• Two Arguments Against Speciesism • Animal Liberation and Utilitarianism • Animal Liberation Vs

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

Lecture 7: Animal Liberation • Two arguments against speciesism • Animal liberation and utilitarianism • Animal liberation vs. biocentrism • Are animal rights inviolable? • Animal liberation and biodiversity conservation Friday, September 27, 2013 Topics • Two arguments against speciesism • Animal liberation and utilitarianism • Animal liberation vs. biocentrism • Are animal rights inviolable? • Animal liberation and biodiversity conservation Friday, September 27, 2013 What do we owe to animals? • Lori Gruen, “The Moral Status of Animals” Friday, September 27, 2013 Animal Liberation • “Humans are members of the species Homo sapiens. But...species membership is a morally irrelevant characteristic, a bit of luck that is no more morally interesting than being born male or female, Malaysian or French” • If there is something morally special about humans, it’s because we have some special psychological capacity that gives us moral status. • So what is it? Friday, September 27, 2013 Animal Liberation • Animal liberationists think there is no special characteristic that gives moral status to all and only humans • “Speciesism” is as groundless as racism: belief in the inherent moral superiority of one species over another. Friday, September 27, 2013 Two Problems for Speciesism • Most of the psychological abilities that once seemed to make us special are also shared by animals • “...developing family ties, solving social problems, expressing emotions, starting wars, having sex for pleasure, using language, or thinking abstractly...” Friday, September 27, 2013 Two Problems for Speciesism • Even if there were some ability, X, that only humans have, not all humans will be equal with respect to X • Does that mean we can do whatever we like with humans who don’t have X? Friday, September 27, 2013 Are humans ‘special’? • Kant’s view was that human beings are morally superior to animals because of their heightened capacity for self-awareness and reflection • However, these can’t be grounds for disregarding the interests of non- humans: after all, not all humans are equal in these features either. Friday, September 27, 2013 Topics • Two arguments against speciesism • Animal liberation and utilitarianism • Animal liberation vs. biocentrism • Are animal rights inviolable? • Animal liberation and biodiversity conservation Friday, September 27, 2013 Are humans ‘special’? • One of the major figures in this tradition is Peter Singer • For Singer, we have direct moral obligations to all sentient creatures, and only sentient creatures • Utility principle: since happiness is the only good, and pain the only bad, we should minimize unnecessary suffering wherever it occurs. Friday, September 27, 2013 Are humans ‘special’? • Utilitarianism does not impose any absolute moral restrictions on what we can do with animals. • It just holds that, if we are to cause suffering to an animal, we have to justify it in terms of the net benefit to others. Friday, September 27, 2013 Are humans ‘special’? • Another viewpoint, the animal rights tradition, tends to be more absolutist. • This holds that it is inherently morally wrong to hurt or kill sentient creatures. Friday, September 27, 2013 Topics • Two arguments against speciesism • Animal liberation and utilitarianism • Animal liberation vs. biocentrism • Are animal rights inviolable? • Animal liberation and biodiversity conservation Friday, September 27, 2013 Animal liberation vs. biocentrism • According to biocentrism, we have moral obligations to all living things - a point that Singer denies. • Unless a creature is capable of pleasure or pain, it has no ‘interests’ to speak of. • To say a creature has interests means it can be benefit, or be harmed, by our actions. Friday, September 27, 2013 Sentience and Interests • Consider the difference between a deer, on the one hand, and... Friday, September 27, 2013 Sentience and Interests • Consider the difference between a deer, on the one hand, and... • a rock Friday, September 27, 2013 Sentience and Interests • Consider the difference between a deer, on the one hand, and... • a rock • a bacterium Friday, September 27, 2013 Sentience and Interests • Consider the difference between a deer, on the one hand, and... • a rock • a bacterium • a tree Friday, September 27, 2013 Sentience and Interests • Consider the difference between a deer, on the one hand, and... • a rock • a bacterium • a tree • a stream Friday, September 27, 2013 Animal liberation vs. biocentrism • Kicking a stone, cutting down a tree, or polluting a stream, may be harmful to other people or animals, but it’s not harmful to the rock, tree, or stream • The same would go for people in permanent vegetative states Friday, September 27, 2013 Sliding scale of moral responsibilities • Mammals and birds • Insects and crustaceans ?? • Bacteria and viruses Friday, September 27, 2013 Sliding scale of moral responsibilities • Mammals and birds • Insects and crustaceans ?? • Bacteria and viruses Friday, September 27, 2013 Sliding scale of moral responsibilities • Mammals and birds • Insects and crustaceans ?? • Bacteria and viruses Friday, September 27, 2013 Sliding scale of moral responsibilities • Mammals and birds • Insects and crustaceans ?? • Bacteria and viruses Friday, September 27, 2013 Topics • Two arguments against speciesism • Animal liberation and utilitarianism • Animal liberation vs. biocentrism • Are animal rights inviolable? • Animal liberation and biodiversity conservation Friday, September 27, 2013 Equal treatment? • Saying that humans and animals deserve equal consideration doesn’t mean treating their lives as having equal worth • Animal rights are not inviolable Friday, September 27, 2013 Equal treatment? • In the lifeboat example, we should usually save the person over the dog: • the human will typically suffer more • friends and family will suffer more • greater loss of potential happiness Friday, September 27, 2013 Topics • Two arguments against speciesism • Animal liberation and utilitarianism • Animal liberation vs. biocentrism • Are animal rights inviolable? • Animal liberation and biodiversity conservation Friday, September 27, 2013 Animal liberation and biodiversity conservation • Animal Liberation: • Biodiversity Conservation: • Hunting is (usually) • Hunting is (usually) wrong because it OK if it is (usually) causes consistent with the suffering preservation of the species • Advocates for hunting bans • Advocates for selective ‘culling’ Friday, September 27, 2013 Animal liberation and biodiversity conservation • Animal Liberation: • Biodiversity Conservation: • Factory farming and • No particular animal stance is implied by experimentation biodiversity are wrong conservation Friday, September 27, 2013 Animal liberation and biodiversity conservation • Animal Liberation: • Biodiversity Conservation: • Keeping animals • Animals should be captive for kept captive for the entertainment, or purpose of even breeding breeding programs programs, is when necessary for typically wrong preservation of species Friday, September 27, 2013 Animal liberation and endangered species • From the point of view of suffering, it’s just as wrong to harpoon an endangered blue whale as any other species of whale. • Being endangered doesn’t, in and of itself, make a creature more valuable Friday, September 27, 2013 Animal liberation and endangered species • The only reason to give special protection to endangered creatures is because of the benefits that the species may have to humans and other animals Friday, September 27, 2013 Considerations • AL seems to forbid hunting, while biodiversity conservation would often encourage it. • AL does not provide an adequate explanation for why it’s particularly wrong to allow a species to become extinct, particularly if the species does not benefit other creatures. Friday, September 27, 2013.
Recommended publications
  • It's a (Two-)Culture Thing: the Laterial Shift to Liberation

