Introduction
Hunting is one of the oldest human activities which have persisted over various civilizations. From the ancient Stone Age period, when human survival was entirely dependent on hunted animals and gathered fruits, to the modern time, when various means of survival emerged, hunting remains a common activity. Besides the traditional hunting for food, contemporary times have seen humans resorting to hunting for other reasons. Some of the reasons, such as hunting for food, are justified by the natural law, which grants the right to survive; other reasons, which include hunting for sport and enjoyment, make the exercise unethical. The topic of hunting has been debatable following the impacts and reasons for engaging in the activity.
Natural Law Theory Supporting Hunting
Hunting for Nourishment and Material Source
According to the natural law theory, humans and other animals are entitled to a right to life. The right to life guarantees the natural right to survive, which includes surviving by gathering food and hunting prey. This law supports the act of hunting animals for food and survival. Regardless of the equipment used, the right to survive by natural law allows hunting as long as it is done for nourishment and material resources. Even though killing animals in the act of hunting inflicts harm to the animal victims, the natural law considers it a means of survival. Various animals, such as the big cats and hyenas, among other wild animals whose diet consists of beef, survive by killing their fellow animals for food (Newth et al. 238). They kill their prey while inflicting pain on some, but because they have the right to life, and that means constitute their mode of survival, the natural law grants them the right to survive. Similarly, hunting for nourishment by native communities or any other group is justified by natural rights.
In addition to nourishment, hunting is a source of material resources. Resources such as hides and skin that are essential in making human wear, including clothes, originate from animals, especially hunted games. Clothes and human wear are essential in the life of an individual, forming the basis of survival. Unlike animals which do not require clothing and material resources to complete their survival antics, humans, on the other hand, need material resources such as clothing to complete their survival patterns. This makes humans seek material resources from hunting animals that provide the supplies. By granting the right to survival to humans, the natural law thus provides the right to other activities which complement survival. Hunting for the material resource is therefore justified under the natural law theory granting the right to survive.
Therapeutic Hunting
Besides hunting for nourishment and material resources, therapeutic hunting is another exercise justified by natural law. The right to survive encompasses not only the predators but also the prey. As in the case of predators who hunt to survive and whose killing is justified by natural law, the protection of the life of the prey by hunting is justified by natural law. Therapeutic hunting may involve killing wild animals to protect and conserve the species of other animals that are on the verge of becoming extinct. “Counter-intuitively, removing a small number of specific males can enhance population demography and genetic diversity, encourage range expansion, and generate meaningful socioeconomic benefits to help fund effective conservation (facilitated by appropriate local institutional arrangements)” (’t Sas‐Rolfes Michael et al. 1). Alternatively, therapeutic hunting involves the killing of wild animals to facilitate the survival of the species of animals. With respect to the natural law right to survive, all animals are entitled to survive; thus, hunting to enhance the survival of other animals is justified.
An ecosystem depends on balancing to survive and facilitate survival. Therapeutic hunting is intended to facilitate the ecosystem balance by eliminating some animals whose number may threaten the survival of the rest of the animals. The increment to an abnormal number of a particular species of animal is likely to threaten the survival of the rival species and affect the natural law of survival. Thus, as a conservation measure, therapeutic hunting is necessary and justified (Thomsen et al., 230). For example, Project Isabella, a conservation group, hired the marksmen to eliminate feral goats from several Galapagos Islands in the years 1997 and 2006 to conserve the species of Galapagos tortoise whose survival was threatened by the increased number of feral goats. Hunting was justified because it served to enhance the survival of the Galapagos tortoise, supporting the natural law of the right to survival. As the feral goats, the Galapagos were entitled to survival rights and thus had to be protected from their life-threatening feral goats.
Additionally, therapeutic hunting can be inspired by the need to protect the life and survival of humans. In some instances, the population of a particular group of animals may threaten the lives and survival of humans and thus call for elimination through hunting. For instance, the number of lions doubling to outsize their reserve, thus making them encroach on the neighboring villages and endangering the lives of children and livestock. In response, the village members may hunt and kill the lions to reduce their number and protect their village. The hunting will be justified in the context of protecting the lives of children and other endangered villagers and for preserving the livestock which forms part of the survival. The action of the perpetrators would be considered therapeutic hunting intended to enhance the survival of the members by eliminating the rivals.
In the same natural law theory, which grants the right to survive by gathering and hunting fruits and prey, the right to bear arms is provided. Hunting inspired by the need for nourishment and material resources requires convenient equipment for the same. In the Stone Age era, when humans were uncivilized, individuals depended on rudimentary tools such as sticks, stones, and spears for hunting. The hunting exercise was tiresome and ineffective because the tools were inefficient. However, with civilization, humans have managed to develop new arms which are efficient and easier to use, such as guns. The use of rudimentary tools ceased to usher in the new era of civilization with modern technology. It is, therefore, within the human right to bear arms during hunting to enhance their survival through hunting. Hunting, like other aspects of life, has developed and assumed modern civilization.
