The Case for Intervention in Nature on Behalf of Animals
A Critical Review of the Main Arguments against Intervention
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22343373 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mikel Torres, Mikel Tapia Torres (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Issue | 3.1 |
| Pages | 33-49 |
| Publication date | 2015-05-01 |
| 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-2015-001-torr |
| OpenAlex | W1824288565 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 5 |
If we assume that all sentient animals deserve equal moral consideration and, therefore, that their interests are morally relevant, what should be our attitude regarding natural phenomena like predation or starvation which are harmful for many wild animals? Do we have the prima facie moral obligation to try to mitigate unnecessary, avoidable and unjustified animal suffering in nature? In this paper I assume two main theses: (1) Humans and (many) animals deserve equal moral consideration; this implies that (2) We have the prima facie moral obligation to try to mitigate unnecessary, avoidable and unjustified animal suffering. Based on these assumptions, I argue that we are morally obligated to aid animals in the wild whenever doing so would not originate as much or more suffering than it would prevent
Animal ethics · Animal rights · Environmental ethics · Epistemology · Law and economics · Moral