What’s Wrong with the World

What, so it's immoral to kill animals for their fur? I guess if they're cute and cuddly it is. I think you, Auster, and Warren are guilty here of a certain sentimentalism.

As for my part I say, let the hunt begin!

No, it isn't necessarily immoral to kill animals for their fur. What is immoral is clubbing them to death, skinning them alive, and eviscerating still-living animals. I suspect that the primary reasons we can justify this, or, failing to justify it, to justify turning away so as not to see it, are that the related trade is in luxury goods and the bestial acts are performed far from view; whereas entertainments such as dogfighting are resolutely lower class, and occur almost everywhere around us. If however, we condemn the one, we must condemn the other; and if we permit the one, we ought to permit the other.

One supposes, however, that the wealthy are permitted their vicarious or delegated cruelties.

If they just did the clubbing to death and did it quickly and cleanly (one hard, scientific whack to the head and the animal is dead), and were very careful not to do any skinning alive or eviscerating, how much would that change your evaluation? (This is intended as a serious question, not as sarcasm.)

There really is no such thing as a scientifically-precise whack to the head, especially not with wriggling, writhing, terrified animals. The "one whack" is purely a matter of dumb luck.

In the case at hand, the only way these animals could be dispatched with a single stroke would be to strike them with something exceedingly heavy and blunt, and to hit them "just so" as they attempt to slide away on the ice. But whacking them with sledgehammers would ruin those valuable pelts, staining them with blood and other fluids. That's why they hit them repeatedly with something rather inadequate to the task of administering a 'clean' death.

I don't believe that this can be performed quickly and cleanly, with a single stroke. And if it cannot be done humanely, decently, it ought not be done at all.

I see very little difference with the way these animals are slaughtered versus how we slaughter factory farmed animals and the way hunters hunt game.

Not all kills in any situation are going to be clean. I know no hunter who does not also carry a second weapon to do some cleanup, and most have stories of animals that take far more than a single shot to put down. Short in the electric harness in a chicken processing plant? That animal's dunked into boiling water still completely and utterly alive. Probably through the defeathering process... and, likely, the next 200 or so behind her.

Research on kills with a Hakapik have shown, by and large, be humane.. One could argue that their definition of human is insufficient, but compared to "acceptable" methods of domestic animal slaughter, I don't see it as being as terrible as a few cute seal pictures might lead one to believe.

If, truly, animals are being skinned alive, that's a moral ill and those who take part should be punished, without a doubt. If they are not abiding by the laws that define a human slaughter (with the understanding that a small percentage of kills will naturally go awry), they should be punished and, in turn Canada (or whatever country) should be actively enforcing those standards.

I do, though, wish that a greater percentage of the yield of these animals were used. It would certainly nullify the comparison to dog fighting, an argument I believe to be tenuous at best.

The prolonged suffering of a seal is antithetical to the reason purpose of its slaughter -- the preservation of its pelt to use as clothing. Shooting and wounding it from a distance (very likely) can send the seal back into the water mortally wounded -- increased suffering, loss of tangible benefits of the hunt, loss of a seal. The prolonged suffering of a dog in a dog fight is precisely the point. The more the dogs take out of one another before one finally dies, the better. There are no tangible benefits of that suffering. We do not eat the dogs (by and large), we do not use their obviously-ruined pelts for anything (sick puppy jewelry aside). Incidental suffering of a small percentage of hunted animals as compared to the intentional suffering for sport I think are two different magnitudes. A successful and ethical seal hunter would strive to both reduce the amount of suffering and in the event he does cause some, seek to further improve and feel remorseful. A successful dog fighting owner (let's face it, there's no such thing as an ethical one) would be more successful if he increased the suffering.

(Somehow I have a feeling I'm setting myself up for Zippy to bash me on the logic there... I don't know why.)

I watched some of the videos and I'm still not convinced. I'd like to see a view-neutral documentary on it (obviously I'm pipe-dreaming) because any side is going to cut footage that doesn't help their argument. When the video refers to handling carcasses as though 'they were garbage', I am at least thankful their being up front with their specifics.

If we recoil in horror at clubbing animals to death, we all may well be eating tofu and drinking wheatgrass.

I think factory farming and animal processing inhumane. A reduction in its incidence - abolition is not even a remote prospect - would not mean our reduction to eating tofu (blech!) and drinking pureed wheatgrass; we'd just eat less meat, or reacquire the cultural ability to fully utilize the carcass. As regards hunting, yes, there is often enough the necessity of finishing off an animal by shooting it multiple times. This, however, is scarcely the ideal of the sensible hunter; it is, for him, accidental to his intentions. The inhumanities of seal-clubbing and factory slaughterhouses are intrinsic to the processes.

