DOCSLIB.ORG

Theological Foundations for an Ethics of Cosmocentric Transfiguration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2013 Theological Foundations for an Ethics of Cosmocentric Transfiguration: Navigating the Eco- Theological Poles of Conservation, Transfiguration, Anthropocentrism, and Cosmocentrism with Regard to the Relationship Between Humans and Individual Nonhuman Animals Ryan Patrick McLaughlin Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Recommended Citation McLaughlin, R. (2013). Theological Foundations for an Ethics of Cosmocentric Transfiguration: Navigating the Eco-Theological Poles of Conservation, Transfiguration, Anthropocentrism, and Cosmocentrism with Regard to the Relationship Between Humans and Individual Nonhuman Animals (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/913 This Immediate Access is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR AN ETHICS OF COSMOCENTRIC TRANSFIGURATION: NAVIGATING THE ECO-THEOLOGICAL POLES OF CONSERVATION, TRANSFIGURATION, ANTHROPOCENTRISM, AND COSMOCENTRISM WITH REGARD TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMANS AND INDIVIDUAL NONHUMAN ANIMALS A Dissertation Submitted to the McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment for the requirements of the degree for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Ryan Patrick McLaughlin May 2013 Copyright by Ryan Patrick McLaughlin 2013 THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR AN ETHICS OF COSMOCENTRIC TRANSFIGURATION: NAVIGATING THE ECO-THEOLOGICAL POLES OF CONSERVATION, TRANSFIGURATION, ANTHROPOCENTRISM, AND COSMOCENTRISM WITH REGARD TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMANS AND INDIVIDUAL NONHUMAN ANIMALS By Ryan Patrick McLaughlin Approved March 25, 2013 _______________________________ _______________________________ Daniel Scheid, Ph.D. Anna Floerke Scheid, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Theology Assistant Professor of Theology (Committee Chair) (Committee Member) _______________________________ James Bailey, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Theology (Committee Chair) _______________________________ _______________________________ James C. Swindal, Ph.D. Maureen R. O’Brien, Ph.D. Dean, McAnulty College and Chair, Department of Theology Graduate School of Liberal Arts Professor of Theology Professor of Philosophy iii ABSTRACT THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR AN ETHICS OF COSMOCENTRIC TRANSFIGURATION: NAVIGATING THE ECO-THEOLOGICAL POLES OF CONSERVATION, TRANSFIGURATION, ANTHROPOCENTRISM, AND COSMOCENTRISM WITH REGARD TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMANS AND INDIVIDUAL NONHUMAN ANIMALS By Ryan Patrick McLaughlin May 2013 Dissertation supervised by Daniel Scheid, Ph.D. In the past forty years, there has been an unprecedented explosion of theological writings regarding the place of the nonhuman creation in ethics. The purpose of this dissertation is to propose a taxonomy of four paradigms of eco-theological thought that will categorize these writings and facilitate the identification, situation, and constructive development of the paradigm of cosmocentric transfiguration. This taxonomy takes shape within the tensions of three theological foundations: cosmology, anthropology, and eschatology. These tensions establish two categorical distinctions between, on the one hand, conservation and transfiguration, and, on the other, anthropocentrism and cosmocentrism. The variations within these poles yield the four paradigms. The first paradigm is anthropocentric conservation, represented by Thomas Aquinas. It maintains that humanity bears an essentially unique dignity and iv eschatological telos that renders the nonhuman creation resources for human use in via toward that telos. The second is cosmocentric conservation, represented by Thomas Berry. It maintains that humanity is part of a cosmic community of intrinsic worth that demands protection and preservation, not human manipulation or eschatological redemption. The third is anthropocentric transfiguration, represented by Orthodox theologians such as Dumitru Staniloae. It maintains that humans are priests of creation charged with the task of recognizing the cosmos as the eternal sacrament of divine love and using it to facilitate communion among themselves and with God. The fourth is cosmocentric transfiguration, represented by both Jürgen Moltmann and Andrew Linzey. It maintains that humans are called to become proleptic witnesses to an eschatological hope for peace that includes the intrinsically valuable members of the cosmic community. Cosmocentric transfiguration, while under-represented and underdeveloped, provides a unique opportunity to affirm both scientific claims about the nature of the cosmos and the theological hope for redemption. In addition, it offers a powerful vision to address the current ecological crisis with regard to humanity’s relationship to both individual nonhuman life forms and the cosmos at large. This vision calls for humans to protest the mechanisms of death, suffering, and predation by living at peace, to whatever extent context permits, with all individual creatures while at the same time preserving the very system they protest by protecting the integrity of species, eco-systems, and the environment at large. These findings warrant further research regarding the viability of cosmocentric transfiguration, in particular its exegetical warrant in scripture, its foundations in traditional voices of Christian thought, its interdisciplinary potential for integration of the sciences, and its internal coherency. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to acknowledge the invaluable help of my director, Dr. Daniel Scheid, as well as the consideration of my readers, Dr. Anna Floerke Scheid and Dr. James Bailey. This work was made possible by the generous McAnulty Dissertation Fellowship Award. I personally thank my family and friends, who supported me in this work. A special acknowledgement goes to Melissa McLaughlin, Brenda Colijn, Casey Kustra, Mary Ann McLaughlin, and J. Paul Pepper, for reading sections of this work and contributing to its final form. vi DEDICATION To my wife, Melissa. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iv Dedication ......................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 SITUATING THE PROJECT ............................................................................................ 3 CLASSIFICATIONS OF ECO-THEOLOGICAL ETHICS .................................................. 3 CLASSIFICATIONS OF ANIMAL ETHICS .................................................................. 13 AIM AND SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHIN THE FIELD OF ECO-THEOLOGICAL ETHICS ...................................................................... 17 THREE THEOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS FOR A NEW TAXONOMY OF ECO- THEOLOGICAL ETHICS ........................................................................................ 18 WHY THESE THEOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS? ............................................................ 18 COSMOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 20 The Goodness of Creation ............................................................................. 22 The Fallenness/Incompleteness of Creation .................................................... 23 ANTHROPOLOGY ................................................................................................... 34 ESCHATOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 42 The Scope of the Eschatological Community ................................................. 42 Eschatology and History ................................................................................ 45 Eschatology and Ethics .................................................................................. 48 viii Continuity and Discontinuity between the Present and the New Creation .... 49 In Sum ............................................................................................................ 50 FUNDAMENTAL TENSIONS AMONG COSMOLOGY, ANTHROPOLOGY, AND ESCHATOLOGY .................................................................................................... 51 ANTHROPOCENTRISM VERSUS COSMOCENTRISM .................................................. 52 Defining the Terms ......................................................................................... 53 Why not Theocentrism? .................................................................................. 58 CONSERVATION VERSUS TRANSFIGURATION ......................................................... 62 FOUR PARADIGMS OF ECO-THEOLOGICAL ETHICS ................................................. 64 THE FOUR PARADIGMS IN OUTLINE ....................................................................... 64 THE PRIMARY UNIT OF MORAL CONSIDERATION: PARTICULAR-CENTRIC VS. GENERAL-CENTRIC ..................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Animals Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1

