scholarly journals Welcoming, Wild Animals, and Obligations to Assist

Author(s):  
Josh Milburn

AbstractWhat we could call ‘relational non-interventionism’ holds that we have no general obligation to alleviate animal suffering, and that we do not typically have special obligations to alleviate wild animals’ suffering. Therefore, we do not usually have a duty to intervene in nature to alleviate wild animal suffering. However, there are a range of relationships that we may have with wild animals that do generate special obligations to aid—and the consequences of these obligations can be surprising. In this paper, it is argued that we have special obligations to those animals we have historically welcomed or encouraged into our spaces. This includes many wild animals. One of the consequences of this is that we may sometimes possess obligations to actively prevent rewilding—or even to dewild—for the sake of welcomed animals who thrive in human-controlled spaces.

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 7-19
Author(s):  
Clare Palmer ◽  

In this paper, I consider whether we should offer assistance to both wild and domesticated animals when they are suffering. I argue that we may have different obligations to assist wild and domesticated animals because they have different morally-relevant relationships with us. I explain how different approaches to animal ethics, which, for simplicity, I call capacity-oriented and context-oriented, address questions about animal assistance differently. I then defend a broadly context-oriented approach, on which we have special obligations to assist animals that we have made vulnerable to or dependent on us. This means that we should normally help suffering domesticated animals, but that we lack general obligations to assist wild animals, since we are not responsible for their vulnerability. However, we may have special obligations to help wild animals where we have made them vulnerable to or dependent on us (by habitat destruction or by captivity, for instance). I consider some obvious difficulties with this context-oriented approach, and I conclude by looking more closely at the question whether we should intervene, if we could do so successfully, to reduce wild animal suffering by reducing predation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Johannsen

In light of the extent of wild animal suffering, some philosophers have adopted the view that we should cautiously assist wild animals on a large scale. Recently, their view has come under criticism. According to one objection, even cautious intervention is unjustified because fallibility is allegedly intractable. By contrast, a second objection states that we should abandon caution and intentionally destroy habitat in order to prevent wild animals from reproducing. In my paper, I argue that intentional habitat destruction is wrong because negative duties are more stringent than positive duties. However, I also argue that the possible benefits of ecological damage, combined with the excusability of unintended, unforeseeable harm, suggest that fallibility should not paralyse us.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Dustin Crummett

Abstract It may be possible, now or in the future, for humans to technologically intervene to reduce the amount of suffering experienced by wild animals. There is a debate about whether, if humans can do this, they should. Here, I consider the implications for this debate of the theological claim that humans have been granted dominion over the other animals. I argue that it's more plausible to interpret the dominion claim as granting humans (i) the responsibility to care for the well-being of individual animals than to interpret it as giving humans either (ii) the right to do whatever they want to other animals or (iii) the responsibility to care only for the well-being of aggregates of animals (such as whole species). I then show how this understanding of dominion undermines a range of arguments against intervening to reduce wild animal suffering. These arguments claim that humans do not stand in the right sort of relationship for intervention to be obligatory (or perhaps even permissible). But if we possess such dominion, we do stand in the right sort of relationship for it to be obligatory.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtney Henry ◽  
Vincent Chow ◽  
Nadine Grinberg

