Journal of Applied Philosophy 35 (4):718-736 (2018)

Authors
Mauro Rossi
Université du Québec à Montréal
Abstract
In this article, we argue that the phenomenon of predation is the source of several problems for Donaldson and Kymlicka's account of our duties towards wild and liminal animals. According to them, humans should adopt a general policy of non-intervention with respect to predatory behaviour involving wild and liminal animals. They justify this recommendation by appealing to the status of those animals as, respectively, members of sovereign communities and denizens of human-animal societies. Our goal is not to question their recommendation, but to challenge the reasons given in its support. On the one hand, we argue that, insofar as wild animal communities are incapable of dealing with massive predation, they do not possess the competence required for sovereignty. Moreover, we argue that, even if we leave the issue of competence aside, attributing sovereignty rights to communities including both predators and preys may not be the best way to protect wild animals’ fundamental interests. On the other hand, we argue that there exist two important disanalogies between human denizens and liminal animals, which render Donaldson and Kymlicka's denizenship framework problematic. We suggest that the ultimate justification for a general policy of non-intervention lies in the significant risk of causing greater harm by acting otherwise, due to our limited knowledge and resources.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/japp.12250
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,226
External links

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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Covid-19 and the Future of Zoos.Angie Pepper & Kristin Voigt - 2021 - Les Ateliers de l'Éthique / the Ethics Forum 16 (1):68-87.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

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.
What (If Anything) Do We Owe Wild Animals?Clare A. Palmer - 2013 - Between the Species 16 (1):4.
Animal Welfare at Home and in the Wild.Kyle Johannsen - 2016 - Animal Sentience 1 (7/10).
Non-Human Animals and Process Theodicy.Gary Chartier - 2006 - Religious Studies 42 (1):3-26.
Animals, Predators, the Right to Life, and the Duty to Save Lives.Aaron Simmons - 2009 - Ethics and the Environment 14 (1):pp. 15-27.
Animals, Relations, and the Laissez-Faire Intuition.Trevor Hedberg - 2016 - Environmental Values 25 (4):427-442.
Duties to Companion Animals.Steve Cooke - 2011 - Res Publica 17 (3):261-274.
The Duty to Aid Nonhuman Animals in Dire Need.John Hadley - 2006 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (4):445–451.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-11-19

Total views
67 ( #169,627 of 2,499,703 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #67,533 of 2,499,703 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes