|
|||||
|
|
Recognizing animal personhood in compassionate conservation |
|
| Authors: | Arian D Wallach Chelsea Batavia Marc Bekoff Shelley Alexander Liv Baker Dror Ben-Ami Louise Boronyak Adam P A Cardilin Yohay Carmel Danielle Celermajer Simon Coghlan Yara Dahdal Jonatan J Gomez Gisela Kaplan Oded Keynan Anton Khalilieh Helen Kopnina William S Lynn Yamini Narayanan Sophie Riley Francisco J Santiago-Ávila Esty Yanco Miriam A Zemanova Daniel Ramp |
| Institution: | 1. Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2007 Australia;2. Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331 U.S.A.;3. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309 U.S.A.;4. Department of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4 Canada;5. Animal Behavior and Conservation Program, Hunter College CUNY, New York, NY, U.S.A.;6. Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2007 Australia
Compassionate Conservation Middle East, Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel;7. Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2007 Australia Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2007 Australia;8. Faculty of Science Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, VIC, 3216 Australia;9. Division of Environmental, Water and Agricultural Engineering, Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, 32000 Israel;10. Department of Sociology and Social Policy, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006 Australia;11. School of Computing and Information Systems, Melbourne School of Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010 Australia;12. Nature Palestine, West Bank, Palestine;13. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad Nacional de Luján, Rutas 5 y 7, Luján, 6700 Argentina;14. School of Science & Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351 Australia;15. Dead Sea & Arava Science Centre, Central Arava Branch, Hatzeva, Israel Compassionate Conservation Middle East, Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel;16. The Hague University of Applied Sciences, International Business, Johanna Westerdijkplein 75, EN Den Haag, 2521 the Netherlands;17. George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University, Worcester, MA, 01710 U.S.A.;18. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, 3125 Australia;19. Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2007 Australia Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2007 Australia;20. Carnivore Coexistence Lab, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53706 U.S.A. |
| Abstract: | Compassionate conservation is based on the ethical position that actions taken to protect biodiversity should be guided by compassion for all sentient beings. Critics argue that there are 3 core reasons harming animals is acceptable in conservation programs: the primary purpose of conservation is biodiversity protection; conservation is already compassionate to animals; and conservation should prioritize compassion to humans. We used argument analysis to clarify the values and logics underlying the debate around compassionate conservation. We found that objections to compassionate conservation are expressions of human exceptionalism, the view that humans are of a categorically separate and higher moral status than all other species. In contrast, compassionate conservationists believe that conservation should expand its moral community by recognizing all sentient beings as persons. Personhood, in an ethical sense, implies the individual is owed respect and should not be treated merely as a means to other ends. On scientific and ethical grounds, there are good reasons to extend personhood to sentient animals, particularly in conservation. The moral exclusion or subordination of members of other species legitimates the ongoing manipulation and exploitation of the living worlds, the very reason conservation was needed in the first place. Embracing compassion can help dismantle human exceptionalism, recognize nonhuman personhood, and navigate a more expansive moral space. |
| Keywords: | animal ethics biodiversity conservation ethics human exceptionalism nativism biodiversidad ética animal ética de la conservación excepcionalidad humana nativismo 动物伦理 生物多样性 保护伦理 人类例外论 本土主义 |