Oklahoma state senator Earl Garrison is promoting a change to the state constitution that would protect hunters and fisherman from animal rights activists, also known as the Hunters Bill of Rights.
Mr. Garrison doesn't seem to be relying on speciesism to justify killing another being for sport, which is so often the case, and therefore, he deserves the recognition. However, he does assume that because a practice has been apart of a community's tradition, it is good. Indeed, his argument premises the inherent goodness of "heritage." His defense of sport-killing tries to follow from this premise. To challenge this defense, then, we must consider the initial assumption that tradition = right.
Consider this assumption as it relates to our other "heritages." Slavery was once defended on these grounds; the subordination of women to men still is. It is undeniable that gender and racial discrimination is rooted in tradition. Does it follow that sexism is inherently good then? Of course not. If a practice is harmful or if it violates other ethical premises we hold, the practice ought to be challenged. Therefore, Mr. Garrison must either accept the conclusions that follow from his own argument and thereby regard Southern sentimentalists of the 'good ol'days' as advocating a valid argument, or reject his primary assumption out of hand and find another defense of killing a deer because it's fun.
Mr. Garrison mentions another defense as well - animal populations must be "culled" for the good of the animals themselves. However, this defense is superfluous because it has nothing to do with his primary premise, therefore, I'll leave it for another day.
Hunters don't need a Bill of Rights, they need a valid defense.
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
"We're trying to put in our constitution the right for Oklahomans to hunt, fish and trap like we always have," he said. "For most Oklahomans it's a heritage we can pass on to our children and grandchildren" (emphasis added).The practical purpose - it is, after all, purely instrumental - of the law is to constitutionalize an explicit ban on any sort of hunt saboteur activities.
Mr. Garrison doesn't seem to be relying on speciesism to justify killing another being for sport, which is so often the case, and therefore, he deserves the recognition. However, he does assume that because a practice has been apart of a community's tradition, it is good. Indeed, his argument premises the inherent goodness of "heritage." His defense of sport-killing tries to follow from this premise. To challenge this defense, then, we must consider the initial assumption that tradition = right.
Consider this assumption as it relates to our other "heritages." Slavery was once defended on these grounds; the subordination of women to men still is. It is undeniable that gender and racial discrimination is rooted in tradition. Does it follow that sexism is inherently good then? Of course not. If a practice is harmful or if it violates other ethical premises we hold, the practice ought to be challenged. Therefore, Mr. Garrison must either accept the conclusions that follow from his own argument and thereby regard Southern sentimentalists of the 'good ol'days' as advocating a valid argument, or reject his primary assumption out of hand and find another defense of killing a deer because it's fun.
Mr. Garrison mentions another defense as well - animal populations must be "culled" for the good of the animals themselves. However, this defense is superfluous because it has nothing to do with his primary premise, therefore, I'll leave it for another day.
Hunters don't need a Bill of Rights, they need a valid defense.
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
Leave a comment