As the natural law allowed people in the Stone Age period to use rudimentary tools in hunting to promote their survival, the same law permits individuals in contemporary times to bear arms while carrying out the hunting exercise, provided the hunting activity is inspired by the need for nourishment, material resource or therapeutic hunting. It is, therefore, the right of people to bear arms within reason, especially for hunting. Arms, as rudimentary tools such as spears, sticks, and stones, are just upgraded equipment for hunting, and thus, people are entitled to possess them during the activity to enhance the exercise.
Criticism
Hunting for Sports
The use of natural law to justify hunting has some weaknesses because it can be used by individuals hunting for fulfillment and fun. Hunting for sports and enjoyment is a mockery practice that serves to harm and kill animals for fun and deprives the animals of the right to life. As humans, animals suffer from pain and have offspring to care for. Therefore, killing them for fulfillment or inflicting injury on them to a larger extent affects their lives and the lives of their offspring that depend on them.
For example, killing a lactating lioness for fun or injuring a lactating elephant for fulfillment will have an adverse impact not only on the victim but also on the lives that depend on them. Therefore, hunting in the name of survival for the search of nourishment and material resources affects the survival of the victims or their young ones that survive by depending on them. In the same vein, the justification of killing animals for therapeutic hunting violates the rights of the victims “Indeed, a utilitarian stance necessitates considering all consequences of an action on all those affected. Hence, in trophy hunting, the interests of affected animals and humans ought to be accounted for in the aggregate welfare” (Ghassemi and Benjamin 78). By reducing their number or dominance to enhance the survival of the rival species, the victims’ own survival and right to life are violated.
The natural law theory, which grants the right to life, should apply to all animals and not just humans. As humans, hunted animals enjoy the right to life and thus should not be killed for any reason because the act violates their right to life. Whether for nourishment, therapeutic, or fulfillment, hunting activity which involves inflicting harm and killing animals should be prohibited because they translate to taking the precious life of the victims (Ghasemi and Benjamin, 82). This makes the natural law theory to be contradictory as it awards the right to life to one group while denying the same right to another group by sanctioning their killing.
Despite the weaknesses of the natural law theory with respect to hunting, it provides sufficient justification for hunting through the necessary harm hypothesis. The natural law theory grants the right to life and survival, which allows individuals and animals to choose whatever means of survival is suitable, which includes hunting animals for food. Killing animals and inflicting harm on animals during hunting is thus justified if it is inspired by the search for food and material resources, which forms the basis of human survival (Seabright et al. 3). The Native American communities whose source of food remains hunting and gathering have the right to do so to enhance their survival.
Since they enjoy the right to life and survival provided by the natural law theory, they have to hunt to promote that survival if they are to live, and they are allowed to use any equipment in their survival adventures. In the same vein, the natural law allows for the possession of arms for hunting as a means of facilitating survival mode. Arms for hunting are merely means of enhancing survival by hunting. As Stone Age tools, modern arms are devices for making work easier for modern individuals.
Conclusion
Hunting is acceptable based on the natural law, which provides the right to survive by gathering food and hunting prey. Regardless of the mode of hunting and equipment used, as long as it is inspired by the need for survival and the search for food, it is justified by natural law. In addition, individuals have the right to possess and use arms as long as they are used to enhance hunting exercises or aid the process.
Works Cited
’t Sas‐Rolfes, Michael, et al. “Legal Hunting for Conservation of Highly Threatened Species: The Case of African Rhinos.” Conservation Letters, vol. 15, no. 2, 2022, Web.
Ghasemi, Benjamin. “Trophy Hunting and Conservation: Do the Major Ethical Theories Converge in Opposition to Trophy Hunting?” People and Nature, vol. 3, no. 1, 2021, pp. 77-87, Web.
Newth, Julia L., et al. “Predicting Intention to Hunt Protected Wildlife: A Case Study of Bewick’s Swan in the European Russian Arctic.” Oryx, vol. 56, no. 2, 2022, pp. 228-240, Web.
Seabright, Paul, Jonathan Stieglitz, and Karine Van der Straeten. “Evaluating Social Contract Theory in the Light of Evolutionary Social Science.” Evolutionary Human Sciences, vol. 3, 2021, Web.
Thomsen, Jennifer Marie, et al. “Community Perspectives of Empowerment from Trophy Hunting Tourism in Namibia’s Bwabwata National Park.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 30, no. 1, 2022, pp. 223-239, Web.