also killed intentionally. Walter Palmer was wrong for killing Cecil because he was aware that he was killing one of the most prized lions in the whole National Park. The primary reason for his trip to Zimbabwe was to hunt a lion; whether it was Cecil or and other lion in the area. Brent Stapelkamp, one of the lion researchers tracking Cecil with the GPS collar, believes that Walter Palmer and Bronkhorst knew that they were killing Cecil. He says “If you are coming to Zimbabwe to hunt a lion, you do a bit of research. I think ignorance is no defense, they knew what they were coming for.”(abcnews.go.com). Wildlife expert Dex Kotze says it is impossible that Palmer or his hunting team didn’t know it was Cecil (Debora Patta, cbsnews.com). Cecil is such a unique lion with a black mane, that he should be easily recognized. In addition, he was the most popular lion in the area; there is no possible way Palmer or his crew did not recognize him! To further prove the previous two points, Palmer has a history of illegal actions involving animals.
A man with the same name and age, and lives in the same street illegally killed a black bear in Wisconsin (Don Melvin,cnn.com). In addition, he lied to the U.S fish and Wildlife services and was sentenced to one year on probation and was fined (Don Melvin, cnn.com). This shows how Walter Palmer has illegally killed animals, and broken the law before. If he killed a black bear illegally, then he most likely killed Cecil deliberately. He wanted to add Cecil to his “trophy collection” of animals that he has killed. In conclusion, the man who shot and killed Cecil the lion is absolutely wrong for doing it. He killed an innocent animal illegally, and knew exactly what he was doing. He deliberately killed Cecil just for sport, and treated him as a trophy. To further prove that Palmer was wrong, he has illegally killed animals before. Citizens across the nation and throughout the United States are outraged at Walter Palmers actions, and want him to be brought back to Zimbabwe, and face a court trial. In fact, over one hundred thousand people across the United States have signed a petition to send him back to Zimbabwe! In the end, no person should be able to kill an endangered species simply for fun, and Walter Palmer should face serious charges in
court. Work Cited Owen, Jonathan. "'What Is Fun About Death and the Killing of a Beautiful Creature?'." The Independent. 01 Aug. 2015: 6. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 20 Sep. 2015. Marc Dorian, Alexa Valiente, Lauren Putrino, and Cat Rakowski. "What Happened in the Harrowing Hours Before Cecil the Lion Was Killed." ABC News. ABC News Network, 13 Aug. 2015. Web. 20 Sept. 2015. Patta, Debora. "Cecil the Lion Illegally Poached by American Hunter in Zimbabwe, Groups Say." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 28 July 2015. Web. 20 Sept. 2015. Don Melvin. "U.S. Dentist Wanted for Killing Cecil the Lion - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 28 July 2015. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.
In July of 2015, national treasure of Zimbabwe, Cecil the Lion was maliciously killed by dentist Walter Palmer. The hunt caused an uproar from many animal activists. The media covered the hunt and the aftermath for many weeks. This heartless act has many questioning why big game hunting is legal. Multiple African countries allow big game hunting, but it is harming the ecosystem. Many innocent, endangered animals are killed. Big game hunting should be banned because it lowers populations, causes further problems, and animal populations are already dropping.
In the society today, big game hunting is restricted you can not just kill animals randomly just for fun. Laws are put in place to stop this from happening. This shows a link between the story and real life. Many people are hunters who do not care about animals but we have to show to them the significance of what they are doing. Besides what is the difference between man and
For example, a very recent event of the illegal killing of the lion, Cecil, gained colossal attention throughout social media and the news. However, Cecil’s death also brings up the question of whether trophy hunting is safe after all. Walter Palmer, the killer of Cecil, had purchased a hunting permit for 55,000 dollars; yet, he is put in trial for hunting a lion. Cecil was a protected animal and a local favorite. Palmer claims, however, that he had no knowledge of that prior to his hunt and blames the guides for not notifying him about Cecil (independent.co.uk). The “Cecil case” can lead to a very long, heated discussion, but the main takeaway from this is that trophy hunting can never be 100 percent safe. Although, most trophy hunters believe that they are helping with conservation, they might be doing more harm than good. For
Since the recent event with a gorilla in the Cincinnati Zoo, people have questioned ethics. The author wrote this argument to explain why the safety of animals, as well as their survival in the future, depends on these enclosures. Some readers would accept that zoos and aquariums conduct a lot of research, but for those who are skeptical, the argument discusses that the “Zoological Society of London, for instance, is developing innovative methods to assess the risks of animals contracting disease when they are reintroduced into the wild” (2016, p. 2, para. 7). The effective evidence Ganzert brings in shows readers the benefits of zoos and aquariums in order to appeal to the value of the animals being well contained and protected while they are in the enclosures. Another strong example of Ganzert’s appeal to an audience that wants the facts is “The Phoenix Zoo helped lead the ensuing breeding and reintroduction programs, which ultimately birthed more than 200 calves from just nine individuals. Now between Oman and Jordan, there are about 1,000 Arabian Oryx living in the wild” (2016, p. 2, para. 4). In result, the audience receives information about an existing program as well as what has happened due to the creation of this program at the Phoenix Zoo.
