DOCSLIB.ORG

Ethics and Trophy Hunting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ethics and Trophy Hunting Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. Appendix A: Ethics and trophy hunting A.1 The ethical background that our focus is on the ethical sustain- ability of trophy hunting, and is not to trophy hunting limited to legislation concerning trophy The principal ethical issue we address imports. We consider the moral reper- is whether acting to influence legislation cussions of banning trophy hunting, an on trophy hunting (for example through action the UK government has only a abanonimports,orstricterconditions) very indirect influence on. is the right thing to. We do not propose to offer a verdict on this, but will set A.2 What is the moral sta- out what should be considered in making such a judgement. Because the action be- tus of animals? ing considered is a change to legislation, The moral dilemmas concerning how an- it is also important to preface this dis- imals should be treated emerge at least cussion by noting that it does not follow in part from differences in judgements from the view that an action is ‘wrong’, on the extent to which they have intrin- that legislation prohibiting it should fol- sic value. Sentient beings are widely low. We might think that telling hurt- agreed to have intrinsic value. And If an ful lies is wrong, for example, but not animal has some intrinsic value,value that it should be made illegal. Lying beyond the use to which we can put it during legal proceedings, perjury, is on (its instrumental value), it follows that it the other hand widely accepted to have should be treated with some regard for consequences that are serious enough to its welfare (Vucetich et al. 2015). This merit illegality. Similarly, there are laws view is held by most ethicists and is also that prohibit actions that are not im- widespread among the public. It trans- moral36. The correspondence between forms the question concerning trophy law and ethics is not expected to be that hunting and the use of animals in gen- complete. eral into a question of the form: what is an adequate reason to kill animals? Our It is also possible to envisage a ban more specific question here is of course: on trophy imports without a verdict that is trophy hunting an adequate reason to trophy hunting is wrong, as a signal of kill a lion? what sort of society we (in the UK) are, for example, without implying that we The question is not limited to a bi- making a judgement on the morality of nary verdict on whether or not trophy practices elsewhere. But we will assume hunting is permissible. If this is not the 36For example, driving at 71 mph on motorways in the UK is illegal. Few would argue that it is immoral. 64 case (if the answer to the ‘whether’ ques- conservation ethics and animal welfare tion is ‘yes’), then the ‘how’ question ethics. This is the core of the ethical arises: under what circumstances is tro- dilemma concerning trophy hunting of phy hunting permissible? It is the moral lions. status of different outcomes that inform whether we think a ban is appropriate, Providing answers to questions of the and under what circumstances. These form “what is a good reason to kill an judgments depend on values,andvalues animal?”requiresrationalassessmentof are not constants across or within cul- the different value judgements underly- tural groups (an observation that does ing a decision. Under what conditions, not lead to the relativist conclusion that for example, can the proposition that no judgment on right and wrong is pos- the ends justify the means, the core of sible). Some hold the view that some the utilitarian perspective, not be de- practices are wrong in principle and can fended? At one extreme, some philoso- never be tolerated, while others support phers defend the view that at least some alimitedversionofutilitarianism,judg- animals merit full moral consideration, ing the merits of an action by its positive where ‘full’ implies a status equal to that and negative outcomes (Macdonald et al. of humans, and characterise the oppos- 2016c). Conservationists advocating this ing view as ‘speciesism’. This school perspective will likely argue that there of thought has been championed by the is a duty to conserve lions for future gen- philosopher Peter Singer (who is also ex- 37 erations of humans. A verdict on trophy plicitly utilitarian in his ethical stance ). hunting is bedevilled by the incommen- Singer’s view, based on capacity for suf- surability of the outcomes – economics, fering is: “The basic principle of equality ecology and both human and animal wel- is, I shall argue, equality of considera- fare are involved. tion; and equal consideration may lead to different treatment and different rights” Vucetich and Nelson (2014) apply the (Singer 1986). This leads Singer to rule formal methodology of argument anal- out consumptive use of animals includ- ysis to wolf hunting in the US. They ing for hunting. Most philosophers re- highlight that a central proposition jus- ject this position, arguing that the differ- tifying the conclusion that wolf hunting ence in capabilities between humans and should be allowed, that “Conserving wolf other species, which Singer does not dis- populations is an adequate reason to kill pute, merit qualitatively different moral individual wolves”isnotsettled,andrep- obligations, different enough that hunt- resents an unresolved conflict between ing is permissible (Scruton 2000). Scru- 37Sympathy for utilitarian ethics does not therefore necessarily lead to tolerance of, or support for, trophy hunting. 