1
|
Coghlan S, Cardilini A. The use and abuse of moral theories in conservation debate about killing animals. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2024; 38:e14280. [PMID: 38682656 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14280] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2023] [Accepted: 02/15/2024] [Indexed: 05/01/2024]
Abstract
Recent ethical debate about compassionate conservation has invoked moral theories to oppose or support traditional practices of killing animals to protect biodiversity and ecosystems. The debate has featured the mainstream moral theories of consequentialism and utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. We identify problematic applications and critique of these moral theories in conservation discussions. Problems include a lack of clarity when invoking moral theories, misunderstanding and mischaracterizing theories, and overlooking features and circumstances affecting a theory's application. A key omission in the debate is a detailed discussion of the moral significance of animals and nature. We then examine the role of moral theory as such in ethical discussion, contrasting moral theory with ethical outlooks that center, for example, forms of love and care. Our aim is to advance the ethical debate about harming animals in conservation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Coghlan
- School of Computing and Information Systems, Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Digital Ethics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Adam Cardilini
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Edelblutte É, Krithivasan R, Hayek MN. Animal agency in wildlife conservation and management. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2023; 37:e13853. [PMID: 35262968 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13853] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2021] [Revised: 10/13/2021] [Accepted: 10/15/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Wildlife conservation and management (WCM) practices have been historically drawn from a wide variety of academic fields, yet practitioners have been slow to engage with emerging conversations about animals as complex beings, whose individuality and sociality influence their relationships with humans. We propose an explicit acknowledgement of wild, nonhuman animals as active participants in WCM. We examined 190 studies of WCM interventions and outcomes to highlight 3 common assumptions that underpin many present approaches to WCM: animal behaviors are rigid and homogeneous; wildlife exhibit idealized wild behavior and prefer pristine habitats; and human-wildlife relationships are of marginal or secondary importance relative to nonhuman interactions. We found that these management interventions insufficiently considered animal learning, decision-making, individuality, sociality, and relationships with humans and led to unanticipated detrimental outcomes. To address these shortcomings, we synthesized theoretical advances in animal behavioral sciences, animal geographies, and animal legal theory that may help conservation professionals reconceptualize animals and their relationships with humans. Based on advances in these fields, we constructed the concept of animal agency, which we define as the ability of animals to actively influence conservation and management outcomes through their adaptive, context-specific, and complex behaviors that are predicated on their sentience, individuality, lived experiences, cognition, sociality, and cultures in ways that shape and reshape shared human-wildlife cultures, spaces, and histories. Conservation practices, such as compassionate conservation, convivial conservation, and ecological justice, incorporate facets of animal agency. Animal agency can be incorporated in conservation problem-solving by assessing the ways in which agency contributes to species' survival and by encouraging more adaptive and collaborative decision-making among human and nonhuman stakeholders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Émilie Edelblutte
- Earth and Environment Department, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Roopa Krithivasan
- Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Matthew Nassif Hayek
- Department of Environmental Studies, New York University, New York, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Re-Thinking Felid–Human Entanglements through the Lenses of Compassionate Conservation and Multispecies Studies. Animals (Basel) 2022; 12:ani12212996. [PMID: 36359119 PMCID: PMC9655180 DOI: 10.3390/ani12212996] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2022] [Revised: 09/20/2022] [Accepted: 10/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Felids have long and complex historical associations with humans, ranging from fear and persecution to worship and care. With many felid species in widespread decline, re-thinking the messy entanglements of feline predators and human societies is a necessary step for fostering coexistence as current conservation frameworks that rely on the separation of people from nature are failing felids. Here, we explore two distinct but related interdisciplinary fields that, when put into dialogue with one another, offer novel perspectives and insights on felid–human relationships and conservation initiatives more broadly. We identified numerous similarities and emergent properties within compassionate conservation and multispecies studies, despite these fields arising from the sciences and social sciences and humanities respectively. Combined, reorientation of conservation values and practices to be morally inclusive of individual animals and their subjective experiences has the potential to support cohabitation and tolerance for felids, promoting multispecies flourishing. Abstract With many felid species in widespread decline, re-thinking the messy felid–human entanglements is a necessary step for fostering coexistence as current conservation frameworks centered on human exceptionalism and widespread violence toward wild animals are conspicuously failing felids. This paper argues for fostering a critical awareness of how we understand our relationships with nonhuman animals, particularly in the context of conservation. We bring two distinct but related interdisciplinary fields into a dialogue to critically question the values and conceptual assumptions that frame the practices of felid conservation today. Compassionate conservation and multispecies studies share many synergies and conceptual overlaps despite emerging from different academic domains. We identified four key areas for further exploration: (1) A shift in emphasis from practices of killing to the underlying assumptions that make forms of killing permissible and ethically unproblematic. (2) Re-engagement with individuals, not just species, in conservation settings. (3) Unsettling human exceptionalism through an emphasis on the agency of animals and an ethic involving compassion. (4) Acknowledging the ways in which humans co-become with other animals and cultivating relationships of multispecies cohabitation and flourishing.