    It's a (Two-)Culture Thing: the Laterial Shift to Liberation

    Animal Issues, Vol 4, No. 1, 2000 It's a (Two-)Culture Thing: The Lateral Shift to Liberation Barry Kew rom an acute and, some will argue, a harsh, a harsh, fantastic or even tactically naive F naive perspective, this article examines examines animal liberation, vegetarianism vegetarianism and veganism in relation to a bloodless culture ideal. It suggests that the movement's repeated anomalies, denial of heritage, privileging of vegetarianism, and other concessions to bloody culture, restrict rather than liberate the full subversionary and revelatory potential of liberationist discourse, and with representation and strategy implications. ‘Only the profoundest cultural needs … initially caused adult man [sic] to continue to drink cow milk through life’.1 In The Social Construction of Nature, Klaus Eder develops a useful concept of two cultures - the bloody and the bloodless. He understands the ambivalence of modernity and the relationship to nature as resulting from the perpetuation of a precarious equilibrium between the ‘bloodless’ tradition from within Judaism and the ‘bloody’ tradition of ancient Greece. In Genesis, killing entered the world after the fall from grace and initiated a complex and hierarchically-patterned system of food taboos regulating distance between nature and culture. But, for Eder, it is in Israel that the reverse process also begins, in the taboo on killing. This ‘civilizing’ process replaces the prevalent ancient world practice of 1 Calvin. W. Schwabe, ‘Animals in the Ancient World’ in Aubrey Manning and James Serpell, (eds), Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives (Routledge, London, 1994), p.54. 1 Animal Issues, Vol 4, No. 1, 2000 human sacrifice by animal sacrifice, this by sacrifices of the field, and these by money paid to the sacrificial priests.2 Modern society retains only a very broken connection to the Jewish tradition of the bloodless sacrifice.
  • Journal of Animal Law Received Generous Support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law

