Relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics

A tadpole as an individual animal. Animal ethicists generally focus on the well-being and interests of sentient individuals.
A rainforest as an ecosystem. Environmental ethicists generally focus on the preservation of biodiversity, ecosystems, species, and other ecological entities.

The relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics concerns differences between the ethical consideration of individual nonhuman animals, particularly animals living outside direct human control, and the ethical consideration of species, populations and ecosystems. The intersection of these fields is a recurring topic in vegan discourse.[1]

Overview

Animal ethicists generally place the well-being and interests of sentient individuals at the centre of their concern, while environmental ethicists often focus on the preservation of biodiversity, populations, ecosystems, species, and nature itself.[2][3] Animal ethicists may also value these entities, but usually on the grounds that they are instrumentally valuable to sentient individuals.[4]

Environmental ethicists may regard it as justified to remove or kill individual animals belonging to introduced species when they are considered a threat to ecological entities such as endangered or native species. In such views, members of rare or native species may be treated as more valuable than members of more common or introduced species.[5] These actions are frequently opposed by animal ethicists, who may assign different degrees of value to individual animals according to their level of sentience and reject whether an animal belongs naturally to a place as morally decisive.[2] On this view, the individual's capacity to suffer is central.[5]

Environmental ethicists may support hunting when it is considered ecologically beneficial, even though it harms individual animals.[6][7] Some animal ethicists argue that humans have a moral obligation to take steps to reduce wild animal suffering, a position normally rejected by environmental ethicists.[8]

These disagreements have led some ethicists to argue that animal ethics and environmental ethics are incompatible,[8][9] while others argue that the two positions can be reconciled, or that the disagreement is narrower than it first appears.[10][11]

Perspectives

Animal ethicists

Animal rights philosopher Tom Regan, in a 1981 paper, described an environmental ethic in which "nonconscious natural objects can have value in their own right, independently of human interests".[12] In The Case for Animal Rights (1982), Regan argued that it is difficult to reconcile Aldo Leopold's holistic land ethic, in which the "individual may be sacrificed for the greater biotic good", with animal rights. He concluded that Leopold's view could be labelled "environmental fascism".[13]

The utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, in Practical Ethics, argues for an environmental ethic that "fosters consideration for the interests of all sentient creatures, including subsequent generations stretching into the far future".[14]

Eze Paez and Catia Faria argue that animal ethics and environmental ethics have "incompatible criteria of moral considerability" and "incompatible normative implications regarding the interests of sentient individuals". They also argue that environmental ethics does not provide an adequate account of wild animal suffering.[8] Oscar Horta has argued that, contrary to initial appearances, "biocentric views should strongly support intervention" to reduce the suffering of wild animals.[10]

Environmental ethicists

J. Baird Callicott, in his 1980 paper "Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair", argued for "intractable practical differences" between Leopold's land ethic, taken as a model of environmental ethics, and the ethical foundations of the animal liberation movement.[9] Mark Sagoff made a similar argument in his 1984 paper "Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce", stating that "[e]nvironmentalists cannot be animal liberationists. Animal liberationists cannot be environmentalists".[15] In a 1988 follow-up paper, Callicott expressed regret over the conflict that his earlier paper had prompted, stating that "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".[11]

Michael Hutchins and Christin Wemmer, in their 1986 paper "Wildlife Conservation and Animal Rights: Are They Compatible?", described the animal-liberation position as "biologically illiterate and thus ill-equipped to provide an intelligent basis for wildlife conservation"; they also stated that "ethical philosophy faces a severe test when it comes to the conservation problem".[16]

In a 1992 paper, Ned Hettinger raised the predation problem in response to animal rights criticism of Holmes Rolston's environmental ethics and his support for hunting. Hettinger stated that "[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".[17]

Dale Jamieson has argued that animal liberation is not separate from environmental ethics, but is itself an environmental ethic, and should be welcomed by environmental ethicists.[18]

Ricardo Rozzi has criticised animal ethicists for "taxonomic chauvinism" and has urged them to "reevaluate the participation of invertebrates in the moral community".[19]

See also

References

  1. ^ Mishori, Daniel (2017-01-26). "Environmental Vegetarianism: Conflicting Principles, Constructive Virtues". The Law & Ethics of Human Rights. 11 (2): 253–284. doi:10.1515/lehr-2017-0008. ISSN 2194-6531. S2CID 148613236.
  2. ^ a b 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.
  3. ^ Lepeltier, Thomas (2020-07-13). "L'écologie va-t-elle tuer l'antispécisme ?" [Will ecology kill antispeciesism?]. L'Amorce (in Canadian French). Retrieved 2020-08-15.
  4. ^ Russell, Denise; Singer, Peter (1997-01-01). "An Interview with Professor Peter Singer". Animal Issues. 1 (1). ISSN 1328-8202.
  5. ^ a b Schmithausen, Lambert (2000). "Buddhism and the Ethics of Nature—Some Remarks". The Eastern Buddhist. 32 (2): 26–78. ISSN 0012-8708. JSTOR 44362258.
  6. ^ Cahoone, Lawrence (2009). "Hunting as a Moral Good". Environmental Values. 18 (1): 67–89. doi:10.3197/096327109X404771. ISSN 0963-2719. JSTOR 30302116.
  7. ^ 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.
  8. ^ a b c 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.
  9. ^ a b Callicott, J. Baird (1980). "Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair" (PDF). Environmental Ethics. 2 (4): 311–338. doi:10.5840/enviroethics19802424. ISSN 0163-4275. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-08-25.
  10. ^ a b 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. hdl:10347/20000. ISSN 1718-9977.
  11. ^ a b 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.
  12. ^ Regan, Tom (1981). "The Nature and Possibility of an Environmental Ethic". Environmental Ethics. 3 (1): 19–34. doi:10.5840/enviroethics19813131. ISSN 0163-4275.
  13. ^ Regan, Tom (2004). The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. p. 361. ISBN 978-0-520-24386-6.
  14. ^ Singer, Peter (2011). Practical Ethics (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 254. ISBN 978-0-521-88141-8. OCLC 656771972.
  15. ^ Sagoff, Mark (Summer 1984). "Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce". Osgoode Hall Law Journal. 22 (2): 297–307. doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1936.
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ 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.
  18. ^ Jamieson, Dale (1998). "Animal Liberation is an Environmental Ethic". Environmental Values. 7 (1): 41–57. doi:10.3197/096327198129341465. ISSN 0963-2719. JSTOR 30302268.
  19. ^ Rozzi, Ricardo (2019-05-01). "Taxonomic Chauvinism, No More!: Antidotes from Hume, Darwin, and Biocultural Ethics". Environmental Ethics. 41 (3): 249–282. doi:10.5840/enviroethics201941325. S2CID 221094321. Retrieved 2021-02-10.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.