Collapse
|
4
|
Bobier CA, Allen BL. Compassionate Conservation is indistinguishable from traditional forms of conservation in practice. Front Psychol 2022; 13:750313. [PMID: 36262450 PMCID: PMC9574382 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.750313] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2021] [Accepted: 08/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Animal welfare and ethics are important factors influencing wildlife conservation practice, and critics are increasingly challenging the underlying ethics and motivations supporting common conservation practices. “Compassionate Conservationists” argue that all conservationists should respect the rights of individual sentient animals and approach conservation problems from a position of compassion, and that doing so requires implementing practices that avoid direct harm to individual animals. In this way Compassionate Conservationists seek to contrast themselves with “Traditional Conservationists” who often express consequentialist decision-making processes that ostensibly aim to dispassionately minimize net animal harms, resulting in the common use of practices that directly harm or kill some animals. Conservationists and other observers might therefore conclude that the two sides of this debate are distinct and/or that their policy proscriptions produce different welfare outcomes for animals. To explore the validity of this conclusion we review the ethical philosophies underpinning two types of Compassionate Conservation—deontology and virtue ethics. Deontology focusses on animal rights or the moral duties or obligations of conservationists, whereas virtue ethics focusses on acting in ways that are virtuous or compassionate. We demonstrate that both types permit the intentional harm and killing of animals when faced with common conservation problems where animals will be harmed no matter what the conservationist does or does not do. We then describe the applied decision-making processes exhibited by Compassionate Conservationists (of both types) and Traditional Conservationists to show that they may each lead to the implementation of similar conservation practices (including lethal control) and produce similar outcomes for animals, despite the perceived differences in their ethical motivations. The widespread presence of wildlife conservation problems that cannot be resolved without causing at least some harm to some animals means that conservationists of all persuasions must routinely make trade-offs between the welfare of some animals over others. Compassionate Conservationists do this from an explicit position of animal rights and/or compassion, whereas Traditional Conservationists respect animal rights and exhibit this same compassion implicitly. These observations lead to the conclusion that Compassionate Conservation is indistinguishable from traditional forms of conservation in practice, and that the apparent disagreement among conservationists primarily concerns the effectiveness of various wildlife management practices at minimizing animal harm, and not the underlying ethics, motivations or morality of those practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher A. Bobier
- Department of Theology and Philosophy, Saint Mary's University of Minnesota, Winona, MN, United States
- *Correspondence: Christopher A. Bobier,
| | - Benjamin L. Allen
- Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia
- Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Johnson CJ, Ray JC, St‐Laurent M. Efficacy and ethics of intensive predator management to save endangered caribou. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.12729] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Chris J. Johnson
- Ecosystem Science and Management University of Northern British Columbia Prince George British Columbia Canada
| | - Justina C. Ray
- Wildlife Conservation Society Canada Toronto Ontario Canada
| | - Martin‐Hugues St‐Laurent
- Département de Biologie, Chimie et Géographie Université du Québec à Rimouski, Centre for Forest Research, Centre for Northern Studies Rimouski Québec Canada
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bobier C, Allen B. The virtue of compassion in compassionate conservation. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2022; 36:e13776. [PMID: 34057247 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13776] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2021] [Revised: 05/07/2021] [Accepted: 05/14/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