    Animals Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1

    AAnniimmaallss LLiibbeerraattiioonn PPhhiilloossoopphhyy aanndd PPoolliiccyy JJoouurrnnaall VVoolluummee 55,, IIssssuuee 11 -- 22000077 Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1 2007 Edited By: Steven Best, Chief Editor ____________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Steven Best, Chief Editor Pg. 2-3 Introducing Critical Animal Studies Steven Best, Anthony J. Nocella II, Richard Kahn, Carol Gigliotti, and Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 4-5 Extrinsic and Intrinsic Arguments: Strategies for Promoting Animal Rights Katherine Perlo Pg. 6-19 Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism David Sztybel Pg. 20-54 Unmasking the Animal Liberation Front Using Critical Pedagogy: Seeing the ALF for Who They Really Are Anthony J. Nocella II Pg. 55-64 The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: New, Improved, and ACLU-Approved Steven Best Pg. 65-81 BOOK REVIEWS _________________ In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, by Peter Singer ed. (2005) Reviewed by Matthew Calarco Pg. 82-87 Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, by Matthew Scully (2003) Reviewed by Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 88-91 Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, by Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II, eds. (2004) Reviewed by Lauren E. Eastwood Pg. 92 Introduction Welcome to the sixth issue of our journal. You’ll first notice that our journal and site has undergone a name change. The Center on Animal Liberation Affairs is now the Institute for Critical Animal Studies, and the Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal is now the Journal for Critical Animal Studies. The name changes, decided through discussion among our board members, were prompted by both philosophical and pragmatic motivations.
  • A Fight for Life by Maria Sztybel

