Cartmill, Review III

To his credit, Cartmill does not limit his book to cultural histories of the morality of hunting and of the hunting hypothesis. In the final chapter, he weighs in on morality: “We need to ask whether hunting is wrong” (240). Cartmill lays out the variety of worldviews and motives the give sense to the actions of both anti-hunters and hunters. But finally, he too cuts to the chase and settles on utilitarian ethics, Peter Singer style. “There is a consensus today, at any rate in the industrialized West, that the suffering of sentient animals is something that is intrinsically undesirable….” (240). We can spot the conclusion from a single premise: hunting is wrong.

But it is not a single premise. The entire book has lead to this conclusion. The hunting hypothesis and the immorality hypothesis are themselves framed by the more general claim that hunting and morality conflict. By showing the associations of hunting with war and by arguing for hunting’s associations with rape, Cartmill underlines his point with a big, thick, red marker. Within this framework, the hunter can position himself only by brushing aside morality in the style of Nietzsche. Cartmill, however, tries to smoke him out of this amoral stance. If the hunter flees from morality, he cannot position himself in “nature” via the hunting hypothesis because science does not and cannot prove that hunting is “natural.”

What conclusion follows from this? Hunting is as human as morality; morality is as natural as hunting. The conflict between hunting and morality is not a conflict between the human and nature but between different ways of living life. What principles could we extract from the life lived best? Cartmill offers one: pain is undesirable. Since there is no qualitative difference between the pain of a non-human animal and a human animal, and since hunting causes “excruciating” pain, we cannot justify a way of life that includes hunting.