Rabbits, Stoats and the Predator Problem: Why a Strong Animal Rights Position Need Not Call for Human Intervention to Protect Prey from Predators

Res Publica 21 (3):273-289 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Animal rights positions face the ‘predator problem’: the suggestion that if the rights of nonhuman animals are to be protected, then we are obliged to interfere in natural ecosystems to protect prey from predators. Generally, rather than embracing this conclusion, animal ethicists have rejected it, basing this objection on a number of different arguments. This paper considers but challenges three such arguments, before defending a fourth possibility. Rejected are Peter Singer’s suggestion that interference will lead to more harm than good, Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s suggestion that respect for nonhuman sovereignty necessitates non-interference in normal circumstances, and Alasdair Cochrane’s solution based on the claim that predators cannot survive without killing prey. The possibility defended builds upon Tom Regan’s suggestion that predators, as moral patients but not moral agents, cannot violate the rights of their prey, and so the rights of the prey, while they do exist, do not call for intervention. This idea is developed by a consideration of how moral agents can be more or less responsible for a given event, and defended against criticisms offered by thinkers including Alasdair Cochrane and Dale Jamieson

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,429

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Animals, Predators, the Right to Life, and the Duty to Save Lives.Aaron Simmons - 2009 - Ethics and the Environment 14 (1):pp. 15-27.
Reply to Fulda on Animal Rights.Michael Levin - 1993 - Journal of Value Inquiry 27 (1):111-112.
Animal Rights and Human Needs.Angus Taylor - 1996 - Environmental Ethics 18 (3):249-264.
Animal Rights: Autonomy and Redundancy. [REVIEW]David Sztybel - 2001 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (3):259-273.
Agricultural Technology, Wealth, and Responsibility.Gene Wunderlich - 1990 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 (1):21-35.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-06-04

Downloads
90 (#134,760)

6 months
2 (#277,237)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Josh Milburn
Loughborough University

Citations of this work

Veganism and Children: Physical and Social Well-Being.Marcus William Hunt - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (2):269-291.
Should Vegans Compromise?Josh Milburn - 2022 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 25 (2):281-293.
Moral Vegetarianism.Tyler Doggett - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Should the Lion Eat Straw Like the Ox? Animal Ethics and the Predation Problem.Jozef Keulartz - 2016 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (5):813-834.
In Defense of Artificial Replacement.Derek Shiller - 2017 - Bioethics 31 (2):393-399.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
National Responsibility and Global Justice.David Miller - 2008 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (4):383-399.

View all 20 references / Add more references