A Response to Hallie

Hallie asks: Do you feel that members of your family or close friends are less ethically in the wrong when they do something you deem to be immoral than people you have never met or do not have a relationship with?

In her post, Hallie mentions how her family hunts deer and later eats the venison. To answer her question, I think some people do feel that their family is less ethically wrong, while others don't but are more willing to forgive or overlook some things like hunting.

Of course, there are some things I would hope people would stop a family member from doing. If anyone in my family were to ever abuse an animal - not feed it enough, not give it enough attention, kick or hit it for no reason - I would speak up and stop it. (Of course, no one in my family ever would do this - it's just an example.) When it comes to strangers, people also speak up in the defense of animals. I've seen enough animal cop shows to know that when people see a major problem with the way an animal is being kept or treated, they report it, whether or not they know the owner of the animal.

Of course, there are differences between keeping a pet and hunting. For one thing, as has been mentioned repeatedly by many people, when a person takes in a pet, they are taking on the moral responsibility for that animal. They need to be the ones to look after it, and if that cannot happen, they should not get a pet in the first place. With hunting, the intention has never been to take care of an animal, but to go out and kill it for a trophy, food, or what-have-you. So perhaps the fact that the animal is going to die or has already died plays a part.

What I would like to know is, is it easier to speak out against something when you know it can be changed (changing the conditions for an abused animal) than when it can't (a deer that has already been killed)? This question is not limited to family and friends or strangers; it can be for both.