Bow Hunting
Since moving back to Lynchburg, I've had dealings with the local Tea Party. I've gotten to know one of the members a bit, and we've gone back and forth on Facebook on various issues. My friend (I'll call him Abe for his moral and political Absolutism, and because I feel like giving someone a pseudonym) posted a photo recently of an albino groundhog. Now that's very neat; like most people, I've never seen one.
Abe is an avid bow hunter, mostly hunting deer, but other game as well. Abe asked for my support in allowing bow hunting in Lynchburg, because according to him, the city will have a fox and coyote problem in the near future, and it's currently overpopulated with deer. Now I don't know about the fox and coyote and I haven't seen them anywhere in my years of living here, but I do know the deer are a problem. It's not uncommon for me to run across a group of 8 of them in my neighborhood. And they pose a major threat to cars and a minor one to gardens.
So at first I responded, Yes I will support you in bow hunting. However, I took some time to consider it, and then changed my mind. I replied, No, in fact I wouldn't support allowing bow hunting in Lynchburg, because I oppose killing animals if at all possible. I'd support nonlethal trapping to remove problem animals, subsequent to a study of the problems posed, maybe done by one of the local colleges.
Abe wants the right to use his property as he wants. Abe says the deer population has been studied and it's way too high, and I believe him because from what I've read, he knows his hunting issues. Abe also sees several problems with trapping -- first, the animals will return, and second, it's an expense. I understand and recognize those concerns, and they are valid. He doesn't like legal restrictions on what he can do at his own home, and I empathize with his concerns. I too am bothered by what I consider inappropriate and sometimes immoral restrictions on what I do on my property.
Abe also claims that if I make the case that I support a blanket ban on bow hunting everywhere in the city, on one's own property, that the same case can be made for banning all drug use on one's own property. He claims my view on the bow hunting issue is inconsistent with my view on drug legalization, that if I want to restrict his rights on his property, he could restrict my rights on my property.
My political activism centers around marijuana legalization specifically, and drug regulation more broadly, and the core from which my passion springs is my belief that the laws denying my freedom to ingest what I choose, and sanctioning me for choosing "wrongly", are immoral.
Let me explain a bit about my values, and why, based on those values, I think the two issues are not quite analogous, can be approached differently, and treating them differently or arriving at different legal outcomes is not inconsistent with my values.
Hierarchy of Values and Freedoms
Although my beliefs and opinions are ever-evolving, my emerging feeling is that I subscribe to a hierarchy of values and freedoms. In my experience, most people do as well. Although some might claim to weigh all their values equally, as a practical matter it is impossible to do so. We always have to weigh one value against another, in virtually any situation, and decide which is more important. Our judges do this every day.
Since I don't subscribe to supernaturalism or believe in gods, I don't believe these values and freedoms are bestowed by God or a Creator, as the Founders stated in the Declaration of Independence. Rather, I believe reason and experience, parental example and innate intuition, deductive and inductive reasoning, all provide a simple and acceptable justification for them. For me, they all point to the same conclusions.
Here is a listing of my hierarchy of values, in descending order of their importance, each followed by a simple description of the attribute described:
- Love, Compassion, Kindness, Generosity, Respect, Peace -- Loving Being
- Freedom of Belief, Opinion, and Speech -- Mental and Verbal Being
- Freedom of Life and Self-Sovereignty -- Physical Being
- Freedom of Association and Relation -- Social Being
- Freedom of Work and Play -- Active Being
- Freedom of Property -- Self-Controlling Being
In order to secure all these values and freedoms for everyone, I include this necessary value:
- Honoring Others' Beliefs, Opinions, and Freedoms (combines Love + Social Being)
Other values important to me include:
- Expanding Knowledge Through Reason and Science (Love + Mental)
- Teaching and Demonstrating Reason and Science (Mental + Social)
- Mutual Consent (Love + Social)
- Mutual Cooperation and Collaboration (Love + Social + Active)
- Self-Sufficiency (Physical + Active + Self-Controlling)
- Preserving the Natural World (Love + Physical)
Although I hold them dearly, I hold few of these values absolutely, since they often come into conflict with each other, both in my own circumstances, and when relating to others. Additionally, although this ordering holds true most of the time, there may be times when I hold a lower value more important than a higher one, although hopefully those cases are rare. Even though this hierarchy suggests a framework for decision-making, I prefer making case-by-case decisions, with as much consistency as I can give, without sacrificing love, compassion, etc., which I hold as the ultimate values.
