Refusing Help and Inflicting Harm
A Critique of the Environmentalist View
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22343271 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Eze Paez (0000-0003-0571-7310, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Issue | 3.2 |
| Pages | 165-178 |
| Publication date | 2015-11-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Relations (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2283-3196 • E-ISSN: 2280-9643 |
| Publisher | Led Edizioni Universitarie (PUBLISHER • IT) |
| DOI | 10.7358/rela-2015-002-paez |
| OpenAlex | W1943630432 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 5 |
Due to a variety of natural causes, suffering predominates over well-being in the lives of wild animals. From an antispeciesist standpoint that considers the interests of all sentient individuals, we should intervene in nature to benefit these animals, provided that the expectable result is net positive. However, according to the environmentalist view the aim of benefiting wild animals cannot justify intervening in nature. In addition, harmful human interventions can sometimes be justified. This view assumes that (i) certain entities such as ecosystems or species have intrinsic value, and that (ii) at least sometimes these values are more important than nonhuman well-being. In this article I review the arguments in support of this view advanced by three prominent environmentalists (Albert Schweitzer, Paul W. Taylor and J. Baird Callicott) and show how none of them succeed at grounding these assumptions
Criminology · Environmental ethics · Epistemology · Harm · Sociology · Environmental Philosophy and Ethics · History · Human-Animal Interaction Studies · Philosophy · Psychology · Religion, Ecology, and Ethics · Social Psychology
| Citations per year | 0.2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2021 - 2021 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |