Planet Debate 2011 September/October l-d release Animal Rights
Animal Rights Focus Trades Off With Ecosystem Protection
Download 1.43 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Animal Rights Focus Conflicts with Protecting Endangered Species
Animal Rights Focus Trades Off With Ecosystem ProtectionANIMAL RIGHTS POSITION TRADES OFF WITH HOLISTIC VIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION Tom Regan, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, North Carolina State University, 2003, The Animal Ethics Reader, eds. Armstrong & Botzler, p. 456* Aldo Leopold, (1949) rejects the individualism…of those who build their moral thinking on the welfare or rights of the individual. What has ultimate value is not the individual but the collective, not the part but the whole, meaning the entire biosphere and its constituent ecosystems. Acts are right, Leopold claims, if they tend to promote the integrity, beauty, diversity, and harmony of the biotic community; they are wrong if they tend contrariwise. As for individuals, be they humans or other animals, they are merely “members of the biotic team,” having neither more nor less value in themselves than any other member—having, that is, no value in themselves. What value individuals have, so far as this is meaningful at all, is instrumental only: they are good to the extent that they promote the welfare of the biotic community.
Donald G. Lindburg, Zoology Society of San Diego, 2003, The Animal Ethics Reader, eds. Armstrong & Botzler, p. 476 As noted in an earlier quote from Regan, once inherent value is granted, there is little ground for making distinctions between individuals. This applies to the distinction between animals that are rare or endangered versus those that are more common. According to the rights view, a rare individual has no higher moral standing than one who is common, since all share equally the basis on which they are granted inherent value. Regan (1983), in an oft quoted comment states, “That an individual animal is among the last remaining members of a species confers no further right to that animal, and its right not be harmed must be weighed equitably with the rights of any others who have this right.” Taken to its logical conclusion, this view allows for no special treatment in protecting threatened ecosystems by culling unwanted animals, nor can it condone invasive technologies and the attendant suffering of individuals that are intended to secure their future as a taxon on the grounds of rareness. Animal rights philosophers do not oppose efforts to save endangered species, but neither to they single them out for special treatment. According to Regan (1983), “the general policy recommended by the rights view is: let them be!” In contrast, the zoo biologist or the park manager will usually opt in favor of steps that insure the survival of specie over survival of individual members. THE LOSS OF INDIVIDUAL SPECIES RISKS HUMAN EXTINCTION – UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHICH SPECIES IS THE KEYSTONE INCREASES THE RISK Honnold, Attorney – Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, 1995 [Douglas, Federal Document Clearing House, 4-26-95] In the hustle and bustle of the making and enforcement of laws, it is important to stop and ponder: why protect endangered species? One answer is suggested by Dr. Paul Ehrlich, who has compared the loss of species to the loss of rivets in an airplane. See P.R. Ehrlich & A.H. Ehrlich, extinction, Random House (1981) at i-xii. We may lose one, two, or even several rivets without affecting the ability of the plane to fly, but eventually the loss of rivets puts the entire enterprise of flight at risk. This metaphor aptly conveys the insight that species -- both charismatic and mundane -- serve critically important functions in the complex web of life, the loss of which might prove disastrous. Through the loss of species, ecosystems, and ecological functions we put at risk the very planet as a place that humans can comfortably inhabit. Put less poetically, species serve numerous ecological functions that we are only beginning to understand. We don't yet understand how the loss of one or several species will affect the persistence and survival of other species and natural processes. Carelessly discarding life's rivets, to borrow Ehrlich's metaphor, is not an experiment that a wise society knowingly engages in. As Aldo Leopold observed in Round River, one of his classic essays: If the biota, in the course of eons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts. To keep every cog, and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering. A second Justification for the protection of endangered species is perhaps more readily grasped: nearly 1/4 of the prescription medicines distributed annually in the United States are based on substances derived from nature. Many common treatments for heart disease, for example, were derived originally from chemicals produced by plants. Two recent scientific discoveries drive home this point. The bark of the Pacific yew, a tree of no apparent commercial value that was historically treated as a "weed tree" suitable only for destruction, was found to contain taxol, a potent drug against ovarian and breast cancers. Just this year scientific researchers revealed that a substance from birch trees can shrink malignant melanoma tumors. Malignant melanoma is one of the many life-threatening diseases whose incidence is increasing, but whose treatment options are limited. Are we as a society willing to gamble that the next species that we consign to extinction may hold the cure for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or other ailments? In addition to these utilitarian notions, many people believe strongly that man has a moral and/or ethical duty to refrain from destroying the plant and animal communities with which we share the planet. Whether from a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or more agnostic, perspective, millions of Americans question by what right humans can purposefully and knowingly drive other species into the abyss of extinction. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.43 Mb. Share with your friends:
|