Predation problem

Last updated
A snowy owl carries a killed American black duck SnowyOwlAmericanBlackDuck.jpg
A snowy owl carries a killed American black duck

The predation problem or predation argument refers to the consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem, that humans may or may not have an obligation to work towards preventing. Discourse on this topic has, by and large, been held within the disciplines of animal and environmental ethics. The issue has particularly been discussed in relation to animal rights and wild animal suffering. Some critics have considered an obligation to prevent predation as untenable or absurd and have used the position as a reductio ad absurdum to reject the concept of animal rights altogether. [1] [2] Others have criticized any obligation implied by the animal rights position as environmentally harmful. [3]

Contents

Responses from animal ethicists and rights advocates have been varied. Some have rejected the claim that animal rights as a position implies that we are obligated to prevent predation, [4] [5] while others have argued that the animal rights position does imply that predation is something that we should try to avert. [6] Others have asserted that it is not something that we should do anything about now due to the risk that we could inadvertently cause significant harm, but that it is something that we may be able to effectively take action on in the future with improved knowledge and technologies. [7]

Historical views

Problem of evil

Predation has historically been viewed as a natural evil within the context of the problem of evil and has been considered a moral concern for Christians who have engaged with theodicy. [8] [9] [10] Natural evils have been sometimes thought of as something that humans should work towards alleviating, or as part of a greater good which justifies the existence of this type of evil. [11] Thomas Aquinas advocated the latter view, arguing that "defects" in nature such as predation led to the "good of another, or even to the universal good" and that if "all evil were prevented, much good would be absent from the universe". [12] Within Christian and Hebrew Scripture, there are several prophecies which describe a future Heaven or Earth where predation is no longer a feature of nature, [13] including Isaiah's prophecy that "[t]he wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them." [14]

In his notebooks (written between 1487 and 1505), Leonardo da Vinci questioned why nature was not structured in a way which meant that animals were not forced to consume each other to survive. [15] David Hume made several observations about predation and suffering experienced by wild animals in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), stating that the "stronger prey upon the weaker, and keep them in perpetual terror and anxiety". [16]

William Paley, in Natural Theology , described predation as being the most challenging of God's work to establish the utility of, [17] nevertheless, he defended predation as the means to deal with the potentially catastrophic effects of animals producing more offspring than can possibly survive. [18]

The debate around predation and the problem of evil was significantly increased by the popularization of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. [19] Some earlier Christians argued that violence in nature was a result of the fall of man, but evidence that predation has existed for millions of years before the evolution of humans and the concept of sin, indicates that while life has existed, there has never been a time where nature has been free from violence. [20] Darwin himself questioned how the fact that the Ichneumonidae prey on the bodies of living caterpillars could be reconciled with the idea of an omnibenevolent God. [21]

Criticism of moral judgements

Plutarch criticised the labelling of carnivorous animals such as lions, tigers and snakes as barbarous because for them killing is a necessity while for humans who can live off of "nature's beneficent fruits" killing is a "luxury and crime". [22]

The writer Edward Augustus Kendall discussed predation in his book of moral fables The Canary Bird (1799), in which he argued that predatory behavior by animals should not be judged by human moral standards and that "a prejudice against particular creatures, for fancied acts of cruelty is absurd". [23]

Philosophical pessimism

Giacomo Leopardi, the Italian poet and philosopher, in Operette morali (1827) engaged in a dialogue with Nature in "Dialogue between Nature and an Icelander", which uses the inevitability of predation—such as a squirrel fleeing from a rattlesnake, only to run into the snake's open mouth—as a moral indictment on nature's cannibalism of its own offspring. The inevitability of such cycles of destruction and creation was a cause for Leopardi's philosophical pessimism. In Zibaldone , published posthumously in 1898, Leopardi argued that predation is the ultimate indication of the evil design of nature. [24]

Similar to Leopardi, the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, in 1851, used the pain experienced by an animal being devoured by another as a refutation against the idea that the "pleasure in the world outweighs the pain". [25]

