The killing of Cecil the lion has sparked a debate about trophy hunting, but relatively little discussion focuses on whether trophy hunting is morally justified with reference to the interests of animals.
There is good reason to think hunting for sport is morally wrong. Here is one simple and compelling argument, inspired by the philosopher Mark Rowlands ( Animal Rights: All that Matters, 2013, Hodder & Stoughton): sentient animals matter morally to us because, like us, they have basic and vital interests (remain alive, stay safe, avoid suffering).
If they matter morally, then it is wrong to frustrate their vital interests, unless this promotes comparably vital human interests. Like bullfighting or dogfighting, trophy hunting is a blood sport: a sport aimed at (or which inevitably results in) killing an animal.
Killing lions for sport violates their (most basic) and vital interest in remaining alive.
Does it promote vital human interests? It is hard to defend the view that sport, entertainment, or spectacle, even profit for a private game reserve owner, are comparably vital human interests. Even if these were vital human interests, it is not necessary to hunt to satisfy these interests.
Wildlife tourism generates profits and revenues for conservation; and non-blood sports promote spectacle and entertainment. So trophy hunting is by default morally wrong,
Of course wildlife conservation and biodiversity are good; and of course we need money for conservation. But we should promote both without hunting.
Andrew Fisher
Rondebosch