To act or not to act? Sheltering animals from the wild: A pluralistic account of a conflict between animal and environmental ethics
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics, Place and Environment 6 (1):13 – 26 (2003)
The leading question of this article is whether it is acceptable, from a moral point of view, to take wild animals that are ill out of their natural habitat and temporarily bring them under human control with the purpose of curing them. To this end the so-called 'seal debate' was examined. In the Netherlands, seals that are lost or ill are rescued and taken into shelters, where they are cured and afterwards reintroduced into their natural environment. Recently, this practice has been criticised because it is thought to interfere with the wildness of the animals and population. In this research, the moral assumptions behind the arguments of both the proponents and opponents of sheltering have been analysed within a morally pluralistic framework. It is concluded that sheltering on too large a scale would be contrary to the efforts of the last few decades to maintain an independent or wild seal population, which means that a certain amount of caution is called for. However, in the current situation there is no decisive reason to completely prohibit shelters either. Good arguments can even be given in favour of sheltering. It also becomes clear that the acceptability of sheltering wild animals depends on the specific circumstances in which an animal is encountered.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Paul W. Taylor (2011). Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton University Press.
Peter Singer (1993). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Thomas Nagel (1979/2012). Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press.
Peter Singer (ed.) (1990). Animal Liberation. Avon Books.
Tom Regan (2009). The Case for Animal Rights. In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press 425-434.
Citations of this work BETA
Aysel Dog˘an (2011). A Defense of Animal Rights. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (5):473-491.
Katinka Waelbers, Frans Stafleu & Frans W. A. Brom (2004). Not All Animals Are Equal Differences in Moral Foundations for the Dutch Veterinary Policy on Livestock and Animals in Nature Reservations. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (6):497-515.
Similar books and articles
H. Verhoog (1992). The Concept of Intrinsic Value and Transgenic Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (2):147-160.
Robert W. Loftin (1985). The Medical Treatment of Wild Animals. Environmental Ethics 7 (3):231-239.
Ellen-Marie Forsberg (2011). Inspiring Respect for Animals Through the Law? Current Development in the Norwegian Animal Welfare Legislation. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (4):351-366.
Irene Klaver, Jozef Keulartz & Henk van den Belt (2002). Born to Be Wild. Environmental Ethics 24 (1):3-21.
Henk van den Belt (2002). Born to Be Wild. Environmental Ethics 24 (1):3-21.
Ralf Stoecker (2009). Why Animals Can't Act. Inquiry 52 (3):255-271.
Eileen O'Rourke (2000). The Reintroduction and Reinterpretation of the Wild. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (1):144-165.
Jac Swart & Jozef Keulartz (2011). Wild Animals in Our Backyard. A Contextual Approach to the Intrinsic Value of Animals. Acta Biotheoretica 59 (2):185-200.
Jac A. A. Swart (2004). The Wild Animal as a Research Animal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):181-197.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads27 ( #140,993 of 1,793,278 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #137,980 of 1,793,278 )
How can I increase my downloads?