Animal rights

Lewis Gompertz, an early animal rights advocate, and one of the first contemporary authors to address the problem of wild animal suffering, in the fifth chapter of his 1824 book Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes , engaged in a dialogue, in which he asserted that animals devouring each other can be judged as wrong by the rules that we use to govern human lives and stated that "should I witness the attempt in any animal of destroying another, I would endeavour to frustrate it; though this might probably be wrong." He went on to argue that the extinction of carnivorous species would not be bad, claiming that the species of one animal is not more important than an equal number of another and that it would be possible for some carnivorous animals, like wolves, to instead sustain themselves on vegetables. [26]

The American zoologist and animal rights philosopher J. Howard Moore, in The New Ethics (1907), labelled carnivorous species as "criminal" races whose "existence is a continual menace to the peace and well-being of the world" because the "fullness of their lives is dependent upon the emptiness and destruction of others". [27] In the pamphlet Why I Am a Vegetarian , published in 1895, Moore described the Carnivora as "relentless brutes", whose existence is a travesty for ethics, justice and mercy. [28] In Better-World Philosophy (1899), Moore argued that carnivorousness was the result of excessive egoism, a product of natural selection, stating "Life riots on life—tooth and talon, beak and paw". [29] : 123–125  He went on to claim that the irredeemable nature of carnivorous species meant that they could not be reconciled with each other in his ideal arrangement of the universe, which he called a "Confederation of the Consciousnesses". [29] : 161–163 

In 1903, the Scottish philosopher David G. Ritchie in response to Henry S. Salt's 1892 book Animals' Rights , claimed that giving animals rights would imply that we must "protect the weak among them against the strong" and to achieve this, carnivorous animals should be put to death or slowly starved by "permanent captivity and vegetarian diet". He considered this proposal absurd, stating that the "declaration of the rights of every creeping thing [is] to remain a mere hypocritical formula to gratify pug-loving sentimentalists". [30]

Contemporary views

Animal ethics

In 1973, Australian philosopher Peter Singer argued that if humans were to try to prevent predation, such as from stopping lions killing gazelles, that it would likely increase the "net amount of animal suffering", but asserted that if hypothetically we could reduce suffering in the long-term, then it would be right to intervene. [31]

The English philosopher Stephen R. L. Clark's "The Rights of Wild Things" (1979) is considered to be one of the first ethics papers to explicitly engage with predation as a problem. [32] In the paper, Clark argues that the concept that humans are obligated to aid animals against predators is not absurd, but that it follows only in the abstract, not in practice. [33]

Animal rights philosopher, Tom Regan in his 1983 book, The Case for Animal Rights, argued that humans have no obligation to prevent predation because carnivorous animals are not moral agents and as a result cannot violate the rights of the animals that they predate. [34] Along these lines, Julius Kapembwa argues that "intervention in predation is neither required nor permitted by animal rights theory". [4]

Steve Sapontzis, in his 1984 paper "Predation" argues against the idea that the problem of predation is a reductio ad absurdum for animal rights, instead, he claims that if we accept the view that we have an obligation to reduce avoidable animal suffering, then predation is something that we should work towards preventing if we can do so without inflicting greater suffering. [6] Sapontzis concludes that whether humans choose to fulfil this particular obligation, or attempt to reduce other forms of avoidable suffering, is a question of where humans can do the most good.

In a 2003 paper, the economist Tyler Cowen advocates, from a utility, rights and holistic perspective, for the policing of nature to reduce the predatory activity of certain animals to help their victims. [35]

The transhumanist philosopher David Pearce, in his 2009 essay, "Reprogramming Predators", claims that predation is an immense source of suffering in the world and that a "biosphere without suffering is technically feasible". He argues for the phased extinction of carnivorous species using immunocontraceptives or "reprogramming" them using gene editing so that their descendants become herbivores. Pearce lists and argues against a number of justifications used by people who think that suffering caused by predation does not matter and that it should be conserved in its current state, including a "television-based conception of the living world", "[s]elective realism" and "[a]daptive empathy deficits". [36]