The role of ethics is becoming an increasingly important feature of biodiversity conservation dialogue and practice. Compassionate conservationists argue for a prohibition of, or at least a strong presumption against, the adoption of conservation policies that intentionally harm animals. They assert that to be compassionate is to care about animals and that it is antithetical to caring for animals to intentionally harm them. Compassionate conservationists thus criticize many existing conservation practices and policies. Two things together challenge the philosophical foundation of compassionate conservation. First, compassionate conservationists ground their theory in virtue ethics, yet virtue ethics permits exceptions to moral rules, so there cannot be an in-principle prohibition on adopting intentional harm-inducing policies and practices. But not all compassionate conservationists advocate for a prohibition on intentionally harming animals, only a strong presumption against it. This leads to the second point: compassion can motivate a person to adopt a harm-inducing conservation policy or practice when doing so is the best available option in a situation in which animals will be harmed no matter what policy or practice is adopted. Combining these insights with the empirical observation that conservationists regularly find themselves in tragic situations, we arrive at the conclusion that conservationists may regularly advocate for harm-inducing policies and practices from a position of compassion. Article Impact Statement: Compassionate conservationists should accept that the virtuously compassionate person may adopt harm-causing conservation policies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher Bobier
- Department of Theology and Philosophy, Saint Mary's University of Minnesota, Winona, Minnesota, USA
| | - Benjamin Allen
- Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
- Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Coghlan S, Cardilini APA. A critical review of the compassionate conservation debate. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2022; 36:e13760. [PMID: 34057240 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13760] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2020] [Accepted: 01/19/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Compassionate conservation holds that compassion should transform conservation. It has prompted heated debate and has been criticized strongly. We reviewed the debate to characterize compassionate conservation and to philosophically analyze critiques that are recurring and that warrant further critical attention. The necessary elements of compassionate conservation relate to the moral value of sentient animals and conservation and to science and conservation practice. Although compassionate conservation has several nontraditional necessary conditions, it also importantly allows a degree of pluralism in values and scientific judgment regarding animals and conservation practice. We identified 52 specific criticisms from 11 articles that directly critique compassionate conservation. We closely examined 33 of these because they recurred regularly or included substantial questions that required further response. Critics criticized compassionate conservation's ethical foundations, scientific credentials, clarity of application, understanding of compassion, its alleged threat to conservation and biodiversity. Some criticisms, we found, are question begging, confused, or overlook conceptual complexity. These criticisms raise questions for critics and proponents, regarding, for example, equal versus differential intrinsic moral value of different sentient animals (including humans), problems of natural and human-caused suffering of wild animals and predation, and the acceptability of specific conservation practices within compassionate conservation. By addressing recurring and faulty critiques of compassionate conservation and identifying issues for compassionate conservation to address, this review provides a clearer basis for crucial ongoing interdisciplinary dialogue about ethics, values, and conservation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Coghlan
- Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Digital Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Adam P A Cardilini
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Lehnen L, Arbieu U, Böhning‐Gaese K, Díaz S, Glikman JA, Mueller T. Rethinking individual relationships with entities of nature. PEOPLE AND NATURE 2022. [DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10296] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Lehnen
- Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK‐F) Frankfurt am Main Germany
| | - Ugo Arbieu
- Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK‐F) Frankfurt am Main Germany
- Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute National Zoological Park Front Royal VA USA
- Université Paris‐Saclay CNRS AgroParisTech Ecologie Systématique Evolution Orsay France
| | - Katrin Böhning‐Gaese
- Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK‐F) Frankfurt am Main Germany
- Department of Biological Sciences Goethe University Frankfurt am Main Frankfurt am Main Germany
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle‐Jena‐Leipzig Leipzig Germany
| | - Sandra Díaz
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV) CONICET Córdoba Argentina
- Departamento de Diversidad Biológica y Ecología Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales Universidad Nacional de Córdoba Córdoba Argentina
| | - Jenny A. Glikman
- Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados (IESA‐CSIC) Córdoba Spain
| | - Thomas Mueller
- Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK‐F) Frankfurt am Main Germany
- Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute National Zoological Park Front Royal VA USA
- Department of Biological Sciences Goethe University Frankfurt am Main Frankfurt am Main Germany