Considering the many challenges animals face in the wild, it is understandable that people may be eager to support zoos and may feel that they are protective facilities necessary for animal life. In the article “ Zoos Are Not Prisons. They Improve the Lives of Animals”, Author Robin Ganzert argues that Zoos are ethical institutions that enrich the lives of animals and ultimately protect them. Statistics have shown that animals held in captivity have limited utilitarian function resulting in cramped quarters, poor diets, depression, and early death for the animals thus, proving that Zoos are not ethical institutions that support and better the lives of animals as author Robin Ganzert stated (Cokal 491). Ganzert exposes the false premise in stating
When a Minnesota dentist killed a prized African lion named "Cecil," he received an onslaught of criticism and reignited the debate concerning big game hunting. Is big game hunting wrong? Should big game hunting continue? Big game hunting has been a very controversial topic for some time, and these types of questions are being asked daily. There are a lot of people against it and a lot of people against it.
First of all, why do we have the right to kill animals? Who gave us permission to do it? Animals’ lives should be respected like ours, after all we were all created with a purpose. Each one of us has the same right to live because we all form part of what is called “food chain”. For example if we had no grass what would antelopes eat? With no antelopes what would lions eat? And so on. It doesn’t make any sense to me how we are killing them not to survive but to have fun. I don’t think is fair either that because they are under us in the food chain we can do whatever we want with them, equality is for all kinds of creatures. Like Ann Causey, stated in Governor's Symposium on North America's Hunting Heritage in 1992: "Does killing an animal primarily to obtain a trophy demonstrate respect for that anima...
Ascione’s (1993) definition of animal cruelty is defined as “socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or distress to and/or death of an animal” exclusive of socially condoned behavior, such as legal hunting and certain agricultural and veterinary practices. Not all violent individuals have been previously cruel to animals but studies have shown that a great number of them have exhibited this behavior. A great majority of the literature calls for a better understandin...
A social outrage has broken recently amid the scandal of Cecil the Lion’s death. Cecil was illegally hunted and killed by the American dentist Walter Palmer. Since then, it has caused the world to change their minds on the effects of trophy hunting. Succeeding the death of the renowned lion, a recent poll in America displays that on a three to one margin, the respondents said they would rather be tourists in a country that prohibits trophy hunting, instead of one that does not. The debate is ascending as more hunters proudly present their ‘trophy’ on social media. Many nature conservatives and animal protection agencies are raising awareness because of the fact that Cecil died in a meaningless and violent manner.The problem is not only in America, but around the globe. Trophy hunting should be illegal in the world because it is merely killing animals without a meaningful purpose, and it produces harmful effects to the environment.
Furthermore, while zoos should conserve and encourage educational experiences within their parks, Allen points out it’s also important to take a compassionate approach in caring for each individual animal. As zoos focus more on education and conservation, they sometimes forget that animals are not alive in terms of population and individual welfare is important. Thus, it appears that Allen is taking a middle ground approach to the ongoing debate about zoos, because she is open to zoos, when they are compassionate, yet fully recognizes the downside of animal cruelty.
Dr. Walter Palmer must be held accountable for killing Cecil the lion illegally. Dr. Walter Palmer
Hunting for sport is legal, and should remain that way. Many arguments against hunting for sport claim it is a “violent form of recreation” and “we have no right to take an animals life” for example, an opposing viewpoints article “Sport Hunting is an Unnecessary Form of Cruelty to Animals” says just that. HoweverI argue that we are part of this planet, as well as it’s ecosystem. We are (in ways) predators. An article on sport hunting, “Hunting for Sport” compares “hunters and the hunted” to a mountain lion and a deer. Is the lion at fault for hunting the deer? No. The mountain lion’s duty is to play the role as predator as well as keeping it’s prey’s population away from its ecosystems capacity. The ecosystem can no longer always support and control all animals populations.
...o the wrong spot cause the poor animal to die "very slowly and in great agony." In spite of Orwell putting "shot after shot into his heart and down his throat," the elephant lives thirty minutes after its "tortured gasps" force Orwell to leave. Many years later, Orwell still seems bothered by the fact that pride, not necessity, caused him to destroy the animal.
"For Endangered Wildlife, This Indonesian Zoo Can Be Akin to a Death Sentence." GlobalPost. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
Most people think that zoos protect animals, but it can clearly be seen in the records provided by the Times that the zoos are doing the exact opposite of protecting animals. The American zoos, including the accredited ones, have led to the near demise of elephants. As if that alone isn’t enough to prove that zoos are cruel and unfair, there are many professionals and experts who gravely look down upon zoos too. Delcianna Winders, director with the PETA foundation, said “Renowned oceanographer Jean-Michel Cousteau reported that...