For example, when deciding an issue that pits the Freedom of Property against the Natural World, I'm very likely to side with the Natural World, because I value the Freedom of Life for more than just me, humans, or even animals, over the Freedom of Property. That's not to say I would always side with the Natural World, as I also value Reason and Science, and Freedom of Work, so I support a law that allows one to cultivate any plant on one's property, even though that might violate Preserving the Natural World in some ways. Despite violating one of my values, and perhaps negatively affecting it in some ways, using Love and Reason helps guide me to what I consider the best decision. It is wise to strive for consistency in one's decisions, and consistency can indicate well-made decisions. But consistency is not a goal in and of itself; decisions can and should be revisited in light of new information or beliefs; they shouldn't be considered etched in stone simply for consistency's sake.
So in Abe's example of allowing bow hunting in the city, since I value Love and Freedom of Life (for animals) higher than Freedom of Action or Property (for people), I would say no, let's not allow it. Abe doesn't say that there are diseases spread by these animals that threaten Life. He doesn't say that these animals threaten Property. He simply wants the freedom to kill these animals to control their population, to remove a nuisance. I believe there are methods which do not threaten animal life (e.g. deterrence, trapping), which can and should be used in place of methods that take life. However, since I do value Reason, and I'm not an absolutist, I would also say that there's room for reasonable discussion of the wisdom of my approach, room to consider all alternatives, and room to reach an arrangement acceptable to everyone. I don't say that animal life always comes before human life, or vice versa, but rather I try to consider each issue case-by-case, applying my values in a rational, and hopefully loving way, according to my hierarchy.
How does this relate to my views on drugs and drug legalization? Well, in my view the Freedom of Self-Sovereignty dictates that I have the freedom to eat, drink, and smoke whatever I choose to. I have the freedom, and thus the right, to treat my mind and body as I wish, whether that's with tattoos, piercings, hairstyle, clothing, music, meditation, prayer, drugs, or suicide. Abe claims that if I make the argument that bow hunting shouldn't be allowed on one's own property, that my argument that drug use should be allowed on my property can't be supported. I disagree -- I place Freedom of Self-Sovereignty higher than Freedom of Property. Although the Freedoms of Action and Property suggest that laws restricting private use of property are improper and invalid, I don't believe those Freedoms are absolute, so I don't support a blanket freedom to any action whatsoever on one's property. However, I believe that the Freedom of Self-Sovereignty applies to one's body only, regardless of where one is; it isn't contingent on being on one's property or at home. Clearly though, it applies especially on one's own property, although of course subject to reasonable discussion, as always. But it's conceivable that if I were on someone else's property, and the owner didn't want me using drugs there, that I might support his Freedom of Property over my Freedom of Self-Sovereignty, and support a law allowing him to restrict my fundamental right of Self-Sovereignty. Nevertheless, following the ultimate values of Love and Respect, I would prefer exercising my values of Mutual Consent and Cooperation, and coming to an agreement to the satisfaction of all without a law, in an arrangement where I can exercise my Freedom, and the other owner can exercise his. If we can't reach such an agreement, than the values of Love and Respect tell me that I should honor his values as well, and voluntarily give up my freedom in this case.
You might wonder how this would apply to abortion, since I'm pro-choice. How can that be if I place such a high value on Life? Well, on a fundamental level I do not think abortion is a good thing, because it terminates a pregnancy, a fetus, a life, a pre-life, or whatever you want to call it. No one should make that decision cavalierly. Nevertheless, I value Love and Compassion towards existing beings even more highly, and in this case since the life is wholly contained within another's body, I have to respect and honor that woman's decision. I have to give up my desire to maintain all life, in order to maintain a loving and respectful relationship with the life-bearer. I do wish fewer abortions were performed, and I'd support voluntary measures that helped reduce them, such as increased access to education and contraception. But I cannot respond to abortion the same as I would to murder, since the lives are very, very different in many ways, and treating a fetus's life the same as a child's would result in unbearable legal and moral complications and contradictions.
This discussion is probably confusing to many, seemingly inconsistent, and possibly self-serving and unreasonable. I understand those criticisms and welcome feedback. But I can't be any different than I am; I simply strive to understand myself, act in accordance with my principles, but above all to improve my treatment of others and to act with Love as much as I can.
Ultimately, I'm not losing any sleep on bow hunting being allowed, banned, encouraged, discouraged, or whatever. I'd prefer the varmints not get killed or injured. If it were my decision, I'd say no. But I'm not going to make much of a fuss about it one way or another.