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Sommer NR, Ferraro KM. An interest‐based rights ethic for wildlife management and applications to behavioral training. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.616] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Nathalie R. Sommer
- Yale School of the Environment New Haven Connecticut USA
- Yale Law School: Law, Animal and Ethics Program New Haven Connecticut USA
| | - Kristy M. Ferraro
- Yale School of the Environment New Haven Connecticut USA
- Yale Law School: Law, Animal and Ethics Program New Haven Connecticut USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Nieminen E, Kareksela S, Halme P, Kotiaho JS. Quantifying trade-offs between ecological gains, economic costs, and landowners' preferences in boreal mire protection. AMBIO 2021; 50:1841-1850. [PMID: 33825157 PMCID: PMC8363685 DOI: 10.1007/s13280-021-01530-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2020] [Revised: 11/29/2020] [Accepted: 01/29/2021] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
Private land often encompasses biodiversity features of high conservation value, but its protection is not straightforward. Commonly, landowners' perspectives are rightfully allowed to influence conservation actions. This unlikely comes without consequences on biodiversity or other aspects such as economic considerations, but these consequences are rarely quantitatively considered in decision-making. In the context of boreal mire protection in Finland, we report how acknowledging landowners' resistance to protection changes the combination of mires selected to conservation compared to ignoring landowners' opinions. Using spatial prioritization, we quantify trade-offs arising between the amount of landowners' resistance, protected biodiversity, and financial costs in different conservation scenarios. Results show that the trade-offs cannot be fully avoided. Nevertheless, we show that the systematic examination of the trade-offs opens up options to alleviate them. This can promote the evaluation of different conservation policy outcomes, enabling better-informed conservation decisions and more effective and socially sustainable allocation of conservation resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eini Nieminen
- Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland
| | - Santtu Kareksela
- Parks and Wildlife Finland, Metsähallitus, P.O. Box 36, 40101 Jyväskylä, Finland
| | - Panu Halme
- Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland
| | - Janne Sakari Kotiaho
- Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Batavia C, Nelson MP, Bruskotter JT, Jones MS, Yanco E, Ramp D, Bekoff M, Wallach AD. Emotion as a source of moral understanding in conservation. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2021; 35:1380-1387. [PMID: 33410227 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13689] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2020] [Revised: 12/28/2020] [Accepted: 12/30/2020] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Recent debates around the meaning and implications of compassionate conservation suggest that some conservationists consider emotion a false and misleading basis for moral judgment and decision making. We trace these beliefs to a long-standing, gendered sociocultural convention and argue that the disparagement of emotion as a source of moral understanding is both empirically and morally problematic. According to the current scientific and philosophical understanding, reason and emotion are better understood as partners, rather than opposites. Nonetheless, the two have historically been seen as separate, with reason elevated in association with masculinity and emotion (especially nurturing emotion) dismissed or delegitimated in association with femininity. These associations can be situated in a broader, dualistic, and hierarchical logic used to maintain power for a dominant male (White, able-bodied, upper class, heterosexual) human class. We argue that emotion should be affirmed by conservationists for the novel and essential insights it contributes to conservation ethics. We consider the specific example of compassion and characterize it as an emotional experience of interdependence and shared vulnerability. This experience highlights conservationists' responsibilities to individual beings, enhancing established and widely accepted beliefs that conservationists have a duty to protect populations, species, and ecosystems (or biodiversity). We argue compassion, thus understood, should be embraced as a core virtue of conservation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chelsea Batavia
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, U.S.A
| | - Michael Paul Nelson
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, U.S.A
| | - Jeremy T Bruskotter
- School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 210 Kottman Hall, Columbus, OH, 43210, U.S.A
| | - Megan S Jones
- Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, U.S.A
| | - Esty Yanco
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| | - Daniel Ramp
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| | - Marc Bekoff
- Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309, U.S.A
| | - Arian D Wallach
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Ferraro KM, Ferraro AL, Sommer NR. Challenges facing cross‐disciplinary collaboration in conservation ethics. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.523] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Kristy M. Ferraro