    A Fight for Life by Maria Sztybel

    A Fight for Life by Maria Sztybel ~ excerpts from a Holocaust memoir ~ Compiled by Dr. David Sztybel, Jr. with kind permission from translator, Lola Drach 1. Background In 2006, my article – “Can the Treatment of Nonhuman Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?” – was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Ethics and the Environment. Later, based on extending that research, I created the Holocaust Comparison Project at davidsztybel.info/16.html. Maria Sztybel – who changed her name to “Maria Rok” after marrying – is my aunt, now long deceased. Maria was the eldest of my father’s siblings, all children of David Sztybel, Senior. Many individuals object to comparing the treatment of nonhuman animals to the Holocaust partly because it is put forward by non-Jews, non- Holocaust-survivors, or people who do not take seriously the egregious death and suffering that occurred during this historical phenomenon. This compilation belies these logically off-base attempts to discredit the comparison. I, David Sztybel, Jr., consider myself to be an indirect Holocaust survivor. After all, first and most obviously, the Nazi death-mechanisms of deportation to killing camps – and associated horrors – very nearly consumed my grandparents’ whole family, but for a rather strange historical contingency that I will detail below. Second, there were also threats from a near-pogrom (or massacre of Jews – recounted below). Third, there was the Nazi military invasion of Poland. The latter killed many of my father’s fellow townspeople. And fourth and fifth, more particularly, my father, Bernard Sztybel, almost died during this period, as narrated in two childhood incidents documented below.
  • Hunting and Non-Hunting College Student's Perceptions of Wildlife

    Hunting and Non-Hunting College Student's Perceptions of Wildlife

    Hunting and Non-hunting College Student’s Perceptions of Wildlife and Each Other M. Nils Peterson, North Carolina State University, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program, Turner House, Box 7646 Raleigh, NC 27695-7646 Christopher S. DePerno, North Carolina State University, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program, Turner House, Box 7646 Raleigh, NC 27695-7646 Christopher E. Moorman, North Carolina State University, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program, Turner House, Box 7646 Raleigh, NC 27695-7646 Kathryn A. Cunningham,1 North Carolina State University, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program, Turner House, Box 7646 Raleigh, NC 27695-7646 Jared P. Milrad,2 North Carolina State University, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program, Turner House, Box 7646 Raleigh, NC 27695-7646 Jason D. Riddle,3 North Carolina State University, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program, Turner House, Box 7646 Raleigh, NC 27695-7646 Toddi A. Steelman, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695 Abstract: Hunting has shaped the history of wildlife conservation, but research exploring the relationship between hunting and conservation is new. A decline in the popularity of hunting has spurred research on hunting participation and recruitment, but less is known about how hunting influences societal negotiation of the appropriate roles for humans and wildlife. We addressed this need with a personally administered survey to 320 college students at North Carolina State University (NCSU).
  • 'An Incredibly Vile Sport': Campaigns Against Otter Hunting in Britain