65 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. ton’s view is that our obligation to sen- where it could be made to ‘work’ eco- tient beings is for proper respect to be logically. One of the difficulties for this shown. He also defends hunting as sat- position, as admitted by one philosopher isfying a fundamental human need for who is sympathetic to the idea, is in pre- connection with nature. dicting the myriad of knock-on effects for any specific proposed intervention, and Some of those who argue that the that the chance of a large net decrease species barrier is artificial are led in ex- in animal welfare is plausible for many 38 tremis to the conclusion that humans scenarios. This aspiration is sufficiently have an obligation to intervene in na- challenging in practice that the rational ture to improve welfare (some philoso- case is not explored further here. phers have argued that the death of Cecil was a good thing based on the rationale The Cecil event drew attention to a that the net effect on animal welfare may possible conflation of animal welfare and have been positive because Cecil’s death animal rights. The distinction centres on spared his future prey animals a grisly whether there is any physical or mental death39). Anyone with any awareness of stress to the animals concerned. If an nature knows that few animals die peace- animal is rendered unconscious instanta- fully at the end of a full life span (Mac- neously by a hunter, and with no mental donald et al. 2006). But the idea that stress preceding the event, it can be ar- this lead to a human obligation to inter- gued there are no animal welfare issues41. vene and to eliminate at least some car- If it is admitted that animal have some nivores is, as one of the philosophers who intrinsic value, then we again arrive at advocates it (Oscar Horta) admits, “new the question of whether or not the reason and strange”(Horta,citedby(Simpson for the killing is an adequate one. One 2015). It is based on the view than reduc- view, said by Oscar Horta to be ‘popu- ing animal suffering should be prioritised lar’, is that death is harmful because it over the preservation of species40. There deprives an animal of future positive ex- may be sound philosophical cases to be periences (LaFollette and Wiley Online made against this position, but the most Library (Online service) 2013). There is potent argument is probably that it is also an ethic of ‘divinity’ holding that difficult to visualise the circumstances “every entity in nature enjoys its partic- 38upported by philosophers like Oscar Horta, who recently spoke in Oxford on human obligation for improving wild animal welfare (Oxford Magazine, M term 2015, 013). 39http://qz.com/497675/to-truly-end-animal-suffering-the-most-ethical-choice-is-to-kill-all-predators- especially-cecil-the-lion/ 40http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/the-meat-eaters/?_r=0 41A similar issue arises where methods of animal slaughter are discussed, and if methods prescribed by religion that do not produce instantaneous unconsciousness are acceptable. 66 ular right to exist”(Schweder,citedby for cancer (Herzog 2011). The motive Dussault 2013). for the killing of animals is clearly influ- ential. The impetus for a trophy ban, 42 ‘Trolleyology’ experiments explor- brought to the fore by the ‘Cecil’ event, ing moral decisions made when animals’ concerned its status as a sport. Unlike fates are compared with those of hu- the debate surrounding UK foxhunting mans suggest in practice people do place (Macdonald and Johnson 2015b), which higher value on human life compared was also defended on its utility in pest with that of animals. In one scenario the control, but attracted disapproval for its subjects are told that an out of control function as at least partly for sport, tro- trolley is headed down a rail towards the phy hunting of lions is unequivocally a last surviving group of mountain gorillas, sport. We know that ‘motive’ is widely but that they can throw a switch and perceived to affect the moral status of send it towards a young man, who will an action – hunting for food or protec- definitely die.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Animals and Ethics Fall, 2017, P
    Philosophy 174a Ethics and Animals Fall 2017 Instructor: Teaching Fellow: Chris Korsgaard Ahson Azmat 205 Emerson Hall [email protected] [email protected] Office Hours: Mondays 1:30-3:30 Description: Do human beings have moral obligations to the other animals? If so, what are they, and why? Should or could non-human animals have legal rights? Should we treat wild and domestic animals differently? Do human beings have the right to eat the other animals, raise them for that purpose on factory farms, use them in experiments, display them in zoos and circuses, make them race or fight for our entertainment, make them work for us, and keep them as pets? We will examine the work of utilitarian, Kantian, and Aristotelian philosophers, and others who have tried to answer these questions. This course, when taken for a letter grade, meets the General Education requirement for Ethical Reasoning. Sources and How to Get Them: Many of the sources from we will be reading from onto the course web site, but you will need to have copies of Singer’s Animal Liberation, Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights, Mill’s Utilitarianism and Coetzee’s The Lives of Animals. I have ordered all the main books from which we will be reading (except my own book, which is not yet published) at the Coop. The main books we will be using are: Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer. Updated edition, 2009, by Harper Collins Publishers. The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan. University of California Press, 2004. Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals, by Christine M.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    ECTF Edinburgh Centre for Tropical Forests School of GeoSciences CECS/Crew Building, Kings Buildings, University of Edinburgh, http://www.darwin.gov.uk West Mains Rd, Edinburgh EH9 3JN, UK [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)131 650 7862 Darwin Initiative Annual Report 1. Darwin Project Information Project Ref. Number 14-028 Project Title Conservation of Puna’s Andean cats across national borders Country(ies) Argentina, Bolivia and Chile UK Contractor Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), Oxford University Partner Organisation(s) Andean Cat Alliance (AGA); Mammal Behavioural Ecology Group, Universidad Nacional del Sur (Argentina); Museo de Ciencias Naturales de Salta, Universidad Nacional de Salta (Argentina); Colección Boliviana de Fauna (Bolivia); Fundación Biodiversitas (Chile); Universidad de Chile, Universidad Mayor, Universidad Catolica (Chile); Wildlife Conservation Network (USA) Darwin Grant Value £159,186 Start/End dates 01 October 2005 – 30 September 2008 Reporting period 1 Oct 2005 to 30 Apr 2006, Annual report # 1 Project website www.wildcru.org/andeancat Author(s), date Claudio Sillero-Zubiri, Mauro Lucherini, María José Merino and Jorgelina Marino; 30 April 2006 1 Project annual report format Feb 2006 2. Project Background The Andean cat (Oreailurus jacobita) is the rarest South American felid, and one of the most endangered wild cats in the world. Endemic to the Central High Andes, this carnivore is a specialized predator of a community of high altitude vertebrates and can be used as a flagship species for the conservation of the Puna’s endemic-rich biodiversity. Our work is centred on the triple frontier of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, a remote region where most recent Andean cat sightings have occurred and with existing adjacent conservation areas in all three countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast Facts on Canada's Commercial Seal Hunt
    Fast Facts on Canada's Commercial Seal Hunt About the Hunt: Canada's commercial seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on Earth. In just 10 years, over two million seals have been killed for their fur. This does not include the tens of thousands of injured seals who have died below the ice. 97 percent of the seals killed in the past 10 years have been less than three months of age. Many of these defenseless seals did not yet know how to swim. In 2001, an independent veterinary panel concluded that the seal hunt results in considerable and unacceptable suffering. They noted that in 42 percent of the seals examined there was not enough evidence of cranial injury to even guarantee unconsciousness at the time of skinning. Harp seals rely on sea ice to give birth to and nurse their pups and they need the ice to remain intact until the pups are strong enough to survive in open water. Climate change has caused sea ice to diminish at an alarming rate off Canada’s east coast in the harp seal birthing grounds. Sea ice formation has been well below average for each of the past 15 years, with 2010 having the lowest sea ice formation on record. The Canadian government has estimated up to 100% mortality in harp seal birthing areas when the sea ice did not form or melted too early in the season. Despite this, the Canadian government continues to authorize massive harp seal quotas each year. The Humane Society of the United States takes no issue with subsistence seal hunting by aboriginal people.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
    THE SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT A FEMINISTVEGETARIAN CRITICAL THEORY Praise for The Sexual Politics of Meat and Carol J. Adams “A clearheaded scholar joins the ideas of two movements—vegetari- anism and feminism—and turns them into a single coherent and moral theory. Her argument is rational and persuasive. New ground—whole acres of it—is broken by Adams.” —Colman McCarthy, Washington Post Book World “Th e Sexual Politics of Meat examines the historical, gender, race, and class implications of meat culture, and makes the links between the prac tice of butchering/eating animals and the maintenance of male domi nance. Read this powerful new book and you may well become a vegetarian.” —Ms. “Adams’s work will almost surely become a ‘bible’ for feminist and pro gressive animal rights activists. Depiction of animal exploita- tion as one manifestation of a brutal patriarchal culture has been explored in two [of her] books, Th e Sexual Politics of Meat and Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. Adams argues that factory farming is part of a whole culture of oppression and insti- tutionalized violence. Th e treatment of animals as objects is parallel to and associated with patriarchal society’s objectifi cation of women, blacks, and other minorities in order to routinely exploit them. Adams excels in constructing unexpected juxtapositions by using the language of one kind of relationship to illuminate another. Employing poetic rather than rhetorical techniques, Adams makes powerful connec- tions that encourage readers to draw their own conclusions.” —Choice “A dynamic contribution toward creating a feminist/animal rights theory.” —Animals’ Agenda “A cohesive, passionate case linking meat-eating to the oppression of animals and women .