    Journal of Animal Law Received Generous Support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law

    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL LAW Michigan State University College of Law APRIL 2009 Volume V J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 EDITORIAL BOARD 2008-2009 Editor-in-Chief ANN A BA UMGR A S Managing Editor JENNIFER BUNKER Articles Editor RA CHEL KRISTOL Executive Editor BRITT A NY PEET Notes & Comments Editor JA NE LI Business Editor MEREDITH SH A R P Associate Editors Tabb Y MCLA IN AKISH A TOWNSEND KA TE KUNK A MA RI A GL A NCY ERIC A ARMSTRONG Faculty Advisor DA VID FA VRE J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 Pee R RE VI E W COMMITT ee 2008-2009 TA IMIE L. BRY A NT DA VID CA SSUTO DA VID FA VRE , CH A IR RE B ECC A J. HUSS PETER SA NKOFF STEVEN M. WISE The Journal of Animal Law received generous support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law. Without their generous support, the Journal would not have been able to publish and host its second speaker series. The Journal also is funded by subscription revenues. Subscription requests and article submissions may be sent to: Professor Favre, Journal of Animal Law, Michigan State University College of Law, 368 Law College Building, East Lansing MI 48824. The Journal of Animal Law is published annually by law students at ABA accredited law schools. Membership is open to any law student attending an ABA accredited law college.
  • Sterilization, Hunting and Culling : Combining Management Approaches for Mitigating Suburban Deer Impacts

    Sterilization, Hunting and Culling : Combining Management Approaches for Mitigating Suburban Deer Impacts

    Poster Presentation Sterilization, Hunting and Culling: Combining Management Approaches for Mitigating Suburban Deer Impacts J.R. Boulanger University of North Dakota P.D. Curtis and M.L. Ashdown Cornell University ABSTRACT: Based on decades of growing deer impacts on local biodiversity, agricultural damage, and deer-vehicle collisions, in 2007 we implemented an increasingly aggressive suburban deer research and management program on Cornell University lands in Tompkins County, New York. We initially divided Cornell lands into a suburban core campus area (1,100 acres [4.5 km2]) and adjacent outlying areas that contain lands where deer hunting was permitted (~4,000 acres [16.2 km2]). We attempted to reduce deer numbers by surgically sterilizing deer in the core campus zone and increasing harvest of female deer in the hunting zone through an Earn-a-Buck program. During the first 6 years of this study, project staff spayed 96 female deer (>90% of all deer on campus); 69 adult does were marked with radio transmitters to monitor movements and survival. From 2008 to 2013, hunters harvested >600 deer (69–165 each hunting season). By winter 2013, we stabilized the campus deer herd to approximately 100 animals (57 deer/mi2 [22 deer/km2]), a density much higher than project goals (14 deer/mi2). Although we reduced doe and fawn numbers by approximately 38% and 79%, respectfully, this decrease was offset by an increase in bucks that appeared on camera during our population study. In 2014, we supplemented efforts using deer damage permits (DDP) with archery sharpshooting over bait, and collapsible Clover traps with euthanasia by penetrating captive bolt.
  • One Issue: Animal Liberation