A new study examines the available literature on the moral consideration ofanimals in ChinaChina has a huge land mass and the largest human population. It’s home to a vast wildanimal population and is among the largest users of animals globally. For thesereasons, attitudes and policies towards nonhuman attitudes have a large and growingimpact both domestically and internationally. There is little animal advocacy in Chinaand it's essential to research ways to incorporate concern for wild animal suffering asthe movement develops.The objectives, methods, and limitations of this studyA recent literature review examined the current attitudes and legal protection ofnonhuman animals in China. Its purpose is to help animal advocates understand howto effectively expand animal advocacy in the country, with a particular focus on wildanimals. The study, “A literature review of the current consideration of animals inChina,” was conducted by Courtney Henry, Vincent Ya-Shun Chow, and NadineGrinberg, in partnership with Animal Ethics.There is useful work about about animal protection in China and about China’s legal,social, and cultural perspectives on animals but to our knowledge there has not been asystematic review of the literature related to animal advocacy in China, particularlyliterature relevant to wild animals. One limitation of this study is that there is littleliterature relating to how organizations can effectively advocate for wild animals inChina.ResultsThe literature discusses both the plight of animals and perspectives on how it might beimproved. It covers animals in general, animals used for food, animals as companions,and animals living in the wild. The study did not find any literature that directlyaddresses wild animal suffering, though the authors did find discussion of somerelated issues. The literature reflects an increasing interest in the moral considerationof animals. Among academics, there is a rising growing debate about speciesist ideas .The literature indicates suggests how that arguments taken from Chinesephilosophical traditions, such as Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism can have moreimpact in this debate than the appeal to ideas used in Western philosophical schools.In addition, the review indicates that Chinese animal protection laws are limited, andoften not effectively enforced.Although there is little literature on animal advocacy in China, Although there hasbeen little animal advocacy in China, there has been some positive shifts in attitudesamong the Chinese public towards animals in general, animals used for food, andanimals kept as companions. Young people, educated people, and those who live withcompanion animals seem to be increasingly open to animal advocacy.However, the literature shows little awareness of wild animal suffering as a cause.Species conservation is commonly confused with the protection of wild animals asindividuals. There is not much interest in the wellbeing of individuals except for somecharismatic animals such as pandas.A discussion of the main resultsThe literature reflects growing concern about the moral consideration of animals inChina, and this concern may grow more rapidly in the future due to more favorableattitudes among younger and more educated people. Connecting this growing concernwith Chinese philosophical tradition could help to increase interest in this issue.Animal protection laws and policies are weak and it appears that people concernedabout the suffering of animals have not been able able to influence them. This is notunique to China; countries around the world have inadequate laws to protectnonhuman animals.A major impediment is the conflation of the idea of protecting animals as individualswith conservation of species. This problem is found around the world, and itis presentin China because there is so little discussion there of wild animal suffering. However,among the general public and policymakers, there is a great interest in charismaticanimals such as pandas, and this may provide an opportunity to introduce the conceptof wild animal suffering and the need for research in this area.Another important confusion is between the wellbeing of animals and their survival.This confusion could be reduced by interventions to reduce the suffering ofcharismatic animals such as pandas, interventions which may be well received by thepublic because of favorable attitudes towards these animals. An example would beinterventions to help pandas. Such interventions would require research focused onthe wellbeing of animals as individuals, and would stimulate further research on thetopic. Both favorable attitudes and research are critical to the success of efforts to helpwild animals.Using dogs for food is a controversial issue in China. Although there is no logicalreason to view dogs differently from other animals used for the same purpose,


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ole Martin Moen

<p class="normal">Animal ethics has received a lot of attention over the last four decades. Its focus, however, has almost exclusively been on the welfare of captive animals, ignoring the vast majority of animals: those living in the wild. I suggest that this one-sided focus is unwarranted. On the empirical side, I argue that wild animals overwhelmingly outnumber captive animals, and that billions of wild animals are likely to have lives that are even more painful and distressing than those of their captive counterparts. On the normative side, I argue that as long as we have duties of assistance towards humans suffering from natural causes, and we reject anthropocentrism, we also have duties of assistance towards animals suffering in the wild.</p><p class="normal">Article first published online: 22 MARCH 2016</p>


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 408-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiwen Chang