There are no tangible benefits of that suffering.

I don't believe that there are tangible benefits to the seal hunt; the benefit obtained thereby is the satisfaction people experience upon wearing a certain type of fur, just as the attendees at a dogfight derive satisfaction from witnessing the vicious proceedings. Such satisfactions are always intangible, and we prohibit, permit, or endorse certain things that various people find satisfying in accordance with our judgments about the worth of the things and acts themselves, as well as their effects upon our character and social mores. We ought not, that is, be reasoning instrumentally with regard to such matters, as though a barbarity that yields some material benefit is justified thereby. And, in that light, I hardly think seal furs to be worth the cruelties entailed by their procurement.

The inhumanities of seal-clubbing and factory slaughterhouses are intrinsic to the processes.

I'm not convinced in the case of the seals, not by the evidence provided that is, by and large, I do not find it any worse than hunting other game with a rifle. And both the game hunter and seal hunter have an interest in keeping the animal in a more pristine condition and the way to do that is the reduce the amount of suffering. I find the seal hunter's need to sometimes finish off an animal with a few additional whacks accidental to his intentions.

I will (and did), of course, grant that more of the animal should be used.

I don't find factory slaughterhouses to be the problem either, as they've vastly improved, realizing that the quick and painless slaughter is better for both productivity and quality. In most cases, the animals are immobilized (physically, electrically) and slaughtered with virtually no pain. My argument against factory farming has everything to do with the animal's living conditions, not the manner in which they're slaughtered (barring, of course, those problematic incidents where the methods fail). Even small, organic, free-range, etc farms and ranches use similar methods. I can't imagine how even an animal slaughtered according to kosher standards (arguably causing the least suffering) doesn't cause at least some suffering.

I don't believe that there are tangible benefits to the seal hunt; the benefit obtained thereby is the satisfaction people experience upon wearing a certain type of fur

Again, I'm not buying the premise -- if only rich people wear it, and enjoy it, it's 'bad'? I wear leather, a lot of it, in fact and derive much pleasure from how it looks and well it keeps water off of my feet. I don't see the production of leather as being evil either.

Maybe if there were a section for seal-chops and seal liver in the grocery store...

I'm a head-to-tail eater, I also eat tofu (I so do not understand the hate, really!) so I'd like to think I've a pretty good perspective on this. Meat of any form is simply not a required part of a diet any more for the vast majority of people. It makes a great deal of nutritional balancing, easier, but we do not, essentially, need meat of any form to live out healthy lives. We all eat meat for pleasure in the same way that Dr. Rich's wife wears seal fur instead of hemp. I see the slaughter of an animal for clothing -- regardless of who is wearing it -- as no more evil than slaughter of an animal whose flesh is not absolutely required for survival.

In total -- I don't find the slaughter of these creatures immorally or unreasonably cruel and I find tangible benefits ("clothing") that are equivalent to the tangible benefits of consuming animal flesh.

I would surmise that the greater part of the disagreement centers upon the evaluation of the evidence. Given the documentary evidence I've seen over the years that this question has captured my interest during the spring, I perceive no reason to believe that the creatures are dispatched with a minimum of suffering. And if that premise is not granted, I don't see the analogy to hunting as being particularly telling. Hunting is not necessarily inhumane, whereas, on the evidence, I take the actions performed in the hunt to be inhumane. A hunter can, in principle, reduce the suffering of the animals he bags by becoming a better marksman. Actions that would indisputably minimize the suffering of the seals would reduce the economic value of the hunt itself. As regards the various Canadian research studies, well, my cynicism prevents me from putting away the salt during a reading; research in America is routinely influenced by pecuniary and other considerations, and I've no reason to doubt that the situation in Canada is similar. Indeed, I'd expect as much, given the profitability of the hunt, coupled with the multiculturalism that moves beneath the surface of this controversy from time to time; the hunt can be profitable for the Inuit, and suggestions that it is of dubious moral value can be portrayed as invidious.

I'm not certain that relatively more humane slaughterhouse practices have been adopted uniformly, though I think that the critical issue is the minimization of suffering, as this is simply a good thing to do, and because it is, I believe, spiritually hazardous to traffic in death - any sort of death, really. Recognizing an obligation to minimize suffering in meting out death, even when we need to eat, is an acknowledgment of the creature's goodness as well as our own weakened nature. Again, I don't believe that those 'hunting' the seals are really striving to minimize suffering. For the record, my own objections to factory farming center around the unnaturalness of the methods, the feeding of substances the animals would not naturally eat, the appalling living conditions, and so forth.