    One Issue: Animal Liberation

    One Issue: Animal Liberation We are occasionally asked why the Animal Rights Coalition is a “multi-issue” organization, instead of working solely on helping people to adopt a vegan diet. The Animal Rights Coalition mission states that ARC is “dedicated to ending the suffering, abuse, and exploitation of non-human animals through information, education, and advocacy.” One of the most important things about ARC is the consistency of our message and actions. ARC started out as, and has firmly remained, an abolitionist animal rights organization – which means that we challenge the dominant conversation that humans have about our relationships with other species. Most people view other animals as commodities for humans to use and own, and we view other animals as persons who are here for their own reasons and deserving of personal and bodily integrity. So, while some may consider us a multi-issue organization, the reality is that there is only one issue – animal liberation – and no matter what subject we’re talking about, we’re having essentially the same conversation again and again – emphasizing that animals matter in their own right, outside of what they can provide for humans, and that it is not justifiable for us to exploit or abuse them for any reason. As one facet of the conversations we have with people, we encourage them to adopt a plant-based (vegan) diet. However, we believe that veganism is about more than what one does and doesn’t eat. Veganism rejects the commodity status of animals, and with animals as commodities in more than just the food production system, we have a moral imperative to protest the use of animals in labs, circuses, the clothing industry, etc.
  • The Analysis of Production and Culling Rate with Regard to the Profitability in a Dairy Herd

    The Analysis of Production and Culling Rate with Regard to the Profitability in a Dairy Herd

    ADVANCED RESEARCH IN LIFE SCIENCES 1(1), 2017, 48-52 www.degruyter.com/view/j/arls DOI: 10.1515/arls-2017-0008 Research Article The Analysis of Production and Culling Rate With Regard to the Profitability in a Dairy Herd József Horváth*, Zsanett Tóth, Edit Mikó University of Szeged, Faculty of Agriculture, Institute of Economics and Rural Development and Institute of Animal Sciences and Wildlife Management, Hungary Accepted June, 2017 Abstract As milk prices move away from production costs, dairy farms are under increased pressure to find ways to protect profitability on the farm. Producers have some problems that they can improve. Improve the milk production, produce more milk to sell focused on quality (reduce the amount of high level of somatic cell count). The deterioration of animal health status (lameness, mastitis and different metabolic disorders) can have a serious impact on cow productivity, causing pain and discomfort, production losses and might result in a decision to cull the animal. Improving herd reproductive performance is an important aspect of profitable farm management. The aim of this work is to analyse milk production, reasons of culling and culling rate in different lactation on a dairy cattle farm. Key words: dairy cow economy, culling rate, productive lifetime, break-even point. Introduction replacement heifers. Furthermore, it allows cows In the dairy cattle breeding the longevity of cows to achieve maximum milk yield and increases the and reasons for culling are serious research proportion of higher yielding cows in the herd. [3] problems. The profitability of the dairy herd Culling of dairy cows is a serious economic depends on milk the yield of lactation and the decision.
  • BREEDING KOI in the CITY by Douglas Dahl 2002 Update to Article Printed in Vol 22, Issue 5 in KOIUSA in 1998

    BREEDING KOI in the CITY by Douglas Dahl 2002 Update to Article Printed in Vol 22, Issue 5 in KOIUSA in 1998

    BREEDING KOI IN THE CITY by Douglas Dahl 2002 update to article printed in Vol 22, Issue 5 in KOIUSA in 1998 Why do you want to breed koi, I ask? You could respond "imported koi are too expensive", or "you want to learn how they change so you can purchase baby koi with more confidence" or "you are just bored and want to try it". This discussion addresses city breeding. Country or farm breeding can be a very different process in many ways due to available growing ponds and I leave that discussion to the professionals. What is Needed My experience in city breeding suggests the following list of needed items: 800 gallon tank or pond for breeding (use as medical tank when not breeding) 3000 gallon tank or pond to grow some of the baby koi for 1 year separate small tank or pond area to rest the female after breeding and for culling working filter for both the 800 and 3000 gallon tanks or ponds if they are close together submersible pump with strainer on intake (18" drilled PVC tube surrounded by foam 6x6x18) 1/6 hp pump for the 3000 gallon system Air pump and air stones for breeding tank GFI electrical outlets for all pumps Net to cover breeding tank to keep breeding fish in Brine shrimp jugs, air system and light for food breeding Several kinds of food (to be described later) Net, tub, plastic bags to transport breeders and catch babies Ammonia and nitrite test kits Source of de chlorinated water (3000 gallon tank while 800 gallon tank in use) Breeding media (hyacinth plants, podocarpus branches, mop heads, breeding nets) About $1500 to spare for expenses Strong back and strong stomach HARD HEART FOR CULLING Someone to feed the babies every 3-4 hours during the day Timing, Romance and Birth The time to prepare for breeding is one month before pond water reaches 70 degrees F.
  • Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests David Lewis Rice III University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

    Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests David Lewis Rice III University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2016 Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests David Lewis Rice III University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Rice, David Lewis III, "Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1650. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1650 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy by David Rice Delta State University Bachelor of Science in Biology, 1994 Delta State University Master of Science in Natural Sciences in Biology, 1999 University of Mississippi Master of Arts in Philosophy, 2009 August 2016 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. ____________________________________ Dr. Richard Lee Dissertation Director ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Dr. Warren Herold Dr. Tom Senor Committee Member Committee Member Abstract Some biocentrists argue that all living things have "inherent worth". Anything that has inherent worth has interests that provide a reason for why all moral agents should care about it in and of itself. There are, however, some difficulties for biocentric individualist arguments which claim that all living things have inherent worth.
  • Introduction: the Emerging Alliance of World Religions and Ecology

    Introduction: the Emerging Alliance of World Religions and Ecology

    Emerging Alliance of World Religions and Ecology 1 Mary Evelyn Tucker and John A. Grim Introduction: The Emerging Alliance of World Religions and Ecology HIS ISSUE OF DÆDALUS brings together for the first time diverse perspectives from the world’s religious traditions T regarding attitudes toward nature with reflections from the fields of science, public policy, and ethics. The scholars of religion in this volume identify symbolic, scriptural, and ethical dimensions within particular religions in their relations with the natural world. They examine these dimensions both historically and in response to contemporary environmental problems. Our Dædalus planning conference in October of 1999 fo- cused on climate change as a planetary environmental con- cern.1 As Bill McKibben alerted us more than a decade ago, global warming may well be signaling “the end of nature” as we have come to know it.2 It may prove to be one of our most challenging issues in the century ahead, certainly one that will need the involvement of the world’s religions in addressing its causes and alleviating its symptoms. The State of the World 2000 report cites climate change (along with population) as the critical challenge of the new century. It notes that in solving this problem, “all of society’s institutions—from organized re- ligion to corporations—have a role to play.”3 That religions have a role to play along with other institutions and academic disciplines is also the premise of this issue of Dædalus. The call for the involvement of religion begins with the lead essays by a scientist, a policy expert, and an ethicist.
  • Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics

    Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics

    Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics Gonzalo Villanueva Sophia International Journal of Philosophy and Traditions ISSN 0038-1527 SOPHIA DOI 10.1007/s11841-017-0597-6 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23 Author's personal copy SOPHIA DOI 10.1007/s11841-017-0597-6 Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics Gonzalo Villanueva1 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017 Keywords Animal ethics . Moral status of animals . Peter Singer. Animal liberation Peter Singer’s 1975 book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals has been described as ‘the Bible’ of the modern animal movement.1 Singer’s unrhetorical and unemotional arguments radically departed from previous conceptions of animal ethics. He moved beyond the animal welfare tradition of ‘kindness’ and ‘compassion’ to articulate a non-anthropocentric utilitarian philosophy based on equal- ity and interests. After the publication of Animal Liberation, an ‘avalanche of animal rights literature’ appeared.2 A prolific amount of work focused on the moral status of animals, and the ‘animal question’ has been given serious consideration across a broad range of disciplines.
  • Animal Rights Movement