    'An Incredibly Vile Sport': Campaigns Against Otter Hunting in Britain

    Rural History (2016) 27, 1, 000-000. © Cambridge University Press 2016 ‘An incredibly vile sport’: Campaigns against Otter Hunting in Britain, 1900-39 DANIEL ALLEN, CHARLES WATKINS AND DAVID MATLESS School of Physical and Geographical Sciences, University of Keele, ST5 5BG, UK [email protected] School of Geography, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: Otter hunting was a minor field sport in Britain but in the early years of the twentieth century a lively campaign to ban it was orchestrated by several individuals and anti-hunting societies. The sport became increasingly popular in the late nineteenth century and the Edwardian period. This paper examines the arguments and methods used in different anti-otter hunting campaigns 1900-1939 by organisations such as the Humanitarian League, the League for the Prohibition of Cruel Sports and the National Association for the Abolition of Cruel Sports. Introduction In 2010 a painting ‘normally considered too upsetting for modern tastes’ which ‘while impressive’ was also ‘undeniably "gruesome"’ was displayed at an exhibition of British sporting art at the Bowes Museum, Barnard Castle. The Guardian reported that the grisly content of the painting was ‘the reason why it was taken off permanent display by its owners’ the Laing Gallery in Newcastle.1 The painting, Sir Edwin Landseer’s The Otter Speared, Portrait of the Earl of Aberdeen's Otterhounds, or the Otter Hunt had been associated with controversy since it was first exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1844 Daniel Allen, Charles Watkins and David Matless 2 (Figure 1).
  • Qwinter 1994 Volume 43 Number 1

    Qwinter 1994 Volume 43 Number 1

    AWI uarterlWinter 1994 Volume 43 Q Number 1 magnificent humpback whale was captured on film by R. Cover : AWI • Shelton "Doc" White, who comes from a long line of seafarers and rtrl merchant seamen. He continues the tradition of Captain John White, an early New Q WInr l 4Y br I World explorer commissioned by Sir Walter Raleigh in 1587. In 1968, Doc was commissioned in the US Navy and was awarded two Bronze Stars, a Purple Heart, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He has devoted himself to diving, professional underwater photography and photographic support, scientific research support, and seamanship. Directors Madeleine Bemelmans Jean Wallace Douglas David 0. Hill Freeborn G. Jewett, Jr. Christine Stevens Doc White/Images Unlimited Roger L. Stevens Aileen Train Investigation Reveals Continued Trade in Tiger Parts Cynthia Wilson Startling evidence from a recent undercover investigation on the tiger bone trade in Officers China was released this month by the Tiger Trust. Perhaps the most threatened of all Christine Stevens, President tiger sub-species is the great Amur or "Siberian" tiger, a national treasure to most Cynthia Wilson, Vice President Russians and revered by Russian indigenous groups who call it "Amba" or "Great Freeborn G. Jewett, Jr., Secretary Sovereign." Michael Day, President of Tiger Trust, along with Dr. Bill Clark and Roger L. Stevens, Treasurer Investigator, Steven Galster went to Russia in November and December to work with the Russian government to start up a new, anti-poaching program designed to halt the Scientific Committee rapid decline of the Siberian tiger. Neighboring China has claimed to the United Marjorie Anchel, Ph.D.
  • Activists' Protests Against Hunting

    Activists' Protests Against Hunting

    University of Miami Law Review Volume 45 Number 5 Article 7 5-1-1991 The Right to Arm Bears: Activists' Protests Against Hunting Aileen M. Ugalde Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Part of the Animal Law Commons, and the Second Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Aileen M. Ugalde, The Right to Arm Bears: Activists' Protests Against Hunting, 45 U. Miami L. Rev. 1109 (1991) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol45/iss5/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Right to Arm Bears: Activists' Protests Against Hunting 1. INTRODUCTION: HAUNTING THE HUNTERS .............................. 1109 II. THE HUNTING DEBATE ................................................ 1113 A. The Strategies and Impact of Anti-Hunting Protesters ................... 1113 B. The Hunters' Response to Anti-Hunting Protesters ...................... 1116 III. THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF ANTI-HUNTING PROTESTERS .......... 1117 A. A History of Protest in First Amendment Doctrine ...................... 1118 B. The Connecticut Hunter Harassment Act: A Model ..................... 1122 C. Dorman v. Satti: When Activists Take Their Case into the Field ......... 1124 1. CONTENT-NEUTRAL AND CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTIONS
  • The American Philosophical Association EASTERN DIVISION ONE HUNDRED TENTH ANNUAL MEETING PROGRAM

    The American Philosophical Association EASTERN DIVISION ONE HUNDRED TENTH ANNUAL MEETING PROGRAM