Meat of any form is simply not a required part of a diet any more for the vast majority of people. It makes a great deal of nutritional balancing, easier, but we do not, essentially, need meat of any form to live out healthy lives.

Given our patterns of agriculture, meats not only make nutritional balancing easier for a majority of people, they make it possible, period. Vegetarianism done properly seems to be a fashion of the relatively well-to-do. Speaking purely personally, as someone with a ridiculously high metabolism, meats also either provide greater caloric value than the vegetable equivalents in proteins, amino acids, etc., or at least slow the digestive processes down where the values are comparable, as they are more difficult to digest. Even if the consumption of meats, however, is regarded as unnecessary, I don't perceive the analogy between such consumption and the wearing of certain furs as being a strong one. Adequate nutritional balancing and intakes would be difficult in the absence of meat; keeping warm is not difficult at all in the absence of seal furs. It is not that the pleasures of the rich are somehow tainted; it is that luxury, or higher gradations of luxury, particularly where ethical questions are implicated in their production, necessitates a more stringent standard of judgment. Most people, given the diversity of vegetable foods required for a healthy meatless diet, would be less healthy if they didn't consume at least a little meat; no one will suffer hypothermia without sealskin.

I also eat tofu (I so do not understand the hate, really!)

I just find it unpalatable, particularly when attempts are made to simulate meat products with the substance. (Wheatgrass puree, I will drink. I just don't want to be told that I cannot have a beer.)

(Somehow I have a feeling I'm setting myself up for Zippy to bash me on the logic there... I don't know why.)

I don't know why either :-)

When I got my moose I had resolved not to take the shot unless I was sure I could make a clean kill. I came home from Canada exactly one bullet lighter and one moose heavier. I have pretty serious qualms about causing animals to suffer needlessly, but I think I'm really too ignorant of the specifics to have a dog in this fight.

"I wear leather, a lot of it, in fact and derive much pleasure from how it looks"

Me too.

particularly when attempts are made to simulate meat products with the substance

I think we may have found one point of agreement. :)

I detest tofu when it tries to be something it's not, though my wife swears by the flavor of Tofurkey (the idea repulses me, but since she has no frame of reference, having never eaten meat in her life, I have to take her word for it). However, there are many preparations, mostly Asian, I've found, where it can be an elevated ingredient. Miso soup is virtually lost without tofu as a garnish, for example.

Er, okay, tangent #1 done.

In America, Vegetarianism and Veganism is often represented as a fancy of the elite. Perhaps my encounters with it have been radically different as I've only met a small handful of people who are vegetarians because they don't want to eat cuddly animals. My wife's is based in religion, but not for fear of harming critters, more a differently-guided dietary plan. Most of the people I know approach it for health reasons (FWIW, I know no vegans closely). My daughter is, thus far, a vegetarian, only because it makes preparing food for safer as my wife knows little, if anything, about the proper techniques of preparing a protein safely. Maybe I just run in the lesser circle, as the more militant seem to get the press (Anthony Bourdain lists them as "Vegetarians, and their Hezboulah-like faction, The Vegans"). There are many vegetarians and vegans around the world who are neither well-to-do nor take it on as a fancy who, given their other circumstances, continue to strive and subsist.

Okay, end tangent #2.

I think we're at a disadvantage arguing either side, honestly, because there will never be a neutral, fact-filled report about the issue. Yes, the Canadians and Americans have a vast interest in making their reports as positive as possible, and the humane society has every reason to portray it only in the most appalling light. If there were true horrors committed, there would be no need to show full-frame seal faces in propaganda pieces like the slide show. I see that and I have to keep from reaching for that same salt shaker.

Actions that would indisputably minimize the suffering of the seals would reduce the economic value of the hunt itself.

Since they do shoot them (often finishing them off with the club rather than a handgun as in the case of a hunter -- 1 head blow vs 1 bullet -- I'm not sure there's much of a difference), it would seem the only way to indisputably minimize their suffering would be to not kill them at all. That has the air of begging the question... just a little. The purpose of killing them is some tangible yield (we could argue the moral value of that yield separately), so you must both attempt to minimize the suffering as well as preserve as much as you can, lest you kill for no reason (which is why I consider dog fighting in another, worse, class of offense).

The moral/ethical use of the carcass aside, you're not convinced, by the evidence, that the suffering is minimized without making the kill needless, and I'm not convinced, by the same evidence, that they are not making a reasonable attempt to minimize the suffering of the creatures. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point, until there is more, perhaps somewhat more objective, evidence.

