There was a time when hunting an animal for food was necessary for survival, but now meat is processed and packaged for our convenience. I have never hunted an animal, although I have gone fishing and, in some respects, I might question whether fishing is as ethical as hunting an animal for food. I remember what it felt like to cast the line, slowly reeling it in hoping to get a bite. When I ate, the fight between me and the fish was electrifying. In retrospect, the same feeling a hunter has after chasing and killing a deer or elk. However, is the feeling of excitement when you have caught and killed an animal right? Do we rationalize the killing of an animal for food to mask the excitement that comes from the killing? I would say yes, because I didn't really need that fish as food, even if I ate it, I still enjoyed catching it. Yet, there are those who hunt for food, in remote areas it would be easier to hunt game than drive 20 or 30 miles to the local town for a hamburger. Perhaps there is a justification for them to hunt. As Peter Singer writes, "Eskimos living in an environment in which they must kill animals for food or starve might be justified in arguing that their interest in survival outweighs that of the animals they kill." question: is it still ethical to hunt and kill an animal for food? However, many argue that hunting an animal for food is justified because it helps maintain herds through culling and protects them from overpopulation that could lead to starvation, disease, or predation. Culling is a naturalistic fallacy based on the false premise that we are saving the animal from a terrible and prolonged death, which is not... a paper... mistake, but is worrying about man's response to it. He didn't believe in consequences but in the intent of an action. His test for hunting would be his categorical imperative, if hunting an animal for food were something we could imagine others doing. So hunting, regardless of the consequences for the animal, our intent is justified. (Rosenstand) Ultimately, the debate over the ethics of hunting an animal for food will continue. A utilitarian would argue that the harm to humans is greater than the harm to animals, so hunting is justified. Deontologists argue that animals are mere things and that the intent to feed yourself or your family makes it justifiable. However, Tom Regan and Pete Singer believe that eating an animal is not justifiable. So where does this leave us? Ultimately, it is each person's choice to hunt and live with the consequences of that choice