Fox hunting is back in the news. Last week Labour reiterated its pledge to crack down on the ‘sport’, including ‘trail hunting’ which it described as a smokescreen for the real thing.
The hunting of foxes is fervently championed, not only by its practitioners, but by many who regard it as a noble rural tradition. To examine this claim, I want to test the argument postulated by the late Roger Scruton, a philosopher I have long admired. His defence presented in his short monograph, On Hunting, is among the most elegant and beguiling. If he can’t convince us through reason that fox hunting is morally acceptable, who can?
Describing his love for the ‘sport of kings’, he expresses the commonplace that it represents an essential feature of English country life. He describes its beauty, its contribution to the preservation of the countryside and the social equality it sustains. There is, however, little compassion for the quarry to which he contends the hunter adopts a “quasi-religious attitude”:
The hunted animal is hunted as an individual. But the hunted species is elevated to divine status as the totem, and a kind of mystical union of the tribe with its totem seals the pact between them for ever… For the brief moment of the chase [the fox] is an individual… Once killed, however, he returns to his archetypal condition, reassuming his nature as The Fox, whom the huntsman knows and loves, and whose eternal recurrence is his deep desire. (Pages 73,76)
It may seem somewhat incongruous to love a creature whose violent death you ardently pursue. But, in lyrical prose, he declares that to relate to animals “as wild things” we must see them “as we see nature when the divine idea shines through to us”, and this is never more likely to happen than when hunting amid the herd and the pack, “on the lively scent of a fox who streams through the hedgerows, staking out the landscape with a matrix of primeval desire” (p. 79). He describes too the love between huntsman and the animals — horses and hounds — that are accessories in the chase.
The terror, distress and killing of the fox are, of course, secondary to the claimed virtues of the activity. But, for Scruton, animals have neither rights nor duties. If they did, “lions would be murderers, cuckoos usurpers, mice burglars and magpies thieves”. Moreover, the fox would be the worst of criminals worthy of the death penalty because it kills not only for food, “but with a wanton appetite for death and destruction. … [T]o treat animals as moral beings is to mistreat them – it is to make demands which they could not satisfy, since they cannot understand them as demands” (p.132). It does not follow, he allows, that we have a licence to treat animals as we wish:
When a beaten fox, driven from covert into the open, sees that he cannot cross to safety and so turns back to his death, his despairing movements are utterly pitiable. His eyes are no longer alert, his crafty expression has vanished… In that moment the individual is all: for unlike the species he must die. If you could save him you would. (p.132). But he will not be saved because the pleasure of hunting comes in spite of death, and not because of it. (pp.132-33)
Scruton’s scruples
Scruton’s spirited defence is largely, and unashamedly, humancentric. His genuine love of hunting is almost palpable. But in seeking to justify the practice he commits at least four unexpected and uncharacteristic fallacies.
- He rightly condemns trophy hunters and the cruelty of fishing and factory farming; he does so in order to demonstrate that, unlike these activities, the hunted fox is “given a chance” to escape his fate. To justify X by asserting that Y is worse is the logical fallacy of relative privation. It is, of course, true that there is no shortage of practices that cause animals pain, suffering and death. It is also true that shooting a lion from the safety of a vehicle “and to gloat in triumph as the victim drops to the ground in agony” (p.138) is repugnant, but does the fox really have a fair prospect to escape his killing when pursued by a pack of crazed dogs and a group of eager hunters on excited horses?
- He says hunting “awakens a lively and unsentimental sympathy for animal, of a kind unknown to the lover of pets”.(p.83). Are all pet lovers really incapable of an unsentimental attitude toward their animals? Here he perpetrates the informal fallacy of hasty generalisation.
- He asserts that “the fox will gain nothing from the abolition of hunting… [which] might offer the fox the best form of coexistence with humans who have no other motive to protect him or to conserve his habitat … [and] hunting discriminates against the old and diseased. For it is not easy to catch a healthy fox” (p.134). This is surely mere speculation, and the “might” is an appeal to probability: the logical fallacy of assuming the truth of a proposition because it might possibly be the case: possibiliter ergo probabiliter.
