Endangered species Dilemma
 

A local hunter is known for brutalizing an endangered species in an area known for having a corrupt government.

As an animal rights activist, you conclude that upwards of one hundred animals will die if the hunter is not stopped, putting the species at great risk of extinction.

So you decide the only thing to do is kill the hunter to help save the endangered species.

Is your decision justifiable in this circumstance?

Yes

The hunter will be doing so because of his own greed. Why should animals be hunted to the point of extinction? Kill him I say. One less idiot on the planet and 100 endangered animals get to keep their lives.

Is it ok to kill people who eat cows then?

Sure they're not endangered, but each individual cow is unique.

No, I wouldn't kill him.

No as most animals get killed so we can eat them which is a natural thing.

While it isn't necessary, cows are killed mainly for food (amongst other by products), and, as you say, not endangered, as they are bred with those specifics in mind. They are not killed for "sport" or solely for someone to make a huge profit from them.

Many animals are killed unnecessarily. Sharks for their fins. Rhinos for their horns. Sleeping bears are awoken from hibernation in Russia just to be shot in the name of "sport". Foxes are hunted for mans own pleasure. Seals clubbed to death.

Many reasons can be given to try and justify such senseless killings, such as the culling of a species to keep numbers down. This is not such a case.

Most (not all) animal species kill for food. Only man kills for greed.

this has been happening and still is where people not animals are being hunted and killed by the corrupt government and no one steps in to stop it

if you can live with killing someone then go ahead
but next week there will be another hunter.

No,I wouldn't kill him, I would do all I could to have him stopped by more legitimate means but I wouldn't kill him.
I would do everything I possibly could to harrass him and thwart him in his vile activity of killing animals.

No, I wouldn't kill him.

Saying that, I don't think I could actually kill him, but I would have to try and do something to stop him. I just find the unnecessary brutalizing of animals appalling and inhumane. I could not stand by and watch something like this happen.



I just don't see the need.

Oh if it's just killing for no reason other than sport then yes I would kill the bastard as his no different from normal killers imo.

Killing is extreme even for the hunter. Couldn't we just harm him enough to put an end to his activities :D I am saying his, assuming the Hunter is male, but they could just as easily be female.

Kill the hunter. They're not killing to live? So why are they killing?

Well we don't know why he's hunting, he might need to do it to earn a living :shrug: In any case, I wouldn't kill him

It's not enough of a reason to take a human life - we don't know the exact circumstances.

Besides which: there's more than one way to skin a cat - and lot of powerful organisations that could be brought in / involved to deal with the local hunter - legally and above board without one human being murdering another human being.

'brutalizing an endangered species'

sounds like a sicko lets have him killed.

I'd kill him. Plenty of good people die, I don't have a problem with an a-hole copping one. No other species causes more destruction than humans, and anyone who kills something he doesn't go on to eat deserves to be removed from the gene pool.

The thing is: on that premise.... 'someone who kills something he doesn't eat deserves to be removed from the gene pool', would also include you - unless of course, you intended to eat him once you've killed him.

You cannibal you !

I'm not a vegetarian but I only eat things that have been humanely reared and killed. So as I intend to gut-shoot him and leave him to kick for an hour or so, on my own premise, no... I wouldn't eat him.

I kill spiders, bugs, flies etc. all the time without eating them

No. Killing him is far too extreme. Capital punishment for any crime is completely wrong really.

If that's how you feel, that's how you feel: however unless you are witnessing every bit of meat you eat, being reared or how it is slaughtered: like every meat eater - we do not know for sure just how 'humanely' reared and slaughtered the meat on our plates are.

Thats ****ing horrible. The least they could have done is killed it to put it out of its misery :S

(I realise that goes against this thread totally, but i would much rather end their pain quickly as leave it to drag on for hours and maybe days)

I do as well, though to be fair to the 'dilemma' posed - they aren't an endangered species so I'm not entirely sure there is a similar comparison, if you see what I mean.