In 2010, Jeff McMahan published "The Meat Eaters", an op-ed for the New York Times on predation as a moral issue, in which he argued that preventing the massive amounts of suffering and death caused by predation would be a good thing and that the extinction of carnivorous species could be instrumentally good if this could be achieved without inflicting "ecological upheaval involving more harm than would be prevented by the end of predation". [37] McMahan received a number of objections to his arguments and responded to these in another op-ed published in the same year, "Predators: A Response". [38] He later published his arguments as a chapter titled "The Moral Problem of Predation", in the 2015 book Philosophy Comes to Dinner. [7]

Peter Vallentyne argues that it is permissible for humans to intervene to help prey in limited ways, if the cost to humans is minimal, but that we should not eliminate predators. In the same way that we aid humans in need, when the cost to humans is minimal, humans might help wild animals in limited circumstances. [39]

Martha Nussbaum asserts that the predation problem and what should be done to solve it should be the subject of serious discussion, also arguing that there should be research into future solutions. Nussbaum draws attention to a need to convince people that predation is a problem and to challenge the common conception of predation as exciting and enthralling, which she believes has a negative impact on human culture. She goes on to challenge the idea of animals, who are preyed upon, as existing to be food for other animals, rather than being made to live for their own lives. Nussbaum concludes that humans, who have extensive control over animal lives and habitats, need to face up to their responsibilities towards wild animals and work towards their flourishing, rather than harming them. [40]

Some ethicists have made concrete proposals for reducing or preventing predation, including stopping the reintroduction of predators in locations where they have previously gone extinct, [41] [42] and removing predators from wild areas. [43] [44] [45]

Environmental ethics

In 1984, the British ecologist Felicity A. Huntingford published "Some ethical issues raised by studies of predation and aggression", in which she discusses ethical issues and implications regarding the staging of artificial encounters for studies of predator-prey interactions. [46]

In the context of ecology, predation is considered to play a crucial and necessary role in ecosystems. [47] This has led some writers, such as Michael Pollan, to reject predation as being a moral problem at all, stating "predation is not a matter of morality or politics; it, also, is a matter of symbiosis". [48] Under Aldo Leopold's land ethic, native predators, as crucial components of biotic communities, are considered important to conserve. [49]

The environmental philosopher J. Baird Callicott asserts that the implication of animal rights theory, namely that we should protect animals from predators, would "[n]ot only [result in] the (humane) eradication of predators destroy the community, it would destroy the species which are the intended beneficiaries of this misplaced morality. Many prey species depend upon predators to optimize their populations." [50] Holmes Rolston III views predation as an essential natural process and driver of evolution, that is a "sad good" to be respected and valued. [51] [52] Ty Raterman, an environmentalist, has argued that predation is something that can be lamented without implying that we have an obligation to prevent it. [53]

The environmental ethicist William Lynn has argued that from a welfare perspective predation "is necessary for the well-being of predators and prey" and essential for the maintenance of the integrity of the ecological communities. [52] Larry Rasmussen, a Christian environmental ethicist, has argued that predation is "not a pattern of morality we praise and advocate". [54]

Other uses of the term

"Predation problem" can also refer to the predation of animals who belong to species considered valuable to humans for economic reasons or conservation, such as domestic sheep predation by coyotes, [55] farmed salmon predation by seals, [56] the predation of animals who are hunted for sport or food [57] and cat predation of wild animals; [58] culling or removal of predatory animals may be carried out to reduce such incidents. [59] [60]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wildlife</span> Undomesticated organisms that grow or live wild in an area without being introduced by humans

Wildlife refers to undomesticated animal species, but has come to include all organisms that grow or live wild in an area without being introduced by humans. Wildlife was also synonymous to game: those birds and mammals that were hunted for sport. Wildlife can be found in all ecosystems. Deserts, plains, grasslands, woodlands, forests, and other areas, including the most developed urban areas, all have distinct forms of wildlife. While the term in popular culture usually refers to animals that are untouched by human factors, most scientists agree that much wildlife is affected by human activities. Some wildlife threaten human safety, health, property, and quality of life. However, many wild animals, even the dangerous ones, have value to human beings. This value might be economic, educational, or emotional in nature.