A couple of decades after the victory over "godless Communism", the modern conservative has found new sources for his inspiration. And it isn't Scripture, Church teachings or an informed Christian anthropology. Wars of choice, torture, eviscerating animals, inhumane prison conditions and a host of other evils can all be rationalized, or defended by the new breed of ideologues on the Right. Like their soulless mates on the Left, these conservatives find an active Christian life a mighty impediment to re-ordering the world to their liking. Like the Leftists, they will pay, when expediency dictates, lip-service to a God they deep down believe to be dead.

Perhaps, Whittaker Chambers was right after all. Maybe he did join the losing side.

All animals are eviscerated before they make it to the 'butchering' phase, regardless of whether or not you're living a Christian life style, FWIW, Kevin, even ones that are slaughtered in the most completely, utterly, painless humane ways possible.

My argument concerning the trade-off between dispatching the seals as humanely as possible and maximizing the profitability of the hunt is simply that, if the animals can be approached so as to club them repeatedly with a hakapik, it would be possible to dispatch them with single shots to the head. If the clubbers can get close enough to whack them, then grab the dying animals so as to 'harvest' their hides, they could also simply shoot them at close range. The only real reason this is not done is that it would eliminate the economic value of a portion of the pelt.

Minimally, the means employed to dispatch the seals are less humane, indisputably, than those employed to dispatch animals in industrial slaughterhouses - and I have my reservations about those as well. Frankly, I don't think it psychologically and spiritually healthy to be the sort of person who whacks helpless animals for a living; those who toil in the abattoirs of America can at least argue that they assume the burden of the moral risks - to the extent that there is even consciousness of these - so that people can eat, and that they take measures to minimize suffering. However, I cannot believe that clubbing the seals is the most humane methodology conceivable, and this judgment is predicated upon both observation (secondhand, via documentary films) of the hunt, as well as the testimony of people who have actually clubbed animals (for various, not always entirely legitimate reasons). Hence, the assumption of the moral burden, which remains real even when participants deny it, or otherwise remain incognizant, is trivialized by the gratuity of wearing seal fur. They're performing actions less humanely than they could, for inconsequential reasons.

I'll note, as a somewhat relevant tangent, that Orthodox ascetic theology recognizes the eschatological ideal of, well, vegetarianism, which is reflected both in the rigours of the fasts and the canons governing monastic life.

As for conservatives, I'd suggest that conservatives can be utterly tone deaf where issues like this one are concerned; quite aside from the finer points of animal husbandry and slaughter, this just appears grotesque and perverse, and conservatives gain nothing, and lose at least something, when they appear to justify it. Silence would be the greater portion of wisdom, in my judgment.

Todd, while much of our treatment towards animals leaves a lot to be desired, the spectacle described above is morally repugnant and perverse. When imagining the spiritual state of a man engaged in such an activity, I can only say; but for the Grace of God, there goes I.

I think conservatives have to do some honest, soul-searching. Is it dominion or domination that they seek? Arrive at an answer and then boldly pursue the chosen path. We know what happens to the lukewarm.

Todd, while much of our treatment towards animals leaves a lot to be desired, the spectacle described above is morally repugnant and perverse.

I don't deny that clubbing a live seal 13 times isn't morally repugnant and perverse. I'm not convinced that's what happened either. What I've yet to see evidence proving that kills take more than one shot a vast majority of the time which means that, as brutal as it is, a single good whack to the skull provides the quickest, least painful means to death for the animal.

(The bullet thing is a myth -- they could do a 1-shot 'completely blow the head off of' style slaying of course, but a seal's brain is the size of a walnut -- hitting a twitching target at almost point blank range and getting a single-shot kill is virtually impossible -- could the follow up a distance shot with a single shot finish? Show me that that would be more effective with game that size and I'll buy it.)

Even the humane society videos, as gruesome as they are, show the hunters repeatedly hitting carcasses that aren't moving. Even massive twitching (which happens in the normal, human stun/slaughter of cattle and swine or kosher throat-slitting style of slaughter). Should the hunters be checking for signs of life (eye-poke/eye lid reaction tests) before they use the hook end to throw the carcass around, ensuring that the animal is dead? Absolutely.

I don't find the clubbing-to-kill method intrinsically evil or morally repugnant just as I don't find shooting or slicing throats of animals morally repugnant. If there is another method that is more effective, that causes less pain, then that is the method that should be used. I'm not convinced there is one. If the hunters are being willfully careless so as not to make every reasonable attempt to minimize the suffering of the animals regardless of the method of the slaughter, then, yes, that's an evil act.

I'm not convinced, by the evidence I've seen, that willful abandon in regards to the suffering of the animals is widespread. Hundreds of thousands of these animals are hunted annually. Some reports say that 98% are killed in a single blow/shot, other reports say 25% are skinned alive, others I've read say that 42% are clubbed repeatedly while still alive. With that great a disparity, why is one to believe that the few videos or pictures represent the 42% as opposed to the 2%. The evidence I've seen is anecdotal. It's brutal, it's horrible, but I ask myself -- is it an accurate representation of how the animals are slaughtered?

I'm more than willing to be swayed, but it will have to be by some reports with actual statistics that don't refer to the animals as 'baby' (not relevant) 'cute' (not relevant, or rather, relevant for the reason of production) or assign to the hunted any amount of anthropomorphism. I've yet to be convinced that the means in which they're hunted are any less humane than hunting any wild game or non-factory line fishing (I can't remember a time when I've had a 100% club-to-kill ratio on trout, honestly, and I consider myself a pretty good, moral trout clubber).

However, I cannot believe that clubbing the seals is the most humane methodology conceivable...

I've not been convinced there's any more humane way nor have I been convinced that it's inhumane except in anecdotal evidence or in limited cases. I'd be happy to review much more and be persuaded, but I simply don't agree with the following premise:

* use of an animal for clothing, even when there is an easier alternative, is evil

and I cannot accept the following premises without further evidence:

* all clubbing as a method to kill is ineffective
* all clubbing as a method to kill is inhumane
* skinning alive is commonplace or even occurs with any frequency at all

By and large, I presently believe we are blinded by the subjectivity and emotional pull surrounding "clubbing" "cute" "baby" seals. I think "Slitting the throat" of a "baby" "sheep" has as much emotional payload, but really, it's just slaughtering a lamb.

I'm probably repeating myself -- if skinning alive and ineffective, careless clubbing goes on, those acts are evil and should, at all costs, be stopped. I'm not presently convinced that these methods are so institutionalized, commonplace and accepted that we ought to ban the whole process of hunting in this fashion.

Silence would be the greater portion of wisdom, in my judgment.

I don't think I've ever considered myself wise, and certainly never silent! Though if you can convince me, your argument against this practice will be all that much stronger.

My remarks at the end of my last comment weren't directed at you, specifically; they were only intended as an observation that there is absolutely nothing to be gained in defending the seal hunt, however nuanced one's arguments and distinctions may prove. The only benefit, to the extent that there exists in this little-known controversy any benefit at all, lies in opposing it via denunciation, or passing over it with discreet silence, permitting those whose propaganda videos you find manipulative to structure the discourse. The average American would recoil from the sight of a lamb being slaughtered, though most sensible people would then rationalize/justify/explain the act by reference to the subsequent consumption of the flesh. Seal furs for wealthy women are scarcely on that level, which is why I don't consider this purely an abstract question of the use of an animal for clothing, where there are alternatives. In the first instance, it would be logistically daunting to ensure that the seal meat reached markets (and even were it to do so, it is doubtful that it would all be consumed), so the seals are slaughtered purely for their hides, unlike cattle, the meat of which provides nourishment, even as the hides clothe us, or provide for footwear. In the second instance, the seals are slaughtered solely to provide a luxury good for wealthy women, meaning that the wastefulness of the cull, and the brutalities associated therewith*, are, in essence, justified by reference to that rarefied pleasure. This seems a rather insubstantial, slight, ground for something so viscerally appalling; or less emotively, slight ground for the slaughter of an animal: not so that people can eat, but so that rich people can feel happy.

*I would not presume to possess the capacity to persuade you on this score, inasmuch as we differ fundamentally in our reading and appreciation of what (circumstantial) evidence there is. I'd note only that I believe that our obligations toward the animal kingdom admit of gradations, and that, in consequence, the higher animals are owed treatment that we need not accord the lower creatures. I don't believe that there is any offense in crushing a nasty insect in the house, and clubbing a fish is not equivalent to clubbing a mammal. Finally, I would observe that if it is difficult to dispatch a seal with a single shot through a thick skull to a small brain, it is probably comparably difficult to dispatch the seal with a single blow of the hakapik, for the very same reasons: small brain, twitching creature. A hunter capable of centering a blow is capable of centering a shot at the base or top of the skull. In the final analysis, given that we interpret the evidence differently, and are persuaded by different considerations, persuasion is probably impossible of attainment one way or the other. Aside from what I consider cruel and inhumane in the pursuit of luxury, I'd not wish for conservatives to be identified with the "mean, mean men who beat baby seals to death", given that such is the public perception, to the extent that there is any awareness at all, any more than I'd wish for conservatives to be identified with the people who'd strip-mine vast swathes of the landscape in order to garner coal for energy: politically and culturally, these are losing propositions (conservatives might win politically, but only temporarily, as the effects of such victories would be resented).

