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.