Nature’s Legacy: On Rohwer and Marris and Genomic Conservation

Ethics, Policy and Environment 18 (3):265-267 (2015)

Rohwer & Marris claim that “many conservation biologists” believe that there is a prima facie duty to preserve the genetic integrity of species. (A prima facie duty is a necessary pro tanto moral reason.) They describe three possible arguments for that belief and reject them all. They conclude that the biologists they cite are mistaken, and that there is no such duty: duties to preserve genetic integrity are merely instrumental: we ought act to preserve genetic integrity only because doing so is required by some other duty, such as the duty to preserve taxonomic biodiversity, or the duty to preserve the reproductive fitness of existing species. In permitting for instance the introgression of cattle genes into the genome of Bison bison we therefore do not necessarily fail in any respect ethically. I criticize the paper on three fronts.
Keywords Environmental ethics  Genomic conservation  Genetic integrity  Conservation  Emma Marris
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2016
DOI 10.1080/21550085.2015.1111618
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Are Conservation Laws Metaphysically Necessary?Johanna Wolff - 2013 - Philosophy of Science 80 (5):898-906.
Can Nature Conservation Justify Sports Fishing?A. Dionys de Leeuw - 2012 - Environmental Ethics 34 (2):159-175.


Added to PP index

Total views
253 ( #26,693 of 2,280,258 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
36 ( #25,023 of 2,280,258 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature