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)
AbstractAnimal 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
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.
Biological Conservation of a Prey–Predator System Incorporating Constant Prey Refuge Through Provision of Alternative Food to Predators: A Theoretical Study.Kunal Chakraborty & Sankha Subhra Das - 2014 - Acta Biotheoretica 62 (2):183-205.
Innocent Threats and the Moral Problem of Carnivorous Animals.Rainer Ebert & Tibor R. Machan - 2012 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (2):146-159.
Animal Suffering and Rights: A Reply to Singer and Regan.Michael Fox - 1978 - Ethics 88 (2):134-138.
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.
The Philosophy Behind the Movement: Animal Studies Vs. Animal Rights.Elisa Aaltola - 2011 - Society and Animals 19 (4):393-406.
Zoopolis. A Political Renewal of Animal Rights Theories.Christiane Bailey - 2013 - Dialogue:1-13.
People Promoting and People Opposing Animal Rights: In Their Own Words.John M. Kistler - 2002 - Greenwood Press.
Stabilizing Effect of Cannibalism in a Two Stages Population Model.Jonathan Rault, Eric Benoît & Jean-Luc Gouzé - 2013 - Acta Biotheoretica 61 (1):119-139.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
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.
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.
References found in this work
Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership.Martha C. Nussbaum (ed.) - 2006 - Belknap Press.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life.Jeff McMahan - 2002 - Oup Usa.
National Responsibility and Global Justice.David Miller - 2008 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (4):383-399.