Anthropocentrism is the belief that human beings are the central or most important entity in the universe. The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, and some refer to the concept as human supremacy or human exceptionalism. From an anthropocentric perspective, humankind is seen as separate from nature and superior to it, and other entities are viewed as resources for humans to use. Eating Animals, a novel written by Jonathan Foer, describes anthropocentrism as "The conviction that humans are the pinnacle of evolution, the appropriate yardstick by which to measure the lives of other animals, and the rightful owners of everything that lives." This quote exemplifies the deeper meaning behind his novel: how human beings are overtaking the animal industry, which is being overshadowed by financial and personal gain. Human instincts, such as anthropocentrism, have refined the meat industry to many inhumane and unethical practices. Human projection onto animals tend to be unethical. This is because humans see themselves as superior over animals, which can be used as an example of anthropocentrism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Pearce (philosopher)</span> British transhumanist

David Pearce is a British transhumanist philosopher. He is the co-founder of the World Transhumanist Association, currently rebranded and incorporated as Humanity+. Pearce approaches ethical issues from a lexical negative utilitarian perspective.

Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral choices based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Holmes Rolston III</span> American philosopher

Holmes Rolston III is a philosopher who is University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Colorado State University. He is best known for his contributions to environmental ethics and the relationship between science and religion. Among other honors, Rolston won the 2003 Templeton Prize, awarded by Prince Philip in Buckingham Palace. He gave the Gifford Lectures, University of Edinburgh, 1997–1998. He also serves on the Advisory Council of METI.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Antinatalism</span> Family of philosophical views

Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a family of philosophical views that are critical of reproduction — they consider coming into existence as bad or deem procreation as immoral. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from having children. Antinatalist views are not necessarily limited only to humans, but may encompass all sentient creatures, claiming that coming into existence is a harm for sentient beings in general.

Animal ethics is a branch of ethics which examines human-animal relationships, the moral consideration of animals and how nonhuman animals ought to be treated. The subject matter includes animal rights, animal welfare, animal law, speciesism, animal cognition, wildlife conservation, wild animal suffering, the moral status of nonhuman animals, the concept of nonhuman personhood, human exceptionalism, the history of animal use, and theories of justice. Several different theoretical approaches have been proposed to examine this field, in accordance with the different theories currently defended in moral and political philosophy. There is no theory which is completely accepted due to the differing understandings of what is meant by the term ethics; however, there are theories that are more widely accepted by society such as animal rights and utilitarianism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wild animal suffering</span> Suffering experienced by animals living outside direct human control

Wild animal suffering is the suffering experienced by nonhuman animals living outside of direct human control, due to harms such as disease, injury, parasitism, starvation and malnutrition, dehydration, weather conditions, natural disasters, and killings by other animals, as well as psychological stress. Some estimates indicate that these individual animals make up the vast majority of animals in existence. An extensive amount of natural suffering has been described as an unavoidable consequence of Darwinian evolution and the pervasiveness of reproductive strategies which favor producing large numbers of offspring, with a low amount of parental care and of which only a small number survive to adulthood, the rest dying in painful ways, has led some to argue that suffering dominates happiness in nature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Welfare biology</span> Proposed field of research

Welfare biology is a proposed cross-disciplinary field of research to study the positive and negative well-being of sentient individuals in relation to their environment. Yew-Kwang Ng first advanced the field in 1995. Since then, its establishment has been advocated for by a number of writers, including philosophers, who have argued for the importance of creating the research field, particularly in relation to wild animal suffering. Some researchers have put forward examples of existing research that welfare biology could draw upon and suggested specific applications for the research's findings.

