Can “Conservation Hunting” Be Ethically Justified?

Journal of Animal Ethics 9 (2):170-176 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article discusses the approaches of utilitarianism and deontological ethics toward “conservation hunting.” Specifically, how each moral theory deals with issues regarding age and functionality, when ending the life of the individual. An example is studied. Utilitarianism does not provide a robust enough framework to deal with both facets of the question pertaining to the individual. However, Kantian deontological ethics, as developed by Korsgaard, posits that humans have direct duties to nonhuman animals. Thus, deontological ethics is the moral theory that supports the view that humans have a duty to do better than hunt animals when trying to conserve them.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,601

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

Why Kant Animals Have Rights?Alex Howe - 2019 - Journal of Animal Ethics 9 (2):137-142.
Are the folk utilitarian about animals?Guy Kahane & Lucius Caviola - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 180 (4):1081-1103.
Understanding ethics.Torbjörn Tännsjö - 2013 - Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Empirical Methods in Animal Ethics.Kirsten Persson & David Shaw - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (5):853-866.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-09-04

Downloads
61 (#370,743)

6 months
8 (#450,588)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Consequentialism.Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 2019 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Two Distinctions in Goodness.Christine Korsgaard - 1998 - The Journal of Ethics.
Utilitarian killing, replacement, and rights.Evelyn Pluhar - 1990 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 (2):147-171.

View all 6 references / Add more references