Do Scrutons arguments show that fox-hunting is always morally justifiable?
Scruton begins with a contractarian argument. Animals do not have rights, as they are incapable of agreeing to assume the associated duties. Grant rights to a fox, and it becomes duty bound to respect the rights of its prey, which is unreasonable to expect. However, in common with contractarians such a Hume and Rawls, he goes on to say that although animals have no rights, we still have duties towards them. However, this only applies to animals we have assumed a duty of care over. It does not apply to individual wild animals. The hunted fox has no rights, and we have no duty of care towards it. Thus, hunting cannot simply be immediately condemned [p185]. However, we do have duties towards ‘foxes’ as part of our wider duties towards the environment. This is more of a virtue ethics style approach. Our duties towards the environment are part of our obligation to uphold the virtues of sympathy and piety. He summarises his argument in four principles: – • We must maintain, so far as possibl