    The American Philosophical Association EASTERN DIVISION ONE HUNDRED TENTH ANNUAL MEETING PROGRAM BALTIMORE MARRIOTT WATERFRONT BALTIMORE, MARYLAND DECEMBER 27 – 30, 2013 Important Notices for Meeting Attendees SESSION LOCATIONS Please note: the locations of all individual sessions will be included in the paper program that you will receive when you pick up your registration materials at the meeting. To save on printing costs, the program will be available only online prior to the meeting; with the exception of plenary sessions, the online version does not include session locations. In addition, locations for sessions on the first evening (December 27) will be posted in the registration area. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT REGISTRATION Please note: it costs $40 less to register in advance than to register at the meeting. The advance registration rates are the same as last year, but the additional cost of registering at the meeting has increased. Online advance registration at www.apaonline.org is available until December 26. 1 Friday Evening, December 27: 6:30–9:30 p.m. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 27 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING 1:00–6:00 p.m. REGISTRATION 3:00–10:00 p.m., registration desk (third floor) PLACEMENT INFORMATION Interviewers and candidates: 3:00–10:00 p.m., Dover A and B (third floor) Interview tables: Harborside Ballroom, Salons A, B, and C (fourth floor) FRIDAY EVENING, 6:30–9:30 P.M. MAIN PROGRAM SESSIONS I-A. Symposium: Ancient and Medieval Philosophy of Language THIS SESSION HAS BEEN CANCELLED. I-B. Symposium: German Idealism: Recent Revivals and Contemporary Relevance Chair: Jamie Lindsay (City University of New York–Graduate Center) Speakers: Robert Brandom (University of Pittsburgh) Axel Honneth (Columbia University) Commentator: Sally Sedgwick (University of Illinois–Chicago) I-C.
  • Anti-Vivisection and Anti-Violence

    Anti-Vivisection and Anti-Violence

    Anti-Vivisection and Anti-Violence If a university official said in virtually theories of ethics. For now though, let any relevant context, “Violence will us look to the Orient for the origins of not be tolerated,” there is nary a the principle. The principle of non- member of the academic community violence emerged in a South Asian who would protest. On the contrary, religion called Jainism more than five such a statement would be received as millennia ago in the geographical area socially necessary, authoritative, and now known as India. The Jains called entirely respectable. Yet massive this principle ahimsa in Sanskrit. violence occurs on university Literally, ahimsa means non-injury, campuses. but many have translated it as non- violence. Traditionally, non- It would be bigoted to think that violence of the Jains applies to all violence can only be executed sentient beings, or entities who against human beings. have consciousness, and in Nonhuman animals in medical particular affect (feelings, and other forms of research are desires, preferences, and subject to violence, and killed moods). Jain ahimsa has long one after another in as casual a been generally opposed to way as someone with a bad animal exploitation or neglect. cold might draw tissues from a Jain animal sanctuaries in India box. These creatures are slain are not uncommon. Religious one after the other, in the tens of Jains cannot be hunters, fishers, thousands, every single year. or trappers. They are vegetarian Usually without a thought as to and have often objected to Hindus whether this violence is morally right engaging in animal sacrifice over the or wrong.
  • A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics

    A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics

    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 8-2012 Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics Joel P. MacClellan University of Tennessee, Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation MacClellan, Joel P., "Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2012. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1433 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Joel P. MacClellan entitled "Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Philosophy. John Nolt, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Jon Garthoff, David Reidy, Dan Simberloff Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) MINDING NATURE: A DEFENSE OF A SENTIOCENTRIC APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Joel Patrick MacClellan August 2012 ii The sedge is wither’d from the lake, And no birds sing.
  • Biological and Social Issues Related to Confinement of Wild Ungulates

