Risk, struggle and need

We witnessed the obscenity this week of an affluent tourist pointlessly killing and mutilating a beautiful wild lion this week. It served no purpose other than to satisfy some egomaniacal self-indulgence. It proved nothing about his prowess. It didn't feed his children. No point worth making was made.

Hunters who kill for sport should all be put on one big island and made to hunt each other.

A lion has to feed its cubs, and will put itself in danger as it makes whatever efforts necessary to hunt and kill its prey. This is natural and normal. When is it acceptable for a human to hunt and kill? Do we consider the same criteria: risk, struggle and need?

I recall reading a commencement address given by Neil Gaiman in which he pointed out that to succeed in life you need three things: you need to deliver good work, you need to do it on time, and you need people to like you. Accepting that no-one is perfect, he said two out of three would do: you'll accept good work delivered on time even if you are not overly fond of the person; you'll accept something a bit late if the work is good and you like who does it; and you will put up with something a little bit shoddy if you like the guy and he does it on time.

Can we apply the same approach to people who kill animals, adopting the  three criteria of risk, struggle and need? We can accept if someone needs to kill to eat and would expect some effort to limit the animal's suffering and offer respect to a fellow mortal, even though we would spare them any risk if we could. If the need does not exist, do we accept the act if it entails a struggle to prove a point worth making, like the agony - ἀγών - of ancient Greek contests?

However, hunting for sport involves none of this. There is no risk, struggle or need. Hunters who kill for sport should all be put on one big island and made to hunt each other. That would introduce the appropriate levels of risk, struggle and need.