This is an odd subject, and some of you may not find it of interest. It is disconnected from current politics as far as I know.
I have been reading a little Aristotle recently, the "Nichomachean Ethics," wherein the position is held that happiness is activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. It would take some verbiage to expand those words adequately, and I'm not going to attempt to. The point is this reading, which is not my first encounter with this book or this way of thinking, made me think about virtue and the virtue of citizens. Be advised that in this context "virtue" doesn't mean chastity, or abstaining from using vulgar language, more likely it means "excellence" or "strength."
It seems to me that hunting and shooting both encourage or even train virtues that any state should desire its citizens to possess, at least its male citizens. Isn't it good that citizens be able to be self-reliant and fend for themselves in the field? to both have and use clothes suitable to inclement and extreme weather? to know how to keep dry during a rainstorm? How to camp and cook a meal over a wood fire? How to creep through the woods stealthily? How to pick an ambush point which conceals the hunter while at the same time providing a generous field of fire? Isn't it good to know how to carry a rifle through the woods without fouling it with dirt or foolishly, unthinkingly clogging its barrel with ice or a twig or some other obstruction? Isn't it good to be able to move through the woods in the dark? These may seem like elementary skills to some of you, but have you ever taken a teenager or other tenderfoot into the woods? What do these untutored people know how to do?
I would think some argument could be made to this point, that hunting carries with it so many concommittant benefits that this is an additional rationale for its continuance. Any comments? I'm not limiting my thinking on this to just those who might be called upon to serve as soldiers. Also, while being a boy scout might teach some of the skills discussed above, it would not teach all of them. Has anyone ever defended hunting from this point of view before -- it cultivates virtues of male citizens which are beneficial to the state?
I don't recall Aristotle talking about things in that manner. Maybe you are thinking of Plato and his ideals or ideas -- for example Justice in itself, straightness in itself, beauty in itself.
No. I probably should have left Aristotle and his statement about happiness out of it entirely. I'm just suggesting that hunting is an activity which trains male virtue -- or a part of it -- and as such should be cultivated, encouraged, respected, and cherished by the state.
And I'm not saying women shouldn't hunt or that it is not good that women be able to take care of themselves and be savvy in the woods. It is great if women do can do these things and have this kind of self-reliance also.
I'm just suggesting that hunting is an activity which trains male virtue -- or a part of it -- and as such should be cultivated, encouraged, respected, and cherished by the state.
To put it simply, I agree. Maybe people like us are just too old-fashioned for the modern world. Or maybe the modern world is a crock of Sheisse.
Aught Six: You are right. We may be too old-fashioned. Unfortunately, we are under attack by people who want to do away with hunting and guns. Some of these people are going right after these things, and others are just not thinking about it and going along for the ride without a lot of self-examination. For example, I get the impression that right after 9/11 the stock of the "man's man!", tough guy went up and the stock of the sensitive, mamby pamby, dithering, not competent to tie his own shoe laces aesthete went down. People realized that even in the heart of urban New York City heroism may have value.
So, I wonder if this case could be made in some general forum such as in magazine articles, or by us ourselves as we confront and explain ourselves to people we meet. Strangely, as soon as things like hunting are outlawed, shooting ranges are all closed down, camping is no longer permitted, then when a natural disaster strikes and the men stand around with their thumbs up their #(%$@ waiting for the appropriate emergency personnel to arrive, then these men are chastised for not being men! This is not my personal experience, but I can imagine this scenario.
So, I'm recommending this argument as another defense of hunting. It may not persuade everyone -- it won't persuade the hardcord antis -- but it will persuade some.
I have remembered that Jeff Cooper in "The Art of the Rifle" suggests that the art of handling and using a rifle elevates us from a subject to a citizen. Now that is terse, wisdom saturated language befitting an Aristotle! Cooper further puts the point that skill with arms is supremely empowering. Who would not want to be skilled in arms? This doesn't imply you spend all your time with rednecks at the rifle range or shooting furry animals . . . but just have the capacity, should the situation ever warrant it, to skillfully yield a high power rifle, a shotgun, a pistol? What father would say "Son, being able to shoot a high power rifle, for example a .30-06, accurately and with confidence would provide you with a redoubtable capability, albeit you may never or rarely have need of it, but I don't want to pass this skill on to you because it is an ugly skill, a skill of death, a skill of domination. Son, being able to shoot a shotgun and hit a moving target, for example a clay pigeon, is also a redoubtable skill, but I don't want to pass this skill on to you because it is too much power! This is a dangerous skill, a skill requiring deep wisdom to avoid the misuse of, therefore I will not school you in this art! Neither will I inform you of the rudiments of handling these arms. Instead, you will remain as a child in these matters, without knowledge or skill. It is better that you not know. It is better that you not possess this skill." Who would say this?
So, I'm recommending this argument as another defense of hunting. It may not persuade everyone -- it won't persuade the hardcord antis -- but it will persuade some.
Hmm....
I'm not so confident that it would work, but a good idea is worth exploring regardless of any pre-conceived assumption. We have nothing to lose but more of our rights, our culture, and our very manhood. We must remain vigilant until the very end. I've certainly written a lot of letters to the editors because I believe in something, not because I expect others to do so.
You are, of course, dead on regarding the hardcore antis. Those against hunting often feel that way because they're offended by the "manhood" we're speaking about. It's easy to lump liberals, gun-grabbers, and antis in one boat because more often than not, they are! Hunting is "bad" because it is cruel and inhumane to our wild friends and does nothing but stroke the testerone-fueled egos of the neanderthals of the world. Guns are "bad" because they are only tools of death and destruction, both human and super-human (i.e. animals). Both should be abolished for the good of greater humanity!
For the average non-hunter, I think it'll be hit or miss when we talk about the benefits of "manhood" (even if we are strictly referring to the self-reliance aspects). Some will lean towards us, some will lean away, but I think most won't pay much attention. Most people just don't get it. Not because they can't, but because they come from different backgrounds. These ideas are old-fashioned, as we've said. It's like talking in a different language for some people.
If we're going to get anywhere, I think the best thing to is show what we have in common with the average person. We need to speak less of being men and more of being American, or even human. Now don't get me wrong--I think manhood is a very good thing for many reasons. But if we're to succeed, we need to go for the lowest common denominator. Manhood is something that more than a few don't want to, or just refuse to discuss intelligently.
Political virtue of hunting/shooting
But if we're to succeed, we need to go for the lowest common denominator. Manhood is something that more than a few don't want to, or just refuse to discuss intelligently.