John Hadley is an Australian philosopher whose research concerns moral and political philosophy, including animal ethics, environmental ethics, and metaethics. He is currently a senior lecturer in philosophy in the School of Humanities and Communication Arts at Western Sydney University. He has previously taught at Charles Sturt University and the University of Sydney, where he studied as an undergraduate and doctoral candidate. In addition to a variety of articles in peer-reviewed journals and edited collections, he is the author of the 2015 monograph Animal Property Rights and the 2019 monograph Animal Neopragmatism. He is also the co-editor, with Elisa Aaltola, of the 2015 collection Animal Ethics and Philosophy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oscar Horta</span> Spanish animal activist and moral philosopher

Óscar Horta Álvarez is a Spanish animal activist and moral philosopher who is currently a professor in the Department of Philosophy and Anthropology at the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC) and one of the co-founders of the organization Animal Ethics. He is known for his work in animal ethics, especially around the problem of wild animal suffering. He has also worked on the concept of speciesism and on the clarification of the arguments for the moral consideration of nonhuman animals. In 2022, Horta published his first book in English, Making a Stand for Animals.

The eradication or abolition of suffering is the concept of using biotechnology to create a permanent absence of involuntary pain and suffering in all sentient beings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics</span>

The relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics concerns the differing ethical consideration of individual nonhuman animals—particularly those living in spaces outside of direct human control—and conceptual entities such as species, populations and ecosystems. The intersection of these two fields is a prominent component of vegan discourse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecology of fear</span> Psychological impact induced by predators

The ecology of fear is a conceptual framework describing the psychological impact that predator-induced stress experienced by animals has on populations and ecosystems. Within ecology, the impact of predators has been traditionally viewed as limited to the animals that they directly kill, while the ecology of fear advances evidence that predators may have a far more substantial impact on the individuals that they predate, reducing fecundity, survival and population sizes. To avoid being killed, animals that are preyed upon will employ anti-predator defenses which aid survival but may carry substantial costs.

Catia Faria is a Portuguese moral philosopher and activist for animal rights and feminism. She is assistant professor in Applied Ethics at the Complutense University of Madrid, and is a board member of the UPF-Centre for Animal Ethics. Faria specialises in normative and applied ethics, especially focusing on how they apply to the moral consideration of non-human animals. In 2022, she published her first book, Animal Ethics in the Wild: Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature.

"The Meat Eaters" is a 2010 essay by the American philosopher Jeff McMahan, published as an op-ed in The New York Times. In the essay, McMahan asserts that humans have a moral obligation to stop eating meat and, in a conclusion considered to be controversial, that humans also have a duty to prevent predation by individuals who belong to carnivorous species, if we can do so without inflicting greater harm overall.

<i>Morals, Reason, and Animals</i> 1987 book by Steve F. Sapontzis

Morals, Reason, and Animals is a 1987 book by American philosopher Steve F. Sapontzis, that examines whether humans should give moral consideration to nonhuman animals and the practical implications of this.

<i>Wild Animal Ethics</i> Book about wild animal suffering and ethics

Wild Animal Ethics: The Moral and Political Problem of Wild Animal Suffering is a 2020 book by the philosopher Kyle Johannsen, that examines whether humans, from a deontological perspective, have a duty to reduce wild animal suffering. He concludes that such a duty exists and recommends effective interventions that could be potentially undertaken to help these sentient individuals.

Kyle Johannsen is a Canadian philosopher who is the author of a A Conceptual Investigation of Justice (2018) and Wild Animal Ethics (2020). He specialises in animal and environmental ethics, as well as political and social philosophy. He is presently affiliated with Trent University, Wilfrid Laurier University, and Queen's University.

<i>Animal Ethics in the Wild</i> Book about wild animal suffering and ethics

Animal Ethics in the Wild: Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature is a 2022 book by the philosopher Catia Faria published by Cambridge University Press. It examines wild animal suffering as a moral problem. Faria contends that if we have a moral obligation to aid those in need, we should intervene in nature to prevent or alleviate the suffering of wild animals, as long as it is practical and leads to a net positive outcome.