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethical Consistency of Animal Equality
    1 The ethical consistency of animal equality Stijn Bruers, Sept 2013, DRAFT 2 Contents 0. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 5 0.1 SUMMARY: TOWARDS A COHERENT THEORY OF ANIMAL EQUALITY ........................................................................ 9 1. PART ONE: ETHICAL CONSISTENCY ......................................................................................................... 18 1.1 THE BASIC ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 18 a) The input data: moral intuitions .......................................................................................................... 18 b) The method: rule universalism............................................................................................................. 20 1.2 THE GOAL: CONSISTENCY AND COHERENCE ..................................................................................................... 27 1.3 THE PROBLEM: MORAL ILLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 30 a) Optical illusions .................................................................................................................................... 30 b) Moral illusions ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Theideologyfox2018journalartic
    This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Fox, M. A. (2018). The Ideology of Meat-Eating. The Harvard Review of Philosophy, 25, 37-49. doi: 10.5840/harvardreview201853114 which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.5840/harvardreview201853114. Downloaded from [email protected], the institutional research repository of the University of New England at Armidale, NSW Australia. The Ideology of Meat-Eating Michael Allen Fox Published in Harvard Review of Philosophy, 25 (2018): 37-49. This material ©copyright The Harvard Review of Philosophy, 2018. Abstract: A network of beliefs and values (an ideology) underlies much of our behavior. While meat-eaters may not acknowledge that they have an ideology, I argue that they do by attempting to identify and deconstruct its elements. I also include numerous historical and philosophical observations about the origins of meat- eaters’ ideology. Explaining and examining ideologies may encourage discussion about a particular area of life (for example, dietary choice) and stimulate change in relation to it. Both adherents to vegetarian/vegan approaches and meat-eaters who wish to become less dependent on animal food sources (for ethical and environmental reasons) can benefit from the broader understanding that such an analysis provides. Key words: animals, anthropocentrism, diet, ideology, livestock, meat, veganism, vegetarianism On ideology and ideologies Generally, we all have reasons—good or bad—for what we choose and do. But behind some of our actions there is a more complex outlook, or what might be called an ideology. An ideology is often thought of as a set of notions tainted by values one disagrees with or finds odious: An ideology belongs to my opponent, not to me, I might think, dismissively.
    [Show full text]
  • Coexisting with Deer an Advocate’S Guide for Preventing Deer Culls in Your Community
    Coexisting with Deer An advocate’s guide for preventing deer culls in your community How to use this toolkit We fight the big fight for all animals, but we can’t do it without your help. This toolkit is designed to add power to your passion; to enable you to be the most effective advocate for the deer in your community. Suburban development has created an environment in which deer thrive; our backyards provide the “edge” habitat (where forest meets field) they prefer, offering ample supply of food and water. Access to abundant resources leads to healthy deer and higher reproductive rates, and as deer populations increase, so too do deer-human conflicts. The result too often is an assumption that there are “too many deer” and a call for lethal control. This toolkit is designed to empower advocates like you to take action, be it against planned lethal measures, or proactively encouraging the adoption of a humane deer management plan. It’s often thought that the voice of a large, national organization is enough, but the voice of a constituent – yours! – is actually the most powerful tool in the fight for the welfare of deer in your community. Local decision-makers want to hear from you, not an outsider. A groundswell of local opposition to a deer cull, or in support of a humane deer management plan, has the greatest impact. This toolkit will provide guidance on how best to voice your opinion, and how to inspire others to do the same. The toolkit is organized as follows: o Learn the issue: Knowing more about the types of conflicts your community may be having with deer can help you better understand how to address them humanely.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Animals in Sports
    Existence, Breeding, a,nd Rights: The Use of Animals in Sports Donald Scherer Bowling Green State University Against these lines of argument one frequently encounters a certain objection. It is argued that since the animals for fighting, hunting and racing exist only because they have been bred for such human uses, human beings are justified in so treating them. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate this line ofobjection, or to speak more precisely, to evaluate the two distinct objections implicit in this line. For the objection may be either that (l) the present uses of the animals are justified because they are better for the animals than the Standardly, philosophical arguments about the alternative, namely non-existence, or that quality of treatment human beings owe nonhuman animals! rest on two bases. Peter Singer is famous (2) breeding an animal for a purpose gives the for arguing from the capacity of animals to feel pain breeders (transferable) rights over what they to the conclusion that since almost none of the pain have bred. human beings cause animals is necessary, almost none of it is morally justifiable (Singer, 1989, pp. 78-79). I shall pursue these alternatives sequentially. Singer rests his case on the premise that who suffers pain does not affect the badness of the suffering, so The Value of Existence that, without strong justification, the infliction of pain is universally wrong (Ibid., pp. 77-78). Tom Regan is The strength ofthe first form ofthe objection rests on equally famous for his argument that the beliefs and a common intuition comparing the values of existence desires which normal one year-old mammals clearly and non-existence.
    [Show full text]
  • Safari Hunting of Australian Wild Exotic Game—Extension Establishment of a Peak Body for the Industry
    Safari Hunting of Australian Wild Exotic Game—Extension Establishment of a peak body for the industry by G.McL. Dryden, S.G. Craig-Smith and C. Arcodia October 2007 RIRDC Publication No 07/161 RIRDC Project No UQ-116A © 2007 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 1 74151 556 4 ISSN 1440-6845 Safari Hunting of Australian Wild Exotic Game—Extension: Establishment of a peak body for the industry Publication No. 07/161 Project No. UQ-116A The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances. While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication. The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors. The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication. This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Zoopolis, Intervention, and the State of Nature*
    Zoopolis, Intervention, and the State of Nature* OSCAR HORTA Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Abstract In Zoopolis, Donaldson and Kymlicka argue that intervention in nature to aid animals is sometimes permissible, and in some cases obligatory, to save them from the harms they commonly face. But they claim these interven- tions must have some limits, since they could otherwise disrupt the struc- ture of the communities wild animals form, which should be respected as sovereign ones. These claims are based on the widespread assumption that ecosystemic processes ensure that animals have good lives in nature. How- ever, this assumption is, unfortunately, totally unrealistic. Most animals are r-strategists who die in pain shortly after coming into existence, and those who make it to maturity commonly suffer terrible harms too. In addition, most animals do not form the political communities Zoopolis describes. The situation of animals in the wild can therefore be considered analogous to one of humanitarian catastrophe, or to that of irretrievably failed states. It matches closely what a Hobbesian state of nature would be like. This means that intervention in nature to aid nonhuman animals should not be limited as Donaldson and Kymlicka argue. Keywords: animal ethics, animal rights, intervention, sovereignty, specie- sism, state of nature. 1. INTRODUCTION Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights is a novel, brilliantly argued and very instructive book. It addresses some of the most important topics in ani- mal ethics in a fresh and original way, and opens new lines of inquiry. This paper focuses on what I consider the most significant problemZoopolis tack- * For very helpful comments, I thank Paula Casal and three anonymous referees, two of who later revealed themselves to be Lori Gruen and Andrew Williams.
    [Show full text]