Hunting as a way of life is central to many people’s claim of the practice being legitimate. For many the fact that hunting is a way of life pervades their entire outlook about such a practice and in some instances life itself. While the “way of life” argument may at first seem relevant, it tends to rapidly loose ground as the pressure against it builds. However, let us assume that the statement stands unimpeded; hunting is a way of life. One can hardly argue differently given that some cultures embrace hunting and place it as a central aspect of their society. Does this impart us to oblige hunting as a legitimate moral practice? My contention is that it does not.

If an activity is moral or legitimate because it becomes a way of life what can be said of the inevitable competition between other ways of life that contradict it? Simply, hunting may be a way of life for some, but choosing not to hunt is a way of life for others. Here is where the problem arises. If a way of life is legitimate and moral, yet hunting and abstinence from hunting are each a way of life, then they both become legitimate and moral. Yet, both cannot be morally correct for they are in direct opposition to one another. It is readily apparent then that because something is a “way of life” does nothing to assure us of its validity as a moral principle.

Also, one only need look into recent history to find all types of lifestyles that are now considered outdated because our sense of ethics changed. For instance, it used to be a way of life for many individuals to be racist or sexist, yet we do not pretend today as if these modes of living held virtue and encompassed moral principles. They are simply misgivings of a previous culture.