Response to Todd's Argument For Hunting

Todd argued that subsistence hunting is the only morally defensible type of hunting. If people cannot get food from any other source, then we have no right to tell them they can't hunt. I agree with Todd that if hunting is necessary for some people to survive, then it is morally defensible for them to do so. However, I do not agree with how he got to that conclusion. Todd states that "An animal would kill to survive, so I justify it here on that basis" regarding hunting for food. In the beginning of the semester we discussed the fact that animals are moral patients and humans are moral agents. As moral agents, we can make "right" or "wrong" decisions. However, animals, being moral patients, cannot be held accountable for their actions. So, yes, an animal would kill to survive. And I happen to agree that humans can also kill to survive without being morally wrong. But you cannot make the jump from "animals do it" to "so we should do it too" without assuming that animals and humans both have the same capabilities of moral reasoning.

Question: Are there degrees of moral agency?