On July 1st, 2015, Cecil the lion, who was being studied by scientists at Oxford University was hunted and killed. Four weeks later, the hunter was identified and moral outrage followed. The story was everywhere. Even Jimmy Kimmel did a monologue on it, grabbing over a million views in day.

While I have considerable concerns about this act, the moral outrage following this event is troubling and chock-full of hypocrisy.

First, while the event happened on July 1st, the outrage didn’t occur until 4 weeks later when the man responsible was identified. An analysis on google-trends shows a 4-fold increase of ‘concern’ and the Wikipedia page wasn’t even created until July 29th. While the situation surrounding an event can be reason to spark greater outrage, in this instance little information was added when the man was identified. Although many are now suggesting that the hunt itself was illegal because they traveled at night and baited the animal, I doubt many people would be assuaged if Cecil had wandered out himself and the kill was legal.

A number of moral objections can be offered to explain why this killing is worthy of our moral concern but each seems to be clouded in insincerity, or at best, a double-standard.

The first and most obvious objection is the killing of an animal. However, unless one is a staunch vegetarian, this rationalization evidently falls short. Millions of animals are killed every day, Billions every year, with little concern. There were likely thousands of people that posted about their moral outrage and then within 24 hours ate a cow, chicken, or pig. While one may argue that there is a distinction between this lion kill and the millions that happen daily; namely that this was a trophy hunt and not used for food. But once again, this rationalization seems duplicitous. Would people be appeased if the hunters ate the meat after the kill? And where is the outrage over the millions of pound of meat that goes to waste every year? Surely, the waste is not what’s driving the moral concern.

Secondly, is the objection to the motivation of hunting in general. As Kimmel noted to thundering applause “Why is a human being compelled to do that…How is that fun? Is it that difficult for you to get an erection?” And yet, our society is filled with men seeking to prove their masculinity. Perhaps there is no better example than boxing in which the goal is to knock the other person unconscious or at least unable to stand. How is that fun? And why is that ok to support and encourage? And yet Kimmel was not only at a recent fight, but was one of the Manny Paquio’s entourage (a fact I didn’t know until I Googled Kimmel + Boxing). Of course there are moral distinctions between hunting and boxing, consent and death being the most notable, but the point here is to address the moral question of what kind of human being would want to assert their dominance.

Third and perhaps most peculiar, is the disconnect between this one identified death and the over 600 lion hunts that occur each year. Since the story was reported 4 weeks ago, it is very likely that dozens of lions have been hunted and killed. Not to mention there are over 100 million (yes million) animals that are hunted each year. As a psychologists, I understand that we tend to feel a greater emotional response to a single tragedy than to a more abstract one (especially when that tragedy was humanized and given a name) but from a moral reasoning perspective, the obvious disconnect between this single event and the similar events that happen daily is troubling.

Lastly, is the fact that lions are endangered. However, if the threat of extinction was of great concern then why have we heard very little about the fact that five endangered elephants have been killed in the past 24 hours? Or that the petition to save the last of the white rhinos has only received a little over 50,000 signatures compared to ‘Justice for Cecil’s over 500,000.

Perhaps the single most harmful act done by this hunt was that $50,000 was used to do it. $50,000 in Africa could save numerous lives and it is troubling that someone felt that the money was best used for hunting a lion. Of course, we are all guilty of wasting money on frivolous items while so many go hungry and die but the point is to draw the disconnect between the outrage we feel towards the killing of Cecil the lion and the lack of outrage to the hundreds that die needlessly.

Hunting is generally a bad thing. With the exception of certain hunting that helps feed individuals and/or control animal population, it serves little good and does bad. The bad is compounded when the animals are endangered or the animal is helping in the science process (as in this case). Hunting in general should be on people’s minds and the outrage surrounding it should be constant, although tempered. Little good is served by a gut-level response to the death of a single lion, unless it is followed up with consistent indignation towards other hunting (which if the five elephants are indicative, it hasn’t).

Ultimately, like so many ‘outrages of the day’ this one likely will, although unfortunately, be forgotten. Instead, we’ll have destroyed through our shaming the life of a man, while patting ourselves on the back for applying justice and at the same time doing nothing to help save the other animals that will undeniably be hunted and killed.