David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 9 (2):167-195 (1994)
In a world of massive extinctions where not all taxa can be saved, how ought biologists to decide their preservation priorities? When biologists make recommendations regarding conservation, should their analyses be based on scientific criteria, on public or lay criteria, on economic or some other criteria? As a first step in answering this question, we examine the issue of whether biologists ought to try to save the endangered Florida panther, a well known glamour taxon. To evaluate the merits of panther preservation, we examine three important arguments of biologists who are skeptical about the desirability of panther preservation. These arguments are (1) that conservation dollars ought to be spent in more efficient ways than panther preservation; (2) that biologists and conservationists ought to work to preserve species before subspecies; and (3) that biologists and conservationists ought to work to save habitats before species or subspecies. We conclude that, although all three arguments are persuasive, none of them provides convincing grounds for foregoing panther preservation in favor of other, more scientifically significant conservation efforts. Our conclusion is based, in part, on the argument that biologists ought to employ ethical, as well as scientific, rationality in setting conservation priorities and that ethical rationality may provide persuasive grounds for preserving taxa that often are not viewed by biologists as of great importance.
|Keywords||Biodiversity conservation preservation Florida panther extinction|
|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
John Locke (1988). Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press.
Tom Regan (2009). The Case for Animal Rights. In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press 425-434.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (1991). Risk and Rationality. University of California Press.
John Locke (1966). Two Treatises of Government. Philosophical Quarterly 16 (65):365.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Bryan G. Norton (1986). Conservation and Preservation. Environmental Ethics 8 (3):195-220.
Mark Sagoff (2005). Do Non-Native Species Threaten the Natural Environment? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (3):215-236.
James Maclaurin & Kim Sterelny (2008). What is Biodiversity? University of Chicago Press.
John Hintz (2007). Some Political Problems for Rewilding Nature. Ethics, Place and Environment 10 (2):177 – 216.
David Takacs (1996). The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Helena Siipi (2007). Naturalness in Biodiversity Management. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 3:173-178.
Jay Odenbaugh (2001). Ecological Stability, Model Building, and Environmental Policy: A Reply to Some of the Pessimism. Philosophy of Science 68 (S1):S493-.
Michael Lewis (2005). Indian Science for Indian Tigers?: Conservation Biology and the Question of Cultural Values. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 38 (2):185 - 207.
Jay Odenbaugh (2003). Values, Advocacy and Conservation Biology. Environmental Values 12 (1):55 - 69.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads36 ( #107,716 of 1,790,308 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #106,127 of 1,790,308 )
How can I increase my downloads?