WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND THE MORAL STATUS OF ANIMALS

In: Environmental politics, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 114-129

Abstract

WHEN THE VARIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES TO THE MORAL STATUS OF ANIMALS ARE EXAMINED AND PARTICULAR ATTENTION IS PAID TO WHAT EACH OF THEM HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE NATURE OF OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH WILD ANIMALS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT WHILST ANTHROPOCENTRIC JUSTIFICATIONS (WHICH SEE THE CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE AS MERELY A MEANS OF FURTHERING HUMAN ENDS) ARE USED PARTICULARLY FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION, ECOLOGICAL AND RIGHTS APPROACHES ARE ALSO IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTORS TO THE DEBATE. AS A RESULT, PRESENT PRACTICES IN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION HAVE MORALLY INIQUITOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR SOME (WILD AND DOMESTICATED) ANIMALS AND SOME HUMANS. A STRATEGY BASED UPON THE CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF ANIMAL WELFARE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS OF BOTH WILD AND DOMESTICATED ANIMALS IS BOTH MORALLY EQUITABLE AND MORE LIKELY TO MEET CONSERVATION GOALS.