Relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics

The relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics concerns the differing ethical consideration of individual animals—particularly those living in spaces outside of direct human control—and entities such as species or ecosystems.

A tadpole; an individual animal. Animal ethicists place the well-being and interests of sentient individuals at the center of their moral concern
A rainforest; a biodiverse ecosystem. Environmental ethicists place the preservation of entities, such as these, at the center of their moral concern

Generally, animal ethicists place the well-being and interests of sentient individuals at the center of their concern, while environmental ethicists focus on the preservation of biodiversity, populations, ecosystems, species and nature itself.[1][2] Animal ethicists may also give value to these entities, but only so far as they are instrumentally valuable to sentient individuals.[3] Environmental ethicists consider it justifiable to remove or kill individual animals who threaten the preservation of ecological entities, which is frequently opposed by animal ethicists.[1] Consequently, environmental ethicists may support hunting, which harms individual animals, in cases when it is ecologically beneficial.[4][5] Some animal ethicists argue that we have a moral obligation to take steps to reduce wild animal suffering; this is something that environmental ethicists are normally against.[6]

These differences of opinion have led some ethicists to argue that animal ethics and environmental ethics are incompatible,[6][7] while others assert that the positions are reconcilable, or that the disagreements are not as strong as they first appear.[8][9]

Perspectives

Animal ethicists

Animal rights philosopher Tom Regan, in his 1981 paper, conceived of an environmental ethic in which "nonconscious natural objects can have value in their own right, independently of human interests".[10] In his 1982 book, The Case for Animal Rights, Regan argued that it is difficult to reconcile Aldo Leopold's holistic land ethic, where the "individual may be sacrificed for the greater biotic good", with the concept of animal rights and that, as a result, Leopold's view could justly be labelled as "environmental fascism".[11]

The utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, in Practical Ethics, argues for an environmental ethic which "fosters consideration for the interests of all sentient creatures, including subsequent generations stretching into the far future."[12]

Eze Paez and Catia Faria assert that animal and environmental ethics "have incompatible criteria of moral considerability" and "incompatible normative implications regarding the interests of sentient individuals"; they also claim that environmental ethics fails to give a proper account of the problem of wild animal suffering.[6] Oscar Horta has argued that contrary to first appearances, "biocentric views should strongly support intervention" to relieve the suffering of animals in the wild.[8]

Environmental ethicists

J. Baird Callicott, in his 1980 paper "Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair", was the first environmental philosopher to argue for "intractable practical differences" between the ethical foundations of Leopold's land ethic, taken as a paradigm for environmental ethics, with those of the animal liberation movement.[7] Mark Sagoff made a similar case in his 1984 paper "Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce", stating "[e]nvironmentalists cannot be animal liberationists. Animal liberationists cannot be environmentalists".[13] In a follow-up paper, published in 1988, Callicott lamented the conflict that his earlier paper had sparked, stating "it would be far wiser to make common cause against a common enemy — the destructive forces at work ravaging the nonhuman world — than to continue squabbling among ourselves".[9]

Michael Hutchins and Christin Wemmer in their 1986 paper "Wildlife Conservation and Animal Rights: Are They Compatible?", labelled the position of animal liberationists as "biologically illiterate and thus ill-equipped to provide an intelligent basis for wildlife conservation"; however, they conceded that "ethical philosophy faces a severe test when it comes to the conservation problem."[14]

Dale Jaimeson has argued that rather than being distinct positions, "animal liberation is an environmental ethic" and that it should be welcomed back by environmental ethicists.[15]

In a 1992 paper, Ned Hettinger raises the predation problem, in response to animal rights activists criticizing the environmental ethics of Holmes Rolston and his support of hunting, stating "[b]y arguing that humans should not join other predators and must not kill animals for basic needs, animal activists risk being committed to the view that all carnivorous predation is intrinsically evil".[16]

See also

References
  1. Gamborg, C.; Palmer, C.; Sandoe, P. (2012). "Ethics of Wildlife Management and Conservation: What Should We Try to Protect?". Nature Education Knowledge. 3 (10): 8.
  2. Lepeltier, Thomas (2020-07-13). "L'écologie va-t-elle tuer l'antispécisme ?" [Will ecology kill antispeciesism?]. L'Amorce (in French). Retrieved 2020-08-15.
  3. Russell, Denise; Singer, Peter (1997-01-01). "An Interview with Professor Peter Singer". Animal Issues. 1 (1). ISSN 1328-8202.
  4. Cahoone, Lawrence (2009). "Hunting as a Moral Good". Environmental Values. 18 (1): 67–89. doi:10.3197/096327109X404771. ISSN 0963-2719. JSTOR 30302116.
  5. Varner, Gary (2011-10-26). Beauchamp, Tom L; Frey, R. G (eds.). "Environmental Ethics, Hunting, and the Place of Animals". The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195371963.001.0001. ISBN 9780195371963. Retrieved 2020-08-15.
  6. Faria, Catia; Paez, Eze (July 2019). "It's Splitsville: Why Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics Are Incompatible". American Behavioral Scientist. 63 (8): 1047–1060. doi:10.1177/0002764219830467. ISSN 0002-7642. S2CID 150854523.
  7. Callicott, J. Baird (1980). "Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair" (PDF). Environmental Ethics. 2 (4): 311–338. doi:10.5840/enviroethics19802424. ISSN 0163-4275.
  8. Horta, Oscar (2018). "Concern for Wild Animal Suffering and Environmental Ethics: What Are the Limits of the Disagreement?". Les Ateliers de l'Éthique. 13 (1): 85–100. doi:10.7202/1055119ar. ISSN 1718-9977.
  9. Callicott, J. Baird (1988-07-01). "Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Back Together Again". Between the Species. 4 (3). doi:10.15368/bts.1988v4n3.1.
  10. Regan, Tom; Center for Environmental Philosophy, The University of North Texas (1981). "The Nature and Possibility of an Environmental Ethic". Environmental Ethics. 3 (1): 19–34. doi:10.5840/enviroethics19813131. ISSN 0163-4275.
  11. Regan, Tom (2004). The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. p. 361. ISBN 978-0-520-24386-6.
  12. Singer, Peter (2011). Practical Ethics (Third ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 254. ISBN 978-0-521-88141-8. OCLC 656771972.
  13. Sagoff, Mark (Summer 1984). "Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce". Osgoode Hall Law Journal. 22 (2): 297–307.
  14. Hutchins, M.; Wemmer, C. (1986). Wildlife Conservation and Animal Rights: Are They Compatible?. Advances in animal welfare science 1986/87. Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States. pp. 111–137.
  15. Jamieson, Dale (1998). "Animal Liberation is an Environmental Ethic". Environmental Values. 7 (1): 41–57. doi:10.3197/096327198129341465. ISSN 0963-2719. JSTOR 30302268.
  16. Hettinger, Ned (1994). "Valuing Predation in Rolston's Environmental Ethics: Bambi Lovers versus Tree Huggers" (PDF). Environmental Ethics. 16 (1): 3–20. doi:10.5840/enviroethics199416138. ISSN 0163-4275.

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.