Update on Live-shot.com
The Washington Post runs an update on Live-shot.com and the immense legislative response to shut down the website. Meanwhile, due to the apparent magnitude and time-criticalness of the problem, the California Fish & Game Department is rushing to prepare ”emergency” regulations to prohibit Internet hunting.
I find it interesting that hunters have stated, in such emphatic terms, exactly what constitutes “hunting.” It reminds me a little of the debate taking place among virtual world scholars about what constitutes a “game.” Is Internet hunting “hunting,” a “game,” or something else?
I’m less interested in the semantics and more interested in how we morally justify hunting generally. Why is shooting animals in person is OK but shooting animals via the Internet is wrong? The outcome is the same (dead animals). The process is the same (pull trigger/click mouse). The morality, in my book, is the same (killing for “sport” seems equally questionable to me). If we could answer why allowing hunting is good social policy from a holistic perspective (i.e., not just that it’s tradition), then perhaps we could be more accurate why we shouldn’t allow Internet hunting. My suspicion is that there’s no rigorous way to distinguish the two. Certainly I can’t haven’t seen a valid distinction yet.
You can read my several other rants opposing the regulation of Internet hunting here.