Farming non-typical sentient species: ethical framework requires passing a high bar

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 37 (2):1-18 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

More widespread farming of species not typically used as livestock may be part of a sustainable approach for promoting human health and economic prosperity in a world with an increasing population; a current example is peccary farming in the Neotropics. Others have argued that species that are local to a region and which are usually not farmed should be considered for use as livestock. They may have a more desirable nutrient profile than species that are presently used as livestock. It may also reduce the pressure from hunting on other wild species, and cause less environmental damage than exotic species. We propose a sentiocentric utilitarian framework that could be used to decide whether species that are local, but generally not used as livestock, should be farmed. To illustrate the use of our decision-making framework, we employ two contrasting neotropical case studies: the Spotted Paca (Cuniculus paca) and the Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris). We argue that it may be acceptable to use non-sentient species that are typically not farmed as livestock. However, research should determine whether farming them offers human, environmental or sustainability benefits. In addition, we recommend that if invertebrate species are considered for farming, research should be conducted to determine the likelihood that they are sentient. Finally, given the ethical failings of current livestock farming practices, we argue that a high bar must be met if ‘new’ species that are sentient are to be farmed.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,953

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

Gary W. Fick: Food, farming, and faith. [REVIEW]Todd J. LeVasseur - 2010 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (3):297-299.
Donna J. Haraway, when species meet.Anna Peterson - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (6):609-611.
Who Loves Mosquitoes? Care Ethics, Theory of Obligation and Endangered Species.Eleni Panagiotarakou - 2016 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (6):1057-1070.
Richard P. Haynes, animal welfare: Competing conceptions and their ethical implications. [REVIEW]David Hoch - 2009 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (3):285-290.
Call for Abstracts for a Special Issue on “Ethical Aspects of Large-Scale Land Acquisition in Developing Countries”.[author unknown] - 2011 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (4):427-428.
T.b. Mepham, G.A. Tucker, J. Wiseman, issues in agricultural bioethics.Richard Bawden - 1998 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 11 (2):145-150.
From the Editors.[author unknown] - 2006 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (1):1-2.
From the Editor.[author unknown] - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):111-112.
From The Editors.[author unknown] - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (6):451-455.
From the editors.[author unknown] - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (1):1-2.
From the editors.[author unknown] - 2003 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (4):315-316.
From the Editors.[author unknown] - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (1):1-5.
Editorial.[author unknown] - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (3):221-222.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-05-25

Downloads
8 (#1,342,200)

6 months
8 (#415,941)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations