- CRUELTY TO ANIMALS [T theEditor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Miss
Frances Pitt solves the problem of the Christian Conscience in its relation to field sports by saying nothing whateirer with which" conscience 'has any cOneern... Her one point seems to be that hunted creatures owe their preservation to field sports, and as their lives are happy and their deaths not 'eery painful, field sports should be continued.
One hopes the hunted animals feel a proper sense of gratitude to their saviours, the sportsmen ! But may one remark that even if they are utterly exterminated through a cessation of field sports, -the Christian- Conscience need not be troubled thereby in the very slightest.
May I crave a few of your valuable lines to rveat the
creed of certain people whose objection to field sfoorts is on moral (as opposed to sentimental) grounds ?
(1) We believe in a Deity who shapes the destiny of every living thing from the amoeba to the philosopher, who marks the sparrow's fall, and who permits none to suffer wrong. •
(2) We believe that man has free will to do evil even if he can suffer none. .
(3) If he uses his free will to cause unnecessary suffering to other creatures he does wrong..
(4) We believe that field sports do cause a certain amount of suffering, and that, as their primary object is the pleasure of filo hunter, they are unnecessary and wrong.
We do not concern ourselves overmuch with the sufferings of the hunted. Indeed, with our conception of the Deity it may be for the ultimate welfare of the fox to be torn to pieces by dogs. But for man deliberately to bring this about for amusement may be a very serious thing for his own soul.- -
Previous page
