scholarly journals Beneficence, Non-Identity, and Responsibility: How Identity-Affecting Interventions in Nature can Generate Secondary Moral Duties

Philosophia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary David O’Brien
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Wild Animal ◽  
Moral Reasons ◽  
Wild Animals ◽  
Identity Problem ◽  
Moral Agents ◽  
Knowing That ◽  
Moral Duties

AbstractIn chapter 3 of Wild Animal Ethics Johannsen argues for a collective obligation based on beneficence to intervene in nature in order to reduce the suffering of wild animals. In the same chapter he claims that the non-identity problem is merely a “theoretical puzzle” (p.32) which doesn’t affect our reasons for intervention. In this paper I argue that the non-identity problem affects both the strength and the nature of our reasons to intervene. By intervening in nature on a large scale we change which animals come into existence. In doing so, we enable harmful animals to inflict harms on other animals, and we put other animals in harm’s way. The harms that these animals will inflict and endure are foreseeable. Furthermore, since non-human animals aren’t moral agents, harmful animals cannot be morally responsible for their harmful actions. I argue therefore that by causing animals to exist, knowing that they will inflict and suffer harms, we become morally responsible for those harms. By engaging in identity-affecting actions then we take on secondary moral duties towards the animals we have thereby caused to exist, and these secondary moral duties may be extremely demanding, even more so than the initial costs of intervention. Finally, these duties are duties of justice rather than duties of beneficence, and as such are more stringent than purely beneficence-based moral reasons. Furthermore, this conclusion flows naturally from several plausible principles which Johannsen explicitly endorses.

Should We Offer Assistance to Both Wild and Domesticated Animals?

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 7-19
Author(s):  
Clare Palmer ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Wild Animal ◽  
Habitat Destruction ◽  
Wild Animals ◽  
Animal Suffering ◽  
Domesticated Animals ◽  
Special Obligations ◽  
Oriented Approach ◽  
Do So ◽  
Call Capacity

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.

scholarly journals To Assist or Not to Assist? Assessing the Potential Moral Costs of Humanitarian Intervention in Nature

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Johannsen
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Wild Animal ◽  
Habitat Destruction ◽  
Wild Animals ◽  
Animal Suffering ◽  
Ecological Damage ◽  
Positive Duties ◽  
Negative Duties

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.

scholarly journals The ethics of wild animal suffering

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ole Martin Moen
Keyword(s):  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Wild Animal ◽  
Wild Animals ◽  
Animal Suffering ◽  
In The Wild

<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>

scholarly journals Relationships, Authority, and Reasons: A Second-Personal Account of Corporate Moral Agency

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Alan D. Morrison ◽  
Rita Mota ◽  
William J. Wilhelm
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Culture ◽  
Moral Agency ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Moral Reasons ◽  
Corporate Communications ◽  
Personal Account ◽  
Moral Agents ◽  
Corporate Moral Agency ◽  
Fresh Perspective ◽  
Corporate Punishment

We present a second-personal account of corporate moral agency. This approach is in contrast to the first-personal approach adopted in much of the existing literature, which concentrates on the corporation’s ability to identify moral reasons for itself. Our account treats relationships and communications as the fundamental building blocks of moral agency. The second-personal account rests on a framework developed by Darwall. Its central requirement is that corporations be capable of recognizing the authority relations that they have with other moral agents. We discuss the relevance of corporate affect, corporate communications, and corporate culture to the second-personal account. The second-personal account yields a new way to specify first-personal criteria for moral agency, and it generates fresh insights into the reasons those criteria matter. In addition, a second-personal analysis implies that moral agency is partly a matter of policy, and it provides a fresh perspective on corporate punishment.

scholarly journals China's Legal Response to Trafficking in Wild Animals: The Relationship between International Treaties and Chinese Law

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 408-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiwen Chang
Keyword(s):  
Raw Materials ◽  
Wild Animal ◽  
Food Culture ◽  
Wild Animals ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Ecological Civilization ◽  
Animal Products ◽  
Wild Fauna ◽  
The Government ◽  
Bear Bile

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.

scholarly journals A voice for wild animals: Collaborative governance and human–wildlife conflict

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 257-262
Author(s):  
Katie Woolaston
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Natural Resource Management ◽  
Regulatory Mechanism ◽  
Collaborative Governance ◽  
Wild Animal ◽  
Wild Animals ◽  
New Governance ◽  
Collaborative Processes ◽  
The World ◽  
Human Wildlife Conflict

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.

scholarly journals The Impact of ‘Selfie’ Tourism on the Behaviour and Welfare of Brown-Throated Three-Toed Sloths

Animals ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gemma Carder ◽  
Tinka Plese ◽  
Fernando Machado ◽  
Suzanne Paterson ◽  
Neil Matthews ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Future Study ◽  
Average Duration ◽  
Wild Animal ◽  
Wild Animals ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Bradypus Variegatus ◽  
Focal Observation ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Physical Manipulation

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.

The gut microbiota of wild rodents: Challenges and opportunities

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 252-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Viney
Keyword(s):  
Gut Microbiota ◽  
Wild Animal ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Laboratory Animals ◽  
Wild Animals ◽  
Wild Rodents ◽  
Major Study ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
The Many

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.

scholarly journals A Global Review of Animal–Visitor Interactions in Modern Zoos and Aquariums and Their Implications for Wild Animal Welfare

Animals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil D’Cruze ◽  
Sophie Khan ◽  
Gemma Carder ◽  
David Megson ◽  
Emma Coulthard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Wild Animal ◽  
Wild Animals ◽  
Apparent Lack ◽  
Global Prevalence ◽  
Taxonomic Class ◽  
Insight Into

We provide an initial insight into the occurrence and characteristics of animal-visitor interactions (AVIs) involving captive wild animals within zoos and aquaria. Using information provided online via official public websites of modern zoos and aquaria, we found that AVIs were provided by the majority of facilities. Our study revealed that a variety of AVI types were being offered. Globally, petting captive wild animals was the most prevalent AVI type advertised (n = 1241 observations, 43% (534) of facilities) and Mammalia was the most advertised taxonomic class (n = 5142; 53% (2739)). We found certain AVI types that were more commonly offered than predicted. These were opportunities to: (1) Hand feed captive wild animals in Asia, North America and Oceania; (2) ride wild animals in Europe and North America; (3) walk with or swim through wild animal enclosures in Asia; and (4) walk with wild animals in Asia and Europe. Given the global prevalence of AVIs in modern zoos and aquaria, and an apparent lack of animal welfare focused research, we provide recommendations to help effectively balance and manage captive wild animal welfare with other primary interconnected goals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document