In China, the wild animals and animal products that are sold through illegal trafficking are mainly those that can be made into medicines; are raw materials in the form of ivory, rhinoceros horns, and turtle shells; and are edible or have ornamental value, such as birds, monkeys, turtles, and lizards. Due to its rapid economic development over the past decade, China has become one of the world's largest wildlife markets. The main reasons for trafficking are a lack of viable substitutes for raw materials used in traditional Chinese medicines (e.g., bear bile, bear bile powder, pangolin, and other products); a preference in traditional food culture for delicacies made from wildlife; and of the private consumption by some rich and corrupt government officials of tiger's meat, bear's paw, pangolin and other wild animal products—bear's paw and pangolin being the most popular. This type of wild animal trafficking endangers the safety of animal species protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and damages the international image of the government and people of China. Since 2013, under the frame of construction of ecological civilization, China has taken stricter measures on legislation, administrative enforcement, judicial adjudication, and international cooperation on prevention and punishment of illegal trafficking.


2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 257-262
Author(s):  
Katie Woolaston

Animal lawyers in Australia and around the world often struggle to find room in law to participate in decision-making and give animals a voice. Collaborative governance is a regulatory mechanism that has the potential to overcome this struggle. This ‘new governance’ is of growing importance in environmental and natural resource management, premised on decentralised decision-making and removal of permanent hierarchies. This article will utilise two case studies to outline the benefits of legally integrated collaborative processes for wild animal welfare, including the allocation of a permanent voice in regulation for animal advocates and the ability to promote internalisation of animal-friendly norms.


Animals ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gemma Carder ◽  
Tinka Plese ◽  
Fernando Machado ◽  
Suzanne Paterson ◽  
Neil Matthews ◽  
...  

The use of wild animals as photo props is prevalent across the globe and is widely recognised to represent a potential animal welfare concern. However, detailed information regarding the specific impacts of such activity on wild animal behaviour is currently lacking. Herein, we investigated how brown-throated three-toed sloths (Bradypus variegatus) were handled by tourists, and how sloths behaved during wildlife ‘selfies’ taken in Manaus, Brazil and Puerto Alegria and Iquitos in Peru. In total, we observed 17 sloths (during 70 focal observations) that were provided for use in wildlife selfies on 34 different tours. We found that an average number of 5 people held each sloth during each focal observation. For 48.6% of the time the sloths were handled in a way which involved physical manipulation of the sloths’ head and/or limbs and/or being held by the claws. From the eight different types of sloth behaviour observed, we found that the two types performed for the longest average duration of time were surveillance (55.3%) and limb stretching (12.6%). Our findings show that when being handled sloths were frequently held in ways that may compromise their welfare. Although to date the behaviour of sloths while being handled has not been reported in any published literature, in this study we document certain behaviours which may act as indicators of compromised welfare. We suggest that our data provides a potential baseline for future study into the behaviour and welfare of sloths.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-207
Author(s):  
Ivica Gjurovski ◽  
Monika Dovenska ◽  
Aleksandar Janevski ◽  
Trpe Ristoski

Abstract The illegal poisoning of dogs and other domestic and wild animals presents a worldwide problem causing animal suffering and R. Macedonia is not an exeption. The goal of this study is to make a comparison of the results from the histopathological examination conducted among poisoned dogs in the Republic of Macedonia. Morphological and histopathological changes in poisoned dogs were investigated for a period of 10 years. The examination was performed on 31 dogs, 13 of which were home kept, 7 were street dogs and 11 of unknown origin. The most significant necropsy findings concerned the inflammatory and necrotic processes of the gastrointestinal tract. The histopathological changes were mainly located in the kidneys, stomach, intestines and the lungs.


2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 252-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Viney

The gut microbiota can have important, wide-ranging effects on its host. To date, laboratory animals, particularly mice, have been the major study system for microbiota research. It is now becoming increasingly clear that laboratory animals often poorly model aspects of the biology of wild animals, and this concern extends to the study of the gut microbiota. Here, the relatively few studies of the microbiota of wild rodents are reviewed, including a critical assessment of how the gut microbiota differs between laboratory and wild rodents. Finally, the many potential advantages and opportunities of wild-animal systems for research into the gut microbiota are considered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document