I'll simply say I'm firmly with Maximos on this, and would recommend in support of this view the book called "Dominion" by Matthew Scully, which made a quasi-vegetarian out of me. I say 'quasi' because I still eat fish and seafood, and on doctor's recommendations have to eat skinless, boneless chicken occasionally, for reasons I don't need to go into. When I do, I try to stick to free-range as much as I can, as I believe factory farming to be an abomination, not just regarding how the animals are killed, but how they live (if it even can be called that.)

"* all clubbing as a method to kill is ineffective"
My argument isn't over efficiency. I view that factor secondary to the moral consequences of the hunt.

"* all clubbing as a method to kill is inhumane"
The burden of proof is on the practicioners. Any footage I've seen suggests a profound moral risk posed to the hunters. I open to being persuaded otherwise.

If what gathers under the conservative banner are men promoting
"cruel and inhumane" practices, then let a light shine upon them. We can always depart from such an association. Our political taxonomy is already too confused, since it's not clear what's to be "conserved" anymore.

Our political taxonomy is already too confused, since it's not clear what's to be "conserved" anymore.

I offer the following remark not as commentary upon this conversation, but as an observation on contemporary conservatism: the only things it presently conserves are mammon and war - the latter to "spread democracy" (in reality, nothing more than the Brzezinski strategy for the domination of Eurasia politically and economically), the former the economic policies that are hollowing out the nation and subverting our republican institutions (which policies they justify by recourse to various myths - of rising tides, limitless growth, various hieroglyphs from the history of political economy, the information economy). If conservatism cannot conserve anything more than the greed of a certain caste, and war, then it deserves to perish, its name no longer uttered among men.

As regards the present issue, even on the assumption that I'm mistaken, this issue is still a loser; it ain't worth fighting for.

This seems a rather insubstantial, slight, ground for something so viscerally appalling; or less emotively, slight ground for the slaughter of an animal: not so that people can eat, but so that rich people can feel happy.

It provides food for the hunters and their families. Is this also "slight ground for the slaughter of an animal?"

They're not eating these seals; they're taking the pelts. Were it a matter of simply feeding their families, they could hunt as they have from time immemorial; this is a matter of taking the pelts of many thousands of animals, beyond what is required to sustain families, because it is profitable to do so. But greater exchange value does not justify anything, considered in itself; it is neither necessary nor sufficient as justification.

"If conservatism cannot conserve anything more than the greed of a certain caste, and war, then it deserves to perish, its name no longer uttered among men."

How did conservatism come to such a low estate? Maybe a school of thought grounded in a deep gratitude towards God for his creation, imbued with a awareness of human frailty, and accepting of the natural restraints and limits to progress, was doomed to fail in an age of hubristic materialism. The autopsy, if conservatism has in fact expired, will have to be performed by the wisest of spiritual physicians.

I'm hardly among the wisest. I'll content myself with the observation that the patient obviously has cancer, and let others figure out how he developed it.

My argument isn't over efficiency. I view that factor secondary to the moral consequences of the hunt.

In the process of slaughtering an animal, efficiency in the onset of the attack to the clinical death of the animal is paramount to the reduction of the animal's suffering. If I shoot a deer and wound it fatally but not instantly, I need to make every attempt to cause the rapid death of that animal to minimize its suffering. If a blow from a club causes a radically shorter time-to-death for the animal than any other method, I would argue that the attack is less brutal and less cruel. In the videos linked from Maximos's link, every seal that was shot had to be further 'put down'. This was not the case with the majority of the seals struck with a club (I discount further strikes against any seal that is not obviously alive, lest we consider the process of butchering or skinning a dead animal to be further 'torture').

What, then, are the moral consequences of the hunt? How do they differ from game animal, or ethically raised/slaughtered animals? Is it because they're not used head-to-tail?

"all clubbing as a method to kill is inhumane" The burden of proof is on the practicioners.

Under the assumption that shooting game is an acceptable means of killing (that may be a bold assumption) and seeing the evidence which tells me that, in light of my definition of efficiency above, clubbing is a faster way to end the suffering of this particular type of game, that leads me to believe that clubbing is the more humane practice.

