scholarly journals The ethics of wild animal suffering

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>

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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-16
Author(s):  
Zbigniew Czarnecki ◽  
Teresa Grażyna Wyłupek ◽  
Wanda Harkot

The study objective was to assess the floristic composition of pastures for wild animals (fallow deer, Manchurian deer and mouflons) at Przytoczno, pastures for horses at Białka, and cow pastures belonging to the Land Community in Tarnogóra. We analyzed the floristic composition of the pastures under study in the growing seasons of 2011 and 2012, carried out 32 phytosociological relevés in the wild animal pastures, 32 in the horse pastures, and 38 in the cow pastures, using the Braun-Blanquet method. We determined the species diversity of the pastures based on the percentage share of species from the botanical families distinguished, the total number of species, and the Shannon–Wiener and Simpson diversity index. Our floristic surveys indicated that the greatest species diversity occurred in the horse pastures, while it was lower in the wild animal and cow pastures. The Shannon–Wiener diversity index for the sward of the pastures grazed by horses was higher (<em>H'</em> = 5.04) than for those grazed by wild animals (<em>H'</em> = 4.32) and cows (<em>H'</em> = 3.53). The Simpson index of species diversity in a community was higher for the pastures grazed by horses (<em>S</em> = 0.96) than for those grazed by wild animals (<em>S </em>= 0.95) and cows (<em>S</em> = 0.90).


2005 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
LANCE VAN SITTERT

The history of the imperial/colonial elite's preoccupation with saving a handful of specific ‘game’ species in reserves has come to stand for the relationship of all classes with all wild animals in both South Africa and the wider world of the British empire. The result is a narrative of process and periodization flawed in general and false in the specific case of the Cape Colony/Province, where economics rather than ideology was both the primary motor of game conservation and the mediating factor in human relationships with wild animal species. Here the general trend across the century from 1850 to 1950 was, contra MacKenzian orthodoxy, towards private not public ownership of game propelled by a rural rather than an urban elite. Public ownership was instead restricted to ‘vermin’ species in which the state created a market in which it became the chief consumer. The Cape's great tradition was refracted through its customary permissive legislation to yield a myriad of small traditions at the regional or local level. Rather than an argument for Cape exceptionalism, its wild animal history is a caution against glib generalizations from the elite archive and an indication of the need to broaden prevailing ‘game reserve history’ to include the full range of human and animal inhabitants as agents rather than as residual analytical categories in any narrative.


Author(s):  
Jara Gutierrez ◽  
Javier de Miguel

Animals living in the wild are exposed to numerous challenges, such as fires, that can lead to animal suffering. The impacts of fire have been studied in different branches of ecology, but studies of its effects on the welfare of individual animals remain scarce. The current review aims to synthesize a sample of relevant aspects regarding fire&rsquo;s negative effects on wild animals. This review provides a better understanding of how fire compromises animal welfare, providing an example of how to use the knowledge gathered in ecology studies to examine the welfare of wild animals. It can help raise concern for the situation of wild animals as individuals, and to develop the field of welfare biology, by identifying promising future lines of research. The fundamentals of carrying out future work to design protocols for rescuing animals or preventing the harms they can suffer in fires is also explored.


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.


2022 ◽  
Vol 52 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilucia Campos dos Santos ◽  
Renan Luiz Albuquerque Vieira ◽  
Debora Malta Gomes ◽  
Maria Viviane Bury dos Santos ◽  
Micaelle Silva de Souza ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT: Brazil is one of the primary suppliers of wildlife for trafficking, which constitutes a significant threat to biodiversity, which can cause the extinction of species, especially birds, the most important victims of trafficking. This study analyzed the wild avifauna collected in the Triage Centers of Wild Animals (CETAS) of Bahia, to inventory the most apprehended species that are threatened with extinction, and estimate the municipalities that function as suppliers and traders of wildlife. Data from 2009 to 2019 were made available by the Salvador and Vitoria da Conquista units, and that from 2010 to 2016 was made available by the, Porto Seguro unit. The survey was conducted through the entry records of birds, considering apprehension, spontaneous deliveries, rescues, and transfers between units involved in the study. Out of the total 80,948 birds analyzed, 65,315 (80.68%) were apprehended; 7,885 (9.74%) were voluntary deliveries; 6,196 (7.65%) were rescues, and 1,034 (1.28%) were transfers. There was no entry modality for 518 (0.64%) specimens. The most trafficked species were Sicalis flaveola (Saffron Finch), Sporophila nigricollis (Yellow-bellied Seedeater), Paroaria dominicana (Red-cowlead Cardinal), Cyanoloxia brissonii (Ultramarine Grosbeak), Sporophila caerulescens (Double-collared Seedeater), and Sporophila albogularis (White-throated Seedeater). Nine hundred twenty six specimens exhibited some threat. Analysis showed that the greatest flow of bird traffic occurs on BR 242 and BR 116. The municipalities that comprise the mesoregions Center-South, Center-North Baiano, and the Metropolitan Region of Salvador are those with greater concentrations of illegal activity. Irecê and Paulo Afonso constitute areas for the capture and commercialization of wild animals.


Philosophia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary David O’Brien

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.


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.


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.


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&#39;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,


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document