    Biological and Social Issues Related to Confinement of Wild Ungulates

    Biological and Social Issues Related to Confinement of Wild Ungulates THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY Technical Review 02-3 2002 BIOLOGICALANDSOCIALISSUESRELATEDTOCONFINEMENTOFWILDUNGULATES The Wildlife Society Members of The Technical Committee on Wild Ungulate Confinement Stephen Demarais (Chair) Elizabeth S. Williams Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Department of Veterinary Sciences Mississippi State University University of Wyoming Box 9690 1174 Snowy Range Road Mississippi State, MS 39762 Laramie, WY 82070 Randall W. DeYoung Scot J. Williamson Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Wildlife Management Institute Mississippi State University RR 1, Box 587, Spur Road Box 9690 North Stratford, NH 03590 Mississippi State, MS 39762 Gary J. Wolfe L. Jack Lyon Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Box 9045 4722 Aspen Drive Missoula, MT 59807 Missoula, MT 59802 Edited by Laura Andrews The Wildlife Society Technical Review 02-3 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 November 2002 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Foreword Presidents of The Wildlife Society occasionally appoint ad hoc committees to study and report on selected conservation issues. The reports ordinarily appear in 2 related series called either Technical Review (formerly "White Paper") or Position Statement. Review papers present technical information and the views of the appointed committee members, but not necessarily the views of their employers. Position statements are based on the review papers, and the preliminary versions ordinarily are published in The Wildliferfor comment by Society members. Following the comment period, revision, and Council's approval, the statements are published as official positions of The Wildlife Society. Both types of reports are copyrighted by the Society, but individuals are granted permission to make single copies for noncommercial purposes.
  • What Is Speciesism? Oscar Horta

    What Is Speciesism? Oscar Horta

    What Is Speciesism? Oscar Horta ABSTRACT : In spite of the considerable literature nowadays existing on the issue of the moral exclusion of nonhuman animals, there is still work to be done concerning the characterization of the conceptual framework with which this question can be appraised. This paper intends to tackle this task. It starts by defining speciesism as the unjustified disadvantageous consideration or treatment of those who are not classified as belonging to a certain species. It then clarifies some common misunderstandings concerning what this means. Next, it rejects the idea that there are different kinds of speciesism. Such an idea may result from confusion because there are (1) different ways in which speciesism can be defended; and (2) different speciesist positions, that is, different positions that assume speciesism among their premises. Depending on whether or not these views assume other criteria for moral consideration apart from speciesism, they can be combined or simple speciesist positions. But speciesism remains in all cases the same idea. Finally, the paper examines the concept of anthropocentrism, the disadvantageous treatment or consideration of those who are not members of the human species. This notion must be conceptually distinguished from speciesism and from misothery (aversion to nonhuman animals). Anthropocentrism is shown to be refuted because it either commits a petitio principia fallacy or it falls prey to two arguments: the argument from species overlap (widely but misleadingly known as “argument from marginal cases”) and the argument from relevance. This rebuttal identifies anthropocentrism as a speciesist view. KEYWORDS : Anthropocentrism • Argument from Relevance • Argument from Species Overlap • Discrimination • Misothery • Speciesism INTRODUCTION For approximately the last three decades, the attention paid to the issue of the moral consideration of nonhuman animals has grown spectacularly.
  • An Open Letter to Peta

    An Open Letter to Peta

    Salt Water Sportsman Fisheries Front February 2002 AN OPEN LETTER TO PETA By Ken Hinman Dear PETA, PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Frankly, that’s an idea this person has trouble standing against. There is a lot of mistreatment of animals in this world, some of it pretty heinous, and lord knows, they can’t speak up for themselves. I’m an environmentalist and I often describe my job as speaking for the fish. So am I wrong not to be anti-fishing, to be in fact pro-fishing? You obviously think so. I’ve seen your ads, the ones showing Rover being reeled in with a hook in his mouth, asking “If you wouldn’t do this to a dog, why do it to a fish?” Fishing, you say, is cruel and unnecessary. I read your case against fishing on your web site, which you dub FishingHurts.com. Ouch! Some anglers are tempted – unwisely, I think - to dismiss you and other anti- fishing groups, to not take you seriously. One friend’s flippant response to your opposition to catch-and-release fishing, where you say letting fish live but with hooks in their mouths is inhumane, was to point out that thousands of kids these days are choosing to pierce their lips and tongues with metal rings, so how bad can it be? I know, not funny. A Taste of Reality You’d say the operative word here is choice. You realize that, as Lao-Tzu said, “nature is not human-hearted.” Most animals meet a violent, bloody end at the hands (actually, teeth and claws) of another animal higher on the food chain.