There was a time when hunting an animal for food was necessary for survival, but meat is now processed and packaged for our convenience. I have never hunted an animal, although I have gone fishing, and in some ways I might question whether fishing is as ethical as hunting an animal for food. I remember how I felt when I cast my line, reeling it in slowly in hopes of getting a bite. When I took a bite, the fight between the fish and me was exciting. In retrospect, the same feeling is similar to that of a hunter after stalking and killing a deer or elk. However, is the feeling of excitement when you have caught and killed an animal correct? Should we rationalize the slaughter of an animal for food in order to mask the excitement that comes from the slaughter? I would say yes to that, because I really didn't need that fish for food, even though I ate it, I still enjoyed catching it. Yet there are those who hunt for food; in remote areas, it would be easier to hunt game than to drive 20 or 30 miles to the local town to buy a hamburger. Perhaps there is a justification for them to hunt. As Peter Singer writes, "Eskimos living in an environment where they must kill animals for food or starve might be right to claim that their interest in survival outweighs that of the animals they kill." » (Singer) However, this still doesn't answer the question. Is it still an ethical question to hunt and kill an animal for food? However, many would argue that hunting an animal for food is justified because it helps herd herds by culling them and protects them from overpopulation that could lead to starvation. , disease or predation. Slaughter is a naturalistic fallacy based on a false premise that we are saving the animal from a terrible, long-term death, which is not... middle of paper ......wrong but a question of caring about the human response. to this. He did not believe in consequences but in the intention of an action. His hunting test would be his categorical imperative, if hunting an animal for food were something we could imagine others doing. Then, to hunt, whatever the consequences for the animal, our intention is justified. (Rosenstand)Ultimately, the debate over the ethics of hunting an animal for food will continue. A utilitarian would argue that the harm to humans is greater than the harm to the animal and therefore hunting is justified. Deontologists would say that animals are just simple things and the intention to feed themselves or their family makes it justifiable. However, Tom Regan and Pete Singer believe that eating an animal is not justifiable. So where does this leave us? Ultimately, it is everyone's choice to hunt and live with the consequences of that choice.