“Ethical Shots” — Why the Conversation So Often Breaks Down
By Aaron Peterson — Founder, Hawkeye Ammosmithing
“Data-driven ballistics, tested & proven.”
On this forum, discussions framed around ethics are generally not allowed.
That rule exists because ethics-based arguments are highly subjective and almost always devolve into judgment, escalation, and unproductive debate. By contrast, discussions centered on humane outcomes — quick, clean, repeatable incapacitation — are encouraged because they can be grounded in observable mechanics, biology, and probability.
This article may appear to contradict that rule. It does not.
It exists specifically to explain why ethics-based framing fails, why it repeatedly derails otherwise useful discussions, and why outcome-focused language produces better understanding and better decisions.
This article is not an invitation to debate ethics on the forum. It is an explanation of why those debates are restricted in the first place.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
▣ For The Skimmers: Why Ethics Fails as a Universal Standard
Ethics is subjective. Outcomes are not.
- Ethics is often used to express personal comfort, not technical reality
- Ethics language stops discussion instead of improving understanding
- Capability, equipment, and knowledge vary widely between shooters
- What is humane for one person may be reckless for another
- Ethics often becomes a judgment of the hunter, not the result
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Few words are used more often in modern hunting discussions than “ethical.”
Shots are labeled ethical or unethical. Distances are declared acceptable or irresponsible. Entire methods of hunting are dismissed outright, often with little explanation beyond personal conviction.
The intent behind these statements is usually good. Most hunters genuinely care about minimizing suffering and making clean, responsible kills.
The problem is not concern for humane outcomes.
The problem is that ethics has become one of the most commonly used — and most flawed — frameworks for discussing them.
Why the Word “Ethics” Gets Used So Often
When people use the word ethical in hunting discussions, they are rarely making a philosophical argument.
More often, they are trying to express something simpler:
- discomfort
- caution
- distrust of an outcome
- or concern about animal suffering
The issue is that ethics becomes a shortcut — a way to express discomfort without having to explain why.
Instead of saying:
- “I don’t trust that bullet at that speed,”
- “I don’t understand how that would work,” or
- “That’s outside my experience,”
- “That’s unethical.”
And that is where meaningful discussion usually ends.
Ethics as a Conversation Stopper
Once something is labeled unethical, the discussion quietly changes.
It shifts from:
to:
At that point:
- explanations begin to sound like justifications
- disagreement feels personal
- and learning stops
This happens because ethics is closely tied to identity. Questioning someone’s ethical framing often feels like questioning their character, even when that was never the intent.
This is why ethics-based discussions so often become heated — and why they are a poor tool for technical or educational conversations.
The Hidden Shift Most People Don’t Notice
There is a subtle shift that occurs in these debates, and most people do not realize it has happened.
The discussion moves from:
to:
Rules feel comforting:
- Never past X distance
- Always above Y velocity
- Always get an exit
- Always retain weight
Rules are easy to remember. Easy to repeat. Easy to defend.
But rules are not explanations.
Animals do not respond to rules.
They respond to what physically happens inside the body.
Why This Logic Breaks Down
Animals are incapacitated by physical effects, not moral intent.
They do not know:
- distance
- energy numbers
- velocity thresholds
- or buzzwords
They are affected only by:
- where damage occurs
- how severe it is
- and how quickly vital systems fail
A short shot with the wrong bullet can produce a worse outcome than a longer shot with the right one. A high-energy impact can fail if the bullet does not behave as expected. A lower-energy impact can succeed if it does.
This is not controversial. It is simply reality.
When ethics is reduced to rigid rules, it becomes detached from outcomes.
What Actually Facilitates — or Hinders — Humane Outcomes
Humane outcomes are not determined by intent or labels. They are produced by a chain of factors that must work together. When any part of that chain is misunderstood, mismatched, or overestimated, outcomes suffer — regardless of how ethical the intent may feel.
At a practical level, humane outcomes are most directly influenced by:
Bullet construction and terminal behavior
Bullets are tools with specific design limits. Whether a bullet expands, fragments, penetrates adequately, or fails depends on how well it is matched to the impact conditions. A bullet that performs perfectly in one scenario may perform poorly in another.
Predictable terminal performance
Consistency matters more than spectacle. Humane outcomes rely on bullets behaving predictably, not dramatically. Knowing what a bullet is likely to do in tissue matters more than chasing velocity, energy, or retained weight.
Shot placement relative to anatomy
“Vitals” are not a single point, and animals do not present identical angles. Understanding anatomy in three dimensions — not just aiming at a diagram — plays a major role in how quickly and reliably an animal is incapacitated.
Shooter skill and execution
Fundamentals still matter. Trigger control, stability, recoil management, and follow-through all influence whether the bullet arrives where it needs to. A shot that is humane for one shooter may be irresponsible for another — not because ethics differ, but because execution capability does.
Capability Is the Variable Ethics Language Tries to Ignore
This is where ethics-based reasoning quietly collapses.
Two people can look at the same shot and reach opposite ethical conclusions — and both may believe they are correct.
Why?
Because capability is not evenly distributed.
Relevant factors include:
- rifle accuracy and consistency
- optic quality and reliability
- rangefinding accuracy
- ability to account for wind and environment
- ballistic knowledge
- experience applying firing solutions under field conditions
A shooter operating with limited equipment or limited understanding is working within a much narrower envelope than someone who deeply understands their system and can use it effectively.
Ethics becomes a sliding scale only because capability is a sliding scale.
Ignoring that reality turns ethics into posturing rather than responsibility.
When Ethics Becomes a Judgment of the Hunter
Ethics language is often used not to evaluate outcomes, but to label other hunters as irresponsible, unskilled, or “not real hunters.”
A common example is long-range hunting.
Many people dismiss long-range hunting as unethical outright — not because of outcomes, but because it does not align with their personal definition of what hunting should be. To them, hunting means stalking close, moving through terrain, and engaging at short distances. Long-range hunting is viewed as “just shooting,” lacking the skills they personally value.
At that point, the discussion is no longer about:
- shot quality
- repeatability
- or humane outcomes
It becomes a debate about identity, tradition, and preference, not results.
Those debates cannot be resolved with facts, because they are not about facts.
Why Humane Outcomes Are the Only Common Ground
A humane outcome is simple in concept:
- quick
- clean
- repeatable incapacitation
It does not depend on:
- distance
- weapon type
- personal definitions of hunting
- or stylistic preference
A humane kill is humane whether it occurs:
- at close range or long range
- with a bow, rifle, or anything else
- through stalking, ambush, or open-terrain engagement
Outcome does not care about opinion.
That common ground is where learning happens.
The Real Lightbulb Moment
When people say “that’s unethical,” they are often really saying one of two things:
- “That’s outside my capability.”
- “That doesn’t match my idea of what hunting should look like.”
Neither of those statements is wrong.
But neither defines responsibility for others.
Real responsibility comes from knowing:
- what you can do
- what your equipment can do
- what your bullet will do
- and where those limits actually are
Ethics should emerge naturally from that understanding — not replace it.
Final Thought
When people stop arguing about ethics and start discussing mechanisms and outcomes, conversations improve, tempers cool, and real learning begins.
That is not accidental.
That is the entire point.
By Aaron Peterson — Founder, Hawkeye Ammosmithing
“Data-driven ballistics, tested & proven.”
“Data-driven ballistics, tested & proven.”
Instagram
YouTube
Facebook