In Doug's case, he's a "lady killer".
I used to hunt, until the Army made me a hunter of men. I don't hunt anymore.
killing to eat it would be fine
killing just for sake of killing no.
You keep making this point, so now you have me curious. What qualifies as objective proof that something is immoral or wrong? On the flip side, what could objectively prove that it's moral or right? For example, hypothetically speaking, what would prove that hunting is objectively right or wrong?
Okay, a few more questions just to be sure I understand. It seems that you do not believe that you can ever objectively prove that hunting is morally wrong, and I do not disagree with you. However, for your point to be valid in this debate we must agree that laws are based on objective morality, and that is where I fail to understand your point.
My question to you: Are laws based on an objective moral truth? If so, what behaviors are objectively wrong, and what does the measure of wrongness look like? Finally, why is hunting different than those behaviors that you find immoral?
Laws are in place to regulate behavior, mostly to avoid behavior which is deemed harmful to society but also to promote behavior which is beneficial.
As such, how would a ban on hunting benefit society?
A religious society bases its laws on morality (moral "truth"). A secular society bases its laws on reason.
Not quite correct, morality is based on actions, not feelings (or thoughts, for those of us who are led by thoughts and not feelings).
I distinguish between morality, based on prescriptions like The 10 Commandments or The Golden Rule, and ethics, based on reason and evidence.