Should Extinction Be Forever?

Philosophy and Technology 29 (3):211-222 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article will explore a problem which is related to our moral obligations towards species. Although the re-creation of extinct animals has been discussed to some degree both in lay deliberations as well as by scientists, advocates tend to emphasize the technological and scientific value of such an endeavour, and the “coolness” factor, 32–33, 2013). This article will provide an argument in favour of re-creation based on normative considerations. The environmentalist community generally accepts that it is wrong to exterminate species, for reasons beyond any instrumental value these species may have. It is often also claimed that humanity has a collective responsibility to either preserve or at least to not exterminate species. These two beliefs are here assumed to be correct. The argument presented here departs from and places these two ideas in a deontological framework, from which it is argued that when humanity causes the extinction of a species, this is a moral transgression, entailing a residual obligation. Such an obligation implies a positive duty to mitigate any harm caused by our moral failure. In light of recent scientific progress in the field of genetic engineering, it will be argued that humanity has a prima facie obligation to re-create species whose extinction mankind may have caused, also known as de-extinction.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

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

The Ethics of De-Extinction.Shlomo Cohen - 2014 - NanoEthics 8 (2):165-178.
The nature of extinction.Julien Delord - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38 (3):656-667.
Species Extinction and Collective Responsibility.Markku Oksanen - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 3:179-183.
Would Human Extinction Be Morally Wrong?Franco Palazzi - 2014 - Philosophia 42 (4):1063-1084.
Biodiversity and all that jazz.Alan Carter - 2009 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (1):58-75.
Extinction.G. M. Aitken - 1998 - Biology and Philosophy 13 (3):393-411.
The Darwinian Revolution Revisited.Sandra Herbert - 2005 - Journal of the History of Biology 38 (1):51 - 66.
The cladistic solution to the species problem.Mark Ridley - 1989 - Biology and Philosophy 4 (1):1-16.
Do non-native species threaten the natural environment?Mark Sagoff - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (3):215-236.
The Ethics of Human Life Extension: The Second Argument from Evolution.Chris Gyngell - 2015 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (6):696-713.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-10-17

Downloads
71 (#226,964)

6 months
14 (#170,561)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Karim Jebari
Institute for Futures Studies

References found in this work

Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
A Radical Solution to the Species Problem.Michael T. Ghiselin - 1974 - Systematic Zoology 23 (4):536–544.
Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?Michael J. Sandel (ed.) - 2009 - New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Faking nature.Robert Elliot - 1982 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 25 (1):81 – 93.
The ethics of respect for nature.Paul W. Taylor - 1981 - Environmental Ethics 3 (3):197-218.

View all 16 references / Add more references