- School of the Environment Yale University New Haven Connecticut USA
- Law, Animal and Ethics Program Yale Law School New Haven Connecticut USA
| | | | - Nathalie R. Sommer
- School of the Environment Yale University New Haven Connecticut USA
- Law, Animal and Ethics Program Yale Law School New Haven Connecticut USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Schwartz MW. Conservation lessons from taboos and trolley problems. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2021; 35:794-803. [PMID: 32851689 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13618] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2020] [Revised: 08/07/2020] [Accepted: 08/11/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Governments pass conservation laws, adopt policies, and make plans yet frequently fail to implement them. Implementation of conservation, however, often requires costly sacrifice: people foregoing benefit for the benefit of biodiversity. Decisions involve trade-offs with outcomes that depend on the values at stake and people's perceptions of those values. Psychology, ethics, and behavioral science have each addressed the challenge of making difficult, often tragic, trade-off decisions. Based on these literatures, values can be classified as secular or sacred, where sacred values are those for which compensation may be unthinkable (e.g., freedom). Taboo trade-offs emerge when secular values are pitted against sacred ones. These are difficult to discuss, much less negotiate. Confronting taboo trade-offs in conservation may require discursive approaches to better understand particular attributes of decisions that place sacred human values at risk. Tragic trade-offs emerge when sacred values are pitted against one another. The trolley problem-a forced choice between 2 unthinkable outcomes-is a simple heuristic illustrating ethical challenges of tragic trade-offs. Behavior studies illustrate that people have a strong aversion to losses where an active choice was made, resulting in a bias toward status quo decisions. Faced with tragic, trolley-problem-like choices, people tend to avoid taking responsibility for action, defer decisions, evade opinions on painful choices, and regret unfortunate outcomes of actions. To help close the implementation gap, conservation actors may need to directly address the psychological, ethical, and behavioral barriers created by the remorse, regret, and moral residue of implementing conservation choices that have tragic outcomes. Recognition of these predictable features of the human psyche may foster better administrative structures to support action with durable outcomes as well as new research directions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark W Schwartz
- Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616, U.S.A
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Wallach AD, Batavia C, Bekoff M, Alexander S, Baker L, Ben‐Ami D, Boronyak L, Cardilin APA, Carmel Y, Celermajer D, Coghlan S, Dahdal Y, Gomez JJ, Kaplan G, Keynan O, Khalilieh A, Kopnina H, Lynn WS, Narayanan Y, Riley S, Santiago‐Ávila FJ, Yanco E, Zemanova MA, Ramp D. Recognizing animal personhood in compassionate conservation. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2020; 34:1097-1106. [PMID: 32144823 PMCID: PMC7540678 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13494] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2019] [Revised: 01/24/2020] [Accepted: 02/28/2020] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
Compassionate conservation is based on the ethical position that actions taken to protect biodiversity should be guided by compassion for all sentient beings. Critics argue that there are 3 core reasons harming animals is acceptable in conservation programs: the primary purpose of conservation is biodiversity protection; conservation is already compassionate to animals; and conservation should prioritize compassion to humans. We used argument analysis to clarify the values and logics underlying the debate around compassionate conservation. We found that objections to compassionate conservation are expressions of human exceptionalism, the view that humans are of a categorically separate and higher moral status than all other species. In contrast, compassionate conservationists believe that conservation should expand its moral community by recognizing all sentient beings as persons. Personhood, in an ethical sense, implies the individual is owed respect and should not be treated merely as a means to other ends. On scientific and ethical grounds, there are good reasons to extend personhood to sentient animals, particularly in conservation. The moral exclusion or subordination of members of other species legitimates the ongoing manipulation and exploitation of the living worlds, the very reason conservation was needed in the first place. Embracing compassion can help dismantle human exceptionalism, recognize nonhuman personhood, and navigate a more expansive moral space.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arian D. Wallach
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
| | - Chelsea Batavia
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and SocietyOregon State UniversityCorvallisOR97331U.S.A.
| | - Marc Bekoff
- Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderCO80309U.S.A.
| | | | - Liv Baker
- Animal Behavior and Conservation ProgramHunter College CUNYNew YorkNYU.S.A.
| | - Dror Ben‐Ami
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
- Compassionate Conservation Middle East, Steinhardt Museum of Natural HistoryTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
| | - Louise Boronyak
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
- Institute for Sustainable FuturesUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
| | - Adam P. A. Cardilin
- Faculty of Science Engineering and Built EnvironmentDeakin UniversityWaurn PondsVIC3216Australia
| | - Yohay Carmel
- Division of Environmental, Water and Agricultural EngineeringTechnion Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifa32000Israel
| | - Danielle Celermajer
- Department of Sociology and Social Policy, Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesThe University of SydneySydneyNSW2006Australia
| | - Simon Coghlan
- School of Computing and Information Systems, Melbourne School of EngineeringThe University of MelbourneParkvilleVIC3010Australia
| | | | - Jonatan J. Gomez
- Departamento de Ciencias BásicasUniversidad Nacional de LujánRutas 5 y 7Luján6700Argentina
| | - Gisela Kaplan
- School of Science & TechnologyUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleNSW2351Australia
| | - Oded Keynan
- Compassionate Conservation Middle East, Steinhardt Museum of Natural HistoryTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
- Dead Sea & Arava Science CentreCentral Arava BranchHatzevaIsrael
| | | | - Helen Kopnina
- The Hague University of Applied Sciences, International BusinessJohanna Westerdijkplein 75EN Den Haag2521the Netherlands
| | - William S. Lynn
- George Perkins Marsh InstituteClark UniversityWorcesterMA01710U.S.A.
| | - Yamini Narayanan
- School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts and EducationDeakin UniversityMelbourneVIC3125Australia
| | - Sophie Riley
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
- Faculty of LawUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
| | - Francisco J. Santiago‐Ávila
- Carnivore Coexistence Lab, Nelson Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin‐MadisonMadisonWI53706U.S.A.
| | - Esty Yanco
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
| | - Miriam A. Zemanova
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
| | - Daniel Ramp
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Hampton JO, Fisher PM, Warburton B. Reconsidering humaneness. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2020; 34:1107-1113. [PMID: 32104929 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13489] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2019] [Revised: 02/19/2020] [Accepted: 02/21/2020] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Animal welfare is increasingly important in the understanding of how human activity affects wildlife, but the conservation community is still grappling with meaningful terminology when communicating this aspect of their work. One example is the use of the terms "humane" and "inhumane." These terms are used in scientific contexts, but they also have legal and social definitions. Without reference to a defined technical standard, describing an action or outcome as humane (or inhumane) constrains science communication because the terms have variable definitions; establish a binary (something is either humane or inhumane); and imply underlying values reflecting a moral prescription. Invoking the term "humane," and especially the strong antithesis "inhumane," can infer a normative judgment of how animals ought to be treated (humane) or ought not to be treated (inhumane). The consequences of applying this terminology are not just academic. Publicizing certain practices as humane can create blurred lines around contentious animal welfare questions and, perhaps intentionally, defer scrutiny of actual welfare outcomes. Labeling other practices as inhumane can be used cynically to erode their public support. We suggest that, if this normative language is used in science, it should always be accompanied by a clear, contextual definition of what is meant by humane.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Penny M Fisher
- Landcare Research, PO Box 69040, Lincoln, 7640, New Zealand
| | | |
Collapse
|