- He declares that apart from hunting the fox, “humans… have no other motive to protect him or to conserve his habitat”. (p.135). This is far from uncontentious, and surprisingly constitutes the logical fallacy of ipse dixit: an assertion lacking proof.
It is disappointing that one of our leading philosophers should be culpable of dodgy reasoning. Might it suggest that, as David Hume maintains, reason is indeed “the slave of the passions”?
Raymond Wacks is a Professor of Law.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Entirely foreseeable and now they’re looking very stupid with a load of egg on their faces. As per the article about the BBC yesterday, my comments still stand and are applicable here. We have yet another example of white men discriminating against white men. Fact. You don’t want to accept reality? It still remains a fact, regardless. But don’t shoot the messenger, take a look at the ”top brass” to which the article refers;
https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/senior-commanders/
The woke mind-virus infects regardless of sex. What’s your point?
Presumably you missed my posts on the BBC article yesterday, where I made precisely that point. The same point that I’ve been banging on and on about on multiple occasions now, which you presumably also missed…
Never in the field of aerial conflict have so few heroic aces been recruited by so many Air Chief Marshals, Sirs and Total Numpties.
Never mind the skies above Ukraine, what about the skies above Kent, Essex and the Thames Estuary where the Few once upon a time repelled the Luftwaffe?
I suppose we are just lucky that they have not yet developed people carrying drones that can drop illegal immigrant scum from the skies all over the South East.
Hello mate, there’s your vape refill, Special Brew six-pack and a free copy of The Sun. Have you thought of becoming a fighter pilot?
And are the catastrophic imbeciles who run our military and made these decisions still in their positions? Of course they are.
Of course. We underlings need some braid to dazzle us and to look up to.
Quick thinking from Lizzie could have saved her from refusing an order. Instruct 40% of current staff to identify as a woman, and 20% as an ethnic minority…voila!
To describe the intended future changes to defence spending as “ramp up” is surely misrepresentation. Most of the increase is accounted for by redefining budgets and all the increase will go on past commitments, including Ukraine and Chagos.
I really don’t care whether the pilot protecting me and my nation is black, white, male, female, gay or straight. I simply want them to have the UK’s best interests at heart and be good at their job. I’m clearly far too old-fashioned in my views.
Strikes me as very counterproductive given that whites tend to excel in spatial awareness. East Asians are pretty good too. Just look at any high speed engine driven sport.
One sure way to reduce it to zero is to put them in the skies against Russia, who have amassed 3 years of front-line combat experience.
The RAF has launched a desperate search for pilots after a secret and unlawful bid to discriminate against white men backfired
Morons. I would say that it serves them right, but of course, I don’t want our armed services to be under staffed, or staffed by second raters.
Who’d join up today knowing that morally bankrupt top brass will be sending you to do the dirty work of political halfwits hoping that the right coloured people get shot and die so their DEI stats improve?
But that’s true in so many circumstances.
And it isn’t just that it happens, from time to time. It’s that, while looking for new employment, or joining an organisation, there’s always the possibility of it happening, so I’ll put up with where I am.
I seem to recall that when Trump remarked on diversity hiring in the US Air Force he was almost run out of town.
Can’t stop laughing and it’s entirely appropriate that woke Charlie’s prefix is at the front.
RAF recruitment officers meet them on the beach at Dover
What a surprise (not).
The equivalent of “Go Woke, Go Broke.”
They still haven’t learned though. Every recruitment advert you see for the Royal Air Force features a woman not a man. I don’t have a problem with trying to recruit women, but they might have more success if they also aimed their recruitment at young men.
Until everyone responsible suffers serious consequences, nothing changes. Everyone who made this happen, starting at the top, should lose their jobs.
Who gave the order to the Personnel Group Captain?
Name names.