Of course we could argue the definition of suffering and which causes the greater suffering: shooting, chasing down and shooting an animal cause a greater amount of suffering than batting it over the head once, or chasing it down, pinning it to the ground, harnessing it so you can get a precise shot to instantly kill the animal? Are we talking physical pain only or does mental anguish of the animal come into the picture?

this is a matter of taking the pelts of many thousands of animals, beyond what is required to sustain families, because it is profitable to do so.

I think this is a slippery slope and I really think that this is the reason I jumped on the thread (beyond usually seeing much stronger arguments against something from you, Maximos :)). In all animal industry, we produce far, far more animal product than what is required to sustain our society. Sustenance dictates an average of 4 oz of protein daily, per person, on average. We're slaughtering way more animals than we need for mere sustenance... it is pleasure and disposable at that, and its farmed and raised and slaughtered for profit.

Does it boil down to 'wearing fur is bad?' Because that's what I'm seeing as the end result here. Wearing fur is bad if it is obtained in morally reprehensible ways when the entire animal is not used and the fur isn't merely a byproduct?

As regards the present issue, even on the assumption that I'm mistaken, this issue is still a loser; it ain't worth fighting for.

Indeed, I'm more concerned about the implications of the method of arguing why it's bad. It is low hanging fruit that puts at bay another argument against conservatives. Short term gain, long term loss in the fight to keep our right to eat meat and wear leather shoes.

The 'poor seals' to 'the poor lamb' is not a huge leap for my imagination, which is why I don't believe it's a huge leap for the liberal agenda.

I suspect it boils down in the minds of those arguing against the seal hunt to "wearing fur is bad if you could wear a nylon parka instead." Presumably a scruffy French trader in the 19th century who wore fur because it was the way he kept from freezing in the winter wouldn't come under the same opprobrium, or at least not for the same reasons. Of course, being caught in the French trader's trap for a couple of days was probably horrible for the animal.

Again, I'm not at all convinced that clubbing is more efficient and humane than shooting, inasmuch as an animal clubbed once might well be stunned, and not dead.

In all animal industry, we produce far, far more animal product than what is required to sustain our society.

The overwhelming majority of that product is generated on factory farms, the abolition of which, owing to their fundamental inhumanity, I'd be content to witness. Though I'm not holding my breath. Abolish them, and a large percentage of that excess disappears. We'd still produce far more than our minimum requirements, but at least we'd be using what we produced, as opposed to leaving the majority of the animals to engorge orcas, polar bears, and seabirds.

Does it boil down to 'wearing fur is bad?' Because that's what I'm seeing as the end result here. Wearing fur is bad if it is obtained in morally reprehensible ways when the entire animal is not used and the fur isn't merely a byproduct?

I'm not opposed to wearing fur, only to obtaining it in morally reprehensible, even merely questionable, ways when the entire animal is not used, etc. I've often joked that were my wife to wear a fur (she doesn't own one), only to have some loony splash paint on it as protest art against the wearing of fur, I'd deck the fool.

The 'poor seals' to 'the poor lamb' is not a huge leap for my imagination, which is why I don't believe it's a huge leap for the liberal agenda.

I don't believe that the leap is tremendous, either, though I suspect that I think it larger than you think it. Nevertheless, I still think that this issue is a loser for anyone who strives to defend the seal hunt; the practice is horrific, and the benefits so dubious. Where fluffy little lambs are concerned, we can at least object that we're utilizing the carcass efficiently and eating, to boot; moreover, we'll have on our side certain religious minorities, always the darlings of the politically correct. I'm dubious, for a legion of reasons, that politically-enforced vegetarianism is a realistic prospect in America. Oh, we'll have to cut back on our meat consumption, for a variety of environmental and economic reasons, but I don't envision a vegan takeover, though some, doubtless, dream of it.

I suspect it boils down in the minds of those arguing against the seal hunt to "wearing fur is bad if you could wear a nylon parka instead."

Not precisely. Assuming that we're going to use the seal fur, we could cull the creatures in the most humane manner possible (whatever that may be, since there is no agreement here on that question) and use the remains for food. However, seal fur isn't really necessary; it is purely a luxury good. Presumably, some Inuit may require such skins, should they live in exceptionally remote regions; then again, they wouldn't need to slaughter tens of thousands of the creatures solely for the pelts; they'd also eat them, as well.

"What, then, are the moral consequences of the hunt?"

Plenty. I think you lose sight of the effect such a practice has upon the hunter. Hard to imagine going home after a day of clubbing seals to death and being of much use to my family. The prayer life has to take a hit with that kind of imagery interrupting the meditation.