References

  1. ↑ Trindade, Gabriel Garmendia da; Woodhall, Andrew, eds. (2020). Intervention or Protest: Acting for Nonhuman Animals. Vernon Press. p. 244. ISBN   978-1-62273-975-2.
  2. ↑ Ebert, Rainer; Machan, Tibor R. (2012). "Innocent Threats and the Moral Problem of Carnivorous Animals". Journal of Applied Philosophy. 29 (2): 146–159. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2012.00561.x. ISSN   1468-5930.
  3. ↑ Everett, Jennifer (2001). "Environmental Ethics, Animal Welfarism, and the Problem of Predation: A Bambi Lover's Respect for Nature". Ethics and the Environment. 6 (1): 42–67. ISSN   1085-6633. JSTOR   40339003.
  4. 1 2 Kapembwa, Julius (October 2018). "Predation Catch-22: Disentangling the Rights of Prey, Predators, and Rescuers". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 31 (5): 527–542. doi:10.1007/s10806-018-9743-6. ISSN   1187-7863. S2CID   158949810.
  5. ↑ Simmons, Aaron (2009). "Animals, Predators, the Right to Life, and the Duty to Save Lives". Ethics and the Environment. 14 (1): 15–27. doi:10.2979/ETE.2009.14.1.15. ISSN   1085-6633. JSTOR   40339166. S2CID   89542818.
  6. 1 2 Sapontzis, Steve (2011-03-18). "Predation". Ethics and Animals. 5 (2). doi: 10.15368/ea.1984v5n2.1 . ISSN   0197-9094.
  7. 1 2 McMahan, Jeff (2015-10-08). "The Moral Problem of Predation" (PDF). In Chignell, Andrew; Cuneo, Terence; Halteman, Matthew C (eds.). Philosophy Comes to Dinner. doi:10.4324/9780203154410. ISBN   9781136578076. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-11-11. Retrieved 2020-07-08.
  8. ↑ Horta, Oscar (2015-05-11). "The Problem of Evil in Nature: Evolutionary Bases of the Prevalence of Disvalue". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (1): 17–32. doi: 10.7358/rela-2015-001-hort . ISSN   2280-9643.
  9. ↑ Seacord, Beth Anne (2013). Unto the Least of These: Animal Suffering and the Problem of Evil (Thesis). University of Colorado Boulder.
  10. ↑ Lamoureux, Denis O. (2020-01-02). "Toward an Evangelical Evolutionary Theodicy". Theology and Science. 18 (1): 12–30. doi:10.1080/14746700.2019.1710347. ISSN   1474-6700. S2CID   213720979.
  11. ↑ Kowalsky, Nathan (2017-11-24). "Predation, Pain, and Evil: Anti-hunting as Theodicy". Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses. 46 (4): 489–510. doi:10.1177/0008429817732032. ISSN   0008-4298. S2CID   149221324.
  12. ↑ Magee, Joseph (2020-02-09). "Problem of Evil". Thomistic Philosophy Page. Retrieved 2020-07-28.
  13. ↑ Murray, Michael J. (2008). Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 77. ISBN   978-0-19-923727-2. OCLC   209815655.
  14. ↑ Isaiah 11:6–9
  15. ↑ Leonardo da Vinci (2004-01-01). The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci — Complete. Translated by Richter, Jean Paul. folio 1219.
  16. ↑ Hume, David (1779). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. London. pp.  176.
  17. ↑ Paley, William (1879) [1802]. Paxton, James; Ware, John (eds.). Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. New York: Sheldon & Company. p.  265.
  18. ↑ Gregory, T. Ryan (December 2009). "The Argument from Design: A Guided Tour of William Paley's Natural Theology (1802)". Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2 (4): 602–611. doi: 10.1007/s12052-009-0184-6 . ISSN   1936-6434.
  19. ↑ Fleck, Robert K. (2011). "Natural Selection and the Problem of Evil: An Evolutionary Model with Application to an Ancient Debate". Zygon. 46 (3): 561–587. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01199.x. ISSN   1467-9744.
  20. ↑ McDaniel, Jay B. (1998). "Can Animal Suffering be Reconciled with Belief in an All-Loving God?". In Linzey, Andrew; Yamamoto, Dorothy (eds.). Animals on the Agenda: Questions About Animals for Theology and Ethics (Illini books ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. p. 162. ISBN   0-252-06761-4. OCLC   38948168.
  21. ↑ Sterba, James P. (2019-03-04). "Solving Darwin's Problem of Natural Evil". Sophia. 59 (3): 501–512. doi:10.1007/s11841-019-0704-y. ISSN   1873-930X. S2CID   171882342.
  22. ↑ Nearing, Helen (1999). Simple Food for the Good Life. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. p. 41. ISBN   978-1-890132-29-3.
  23. ↑ Spencer, Jane (2010-12-01). "Creating Animal Experience in Late Eighteenth-Century Narrative" (PDF). Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies. University of Exeter. 33 (4): 469–486. doi:10.1111/j.1754-0208.2010.00318.x. hdl:10871/11724. pp. 6–7
  24. ↑ Pedatella, Stefan (2009-03-01). "Images of Animal Predation in Giacomo Leopardi's Dialogo della Natura e di un Islandese". Italian Culture. 27 (1): 25–42. doi:10.1179/155909009X401665. ISSN   0161-4622. S2CID   159793645.
  25. ↑ Schopenhauer, Arthur (2000). Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 292. ISBN   9780199242214.
  26. ↑ Gompertz, Lewis (1992). Singer, Peter (ed.). Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes. Fontwell: Centaur Press. pp. 93–95. ISBN   978-0-900001-37-6.
  27. ↑ Moore, J. Howard (1909). The New Ethics. Chicago: S. A. Bloch. p. 141.
  28. ↑ Moore, J. Howard (1895). Why I Am a Vegetarian. Chicago: Frances L. Dusenberry. pp. 30–41.
  29. 1 2 Moore, John Howard (1899). Better-world Philosophy: A Sociological Synthesis. Chicago: The Ward Waugh Co.
  30. ↑ Ritchie, David George (1903). Natural Rights: A Criticism of Some Political and Ethical Conceptions. London: Swan Sonnenschein. pp. 109–110.
  31. ↑ Singer, Peter; Rosinger, David (1973-06-14). "Food for Thought". The New York Review of Books. ISSN   0028-7504 . Retrieved 2020-07-08.
  32. ↑ Keulartz, Jozef (2016-10-01). "Should the Lion Eat Straw Like the Ox? Animal Ethics and the Predation Problem". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 29 (5): 813–834. doi: 10.1007/s10806-016-9637-4 . hdl: 2066/161423 . ISSN   1573-322X. S2CID   5918938.
  33. ↑ Clark, Stephen R. L. (1979-01-01). "The Rights of Wild Things". Inquiry. 22 (1–4): 171–188. doi:10.1080/00201747908601871. ISSN   0020-174X.
  34. ↑ Fink, Charles (2005-08-01). "The Predation Argument". Between the Species. 13 (5). doi: 10.15368/bts.2005v13n5.3 .
  35. ↑ Cowen, Tyler (2003). "Policing Nature" (PDF). Environmental Ethics. 25 (2): 169–182. doi:10.5840/enviroethics200325231. ISSN   0163-4275.
  36. ↑ Pearce, David (2009). "Reprogramming Predators: the case for high-tech Jainism and a pan-species welfare state". Hedweb. Retrieved 2020-07-08.
  37. ↑ McMahan, Jeff (2010-09-19). "The Meat Eaters". Opinionator. Retrieved 2020-07-08.
  38. ↑ McMahan, Jeff (2010-09-28). "Predators: A Response". Opinionator. Retrieved 2020-07-08.
  39. ↑ Verchot, Manon. "Meet the people who want to turn predators into herbivores". TreeHugger. Retrieved 2019-10-29.
  40. ↑ Nussbaum, Martha C. (2022-12-08). "A Peopled Wilderness". The New York Review . ISSN   0028-7504 . Retrieved 2023-01-06.
  41. ↑ Sagoff, Mark (1984). "Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce". Osgoode Hall Law Journal. 22 (2): 297–307. doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1936.
  42. ↑ Horta, Oscar (2010). "The Ethics of the Ecology of Fear against the Nonspeciesist Paradigm A Shift in the Aims of Intervention in Nature". Between the Species . 13 (10): 163–187. doi: 10.15368/bts.2010v13n10.10 .
  43. ↑ MacAskill, William; MacAskill, Amanda (9 September 2015). "To Truly End Animal Suffering, the Most Ethical Choice is To Kill Wild Predators (Especially Cecil the Lion)". Quartz. Retrieved 17 April 2016.
  44. ↑ Grush, Loren (2015-09-10). "Killing off wild predators is a stupid idea". The Verge. Retrieved 2019-10-29.
  45. ↑ Bramble, Ben (2020). "Painlessly Killing Predators". Journal of Applied Philosophy. 38 (2): 217–225. doi:10.1111/japp.12461. ISSN   1468-5930. S2CID   224855806.
  46. ↑ Huntingford, Felicity A. (1984-02-01). "Some ethical issues raised by studies of predation and aggression". Animal Behaviour. 32 (1): 210–215. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(84)80339-5. ISSN   0003-3472. S2CID   53174615.
  47. ↑ Fraser, Caroline (2011-09-15). "The Crucial Role of Predators: A New Perspective on Ecology". Yale E360. Retrieved 2020-07-08.
  48. ↑ Pollan, Michael (2002-11-10). "An Animal's Place". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2020-07-08.
  49. ↑ Hargrove, Eugene C., ed. (1992). The Animal Rights/Environmental Ethics Debate: The Environmental Perspective. Albany, New York: SUNY Press. p. 44. ISBN   978-0-7914-0933-6.
  50. ↑ Callicott, J. (1988-07-01). "Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Back Together Again". Between the Species. 4 (3). doi: 10.15368/bts.1988v4n3.1 .
  51. ↑ Hettinger, Ned (1994). "Valuing Predation in Rolston's Environmental Ethics: Bambi Lovers versus Tree Huggers" (PDF). Environmental Ethics. 16 (1): 3–20. doi:10.5840/enviroethics199416138. ISSN   0163-4275.
  52. 1 2 Lynn, William (2006-09-01). "Sad Goods". William Lynn. Retrieved 2020-07-08.
  53. ↑ Raterman, Ty (Winter 2008). "An Environmentalist's Lament on Predation" (PDF). Environmental Ethics. 30 (4): 417–434. doi:10.5840/enviroethics200830443.
  54. ↑ Sideris, Lisa H. (2003). Environmental Ethics, Ecological Theology, and Natural Selection. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 175. ISBN   978-0-231-12661-8.
  55. ↑ Ellins, Stuart R. (1985-09-01). "Coyote control and taste aversion: A predation problem or a people problem?". Appetite. 6 (3): 272–275. doi:10.1016/S0195-6663(85)80017-9. ISSN   0195-6663. PMID   3000296. S2CID   35924539.
  56. ↑ Hawkins, A. D. (November 1985). Seal Predation at Salmon Farms (PDF) (Report). Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. Retrieved 2020-07-28.
  57. ↑ Reynolds, J. C.; Tapper, S. C. (1996). "Control of mammalian predators in game management and conservation". Mammal Review. 26 (2–3): 127–155. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.1996.tb00150.x. ISSN   1365-2907.
  58. ↑ Carey, John (2017-10-19). "The Cat Conundrum". National Wildlife Federation. Retrieved 2020-07-28.
  59. ↑ Swan, George Julius Fraser (2017-11-13). Understanding conservation conflicts surrounding predation and game shooting interests (Thesis). University of Exeter.
  60. ↑ Blejwas, Karen M.; Sacks, Benjamin N.; Jaeger, Michael M.; McCullough, Dale R. (April 2002). "The Effectiveness of Selective Removal of Breeding Coyotes in Reducing Sheep Predation". The Journal of Wildlife Management. 66 (2): 451. doi:10.2307/3803178. JSTOR   3803178.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.