Abstract
AbstractWhat we could call ‘relational non-interventionism’ holds that we have no general obligation to alleviate animal suffering, and that we do not typically have special obligations to alleviate wild animals’ suffering. Therefore, we do not usually have a duty to intervene in nature to alleviate wild animal suffering. However, there are a range of relationships that we may have with wild animals that do generate special obligations to aid—and the consequences of these obligations can be surprising. In this paper, it is argued that we have special obligations to those animals we have historically welcomed or encouraged into our spaces. This includes many wild animals. One of the consequences of this is that we may sometimes possess obligations to actively prevent rewilding—or even to dewild—for the sake of welcomed animals who thrive in human-controlled spaces.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Environmental Science,Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous),History,Environmental Chemistry
Reference36 articles.
1. ACE. (2021). Recommended charities. Animal Charity Evaluators. https://animalcharityevaluators.org/donation-advice/recommended-charities/.
2. Barrett, Jess. (2017). Five species we’re helping with farmers and crofters. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b/scotland/posts/five-species-we-39-re-helping-with-farmers-and-crofters.
3. Blattner, C. (2020). Animal labor, ecosystem services. Animal & Natural Resource Law Review, 16, 1–40.
4. Boisvert, R. (2014). Hospitality and food. In P. B. Thompson & D. M. Kaplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of food and agricultural ethics (pp. 1182–1190). Springer.
5. Brown, A. (2017). A theory of legitimate expectations. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 25(4), 435–460.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献