Do you think considerations like that are taken into account by the men who run this industry? And if so, do you think the costs associated with alternative means of killing made this low-tech butchery the preferred method? Seems to me that if one can get close enough to use a club, one can kill by less brutal means. What happened to good old-fashioned market-driven ingenuity?

"The 'poor seals' to 'the poor lamb' is not a huge leap for my imagination, which is why I don't believe it's a huge leap for the liberal agenda."

Want to make a principled stand against a warped misanthropy? Don't adopt a position that can be intepreted as a callous call to sate our appetites without consideration for the rest of creation. Your initial comments veered in that direction. And, if you really think Liberalism is anxious to impose a regime that denys us the experience of pleasurable sensation, you are mistaken. Sensation is all it has left. Even unto death.

My first inclination here is somewhere in the middle. I'm inclined to agree with Todd that the fact that killing an animal produces a luxury good is not in itself a sufficient argument that the killing is wrong. I'm also inclined to agree with Todd that the line between luxury and non-luxury _can_ get blurry. Consider Zippy's moose. He could've stayed at home and eaten free-range chicken instead. The moose, qua moose even if not qua meat, was a sort of luxury. I'm also inclined to agree with what Todd hasn't said but what seems implicitly to go with his position: Talking about unpleasant imagery interfering with your prayer life doesn't really cut much ice unless we are to rule out a huge amount of even humane farming and animal use. Do you think castrating pigs is a nice sort of image to have in your mind? How about kosher slaughter? Should all kosher butchers have trouble with their prayer lives because of the "spiritual cost" of the unpleasant imagery of slicing animal throats? How about _any_ sort of animal killing? No matter how humanely done, it's going to involve blood and making something that was once alive be dead, which is rather unpleasant to think of, when you think about it. Should Zippy's prayer life be interrupted by images of the dead moose and/or of its blood? If not, is he callous? I just don't think we can get off the ground with that argument.

On the other hand, I'm rather inclined to agree with Maximos that meat is more important to life than fur clothing, especially under the present circumstances. Sure, these things come in degrees. But it's much easier for most ordinary people to live a healthy life without fur clothing to wear than without meat. That just seems to me undeniable. Whether one "needs to" do something is in part going to be a function of whether it's really a wrong thing to do. Once we admit it isn't intrinsically wrong, then it becomes a matter of how important it is for us to have it as compared with the degree of harm, etc., we are causing to the animals.

Myself, I wouldn't want a fur coat. That is a semi-ethical pronouncement, but I certainly don't regard it as an absolute ethical prohibition. If I did, I would think that killing an animal for a fur coat was intrinsically wrong, which it obviously is not (see my remarks above about winter-bound fur traders).

"Should Zippy's prayer life be interrupted by images of the dead moose and/or of its blood? If not, is he callous? I just don't think we can get off the ground with that argument."

Does Zippy club seals to death everyday, in between blog postings? Or, do you not see the distinction between shooting a moose or hunting game and the brutal practice under discussion here?

It's a strange perspective to think one could club animals to death for a living and not be concerned about the spiritual or psychological welfare of those who engage it. If you disagree, feel free to elaborate. Otherwise, I think you should engage the actual content of the argument, rather than resorting to a caustic characterization of it.

Maximos' choice of words betrays his skewed view and his ignorance of the actual hunt itself. Basing a moral position on the propaganda of highly profitable special interest groups is questionable and I would encourage Maximos to look into the activities of IFAW and HSUS, no doubt the source of his questionable information, and compare them to a conservation organization such as WWF. He should note that neither IFAW nor HSUS has been able to gain membership with the ICUN, as they do not actually participate in conservation or welfare initiatives.

Now for the wording: moral outrage at "clubbing seals to death"? The very reason they are clubbed is to kill them and to do it swiftly and painlessly. In terms of measurable suffering, hunted seals in Canada (as opposed to "nuisance animals shot by several EU nations, who, incidentally enjoy no welfare standards at all) are subject to less pain and stress than any other animal consumed by humans. The next item of outrage is that they are "then skinned alive", which is problematic as it's hard to skin an animal alive once you've clubbed it to DEATH. So it's difficult to see what Maximos' objection is. One would suspect he is outraged by bloody pictures of death (NOT suffering), that his (doubtlessly urban) experience has not taught him the difference between suffering and death and that his objection is really about aesthetics. He can't stand those ugly pictures and chooses to indulge in the sort of intellectual lassitude that would lead one to take a moral stand without any personal investment whatsoever.