    Animal Rights Movement

    Animal Rights Movement The Animal Protection Movement. Prevention of cruelty to animals became an important movement in early 19th Century England, where it grew alongside the humanitarian current that advanced human rights, including the anti-slavery movement and later the movement for woman suffrage. The first anti-cruelty bill, intended to stop bull-baiting, was introduced in Parliament in 1800. In 1822 Colonel Richard Martin succeeded in passing an act in the House of Commons preventing cruelty to such larger domestic animals as horses and cattle; two years later he organized the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to help enforce the law. Queen Victoria commanded the addition of the prefix "Royal" to the Society in 1840. Following the British model, Henry Bergh organized the American SPCA in New York in 1866 after returning from his post in St. Petersburg as secretary to the American legation in Russia; he hoped it would become national in scope, but the ASPCA remained primarily an animal shelter program for New York City. Other SPCAs and Humane Societies were founded in the U.S. beginning in the late 1860s (often with support from abolitionists) with groups in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and San Francisco among the first. Originally concerned with enforcing anti-cruelty laws, they soon began running animal shelters along the lines of a model developed in Philadelphia. The American Humane Association (AHA), with divisions for children and animals, was founded in 1877, and emerged as the leading national advocate for animal protection and child protection services. As the scientific approach to medicine expanded, opposition grew to the use of animals in medical laboratory research -- particularly in the era before anesthetics and pain-killers became widely available.
  • Attfield, Robin, "Sylvan, Fox and Deep Ecology: a View from the Continental Shelf." Environmental Values 2, No

    Attfield, Robin, "Sylvan, Fox and Deep Ecology: a View from the Continental Shelf." Environmental Values 2, No

    The White Horse Press Full citation: Attfield, Robin, "Sylvan, Fox and Deep Ecology: A View from the Continental Shelf." Environmental Values 2, no. 1, (1993): 21-32. http://www.environmentandsociety.org/node/5486 Rights: All rights reserved. © The White Horse Press 1993. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism or review, no part of this article may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, including photocopying or recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission from the publishers. For further information please see http://www.whpress.co.uk. Sylvan, Fox and Deep Ecology: A View from the Continental Shelf ROBIN ATTFIELD School of English Studies, Journalism and Philosophy University of Wales College of Cardiff PO Box 94, Cardiff CF1 3XB, UK ABSTRACT: Both Richard Sylvan’s trenchant critique of Deep Ecology and Warwick Fox’s illuminating reinterpretation and defence are presented and appraised. Besides throwing light on the nature and the prospects of the defence of Deep Ecology and of its diverse axiological, epistemological and metaphysi- cal strands, the appraisal discloses the range of normative positions open to those who reject anthropocentrism, of which Deep Ecology is no more than one (and, if Fox’s account of its nature is right, may not be one at all). A position intermediate between Deep Ecology and anthropocentrism is advocated, which has been called by Wayne Sumner “middle-depth environmentalism – a kind of continental shelf between the shallow and deep extremes”. KEYWORDS: Deep Ecology, impartiality, value-theory, identification, self- realization, biocentrism My aim is to discuss and sift a key moment in the debate concerning the nature and merits of Deep Ecology.
  • Killing Wildlife: the Pr...Cons of Culling Animals

    Killing Wildlife: the Pr...Cons of Culling Animals

    Advertisement Daily News The Magazine Maps Science Education Games Events Blogs Movies Explorers Apps Trips National Geographic Daily News Killing Wildlife: The Pros and Cons of Culling Animals Is targeting species like badgers, swans, and deer effective? And is it ethical? A badger looks for food at the British Wildlife Centre in Surrey. The animals are considered a risk to cattle because they may transmit bovine tuberculosis. PHOTOGRAPH BY STEFAN WERMUTH, REUTERS By Will James for National Geographic PUBLISHED MARCH 5, 2014 Last fall, the U.K.'s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs targeted badgers for culling—the selective killing of a species as a population control measure. Badgers reportedly transmit bovine tuberculosis, a disease with a profound economic impact on farmers whose cows test positive. But a recent report by an independent panel leaked by the BBC said the culls failed in efficacy and humaneness. (Related: "Mr. Badger Should Be Worried: Britain Ponders a Cull.") Proposed culls have made headlines in the United States as well. Wildlife managers have targeted bison in Montana and swans, geese, and deer in New York. What's driving these high-profile culling programs? Are they necessary? Can they be done ethically? And what's at the heart of the debate between their proponents and their detractors? We explored the controversy over culling with Mary Pearl, a conservationist with the City University of New York who formerly served as president of the Wildlife Trust, a nonprofit organization now called EcoHealth Alliance. Wildlife culls have been in the news a lot lately. Is this a new practice? I would say nature has been a culler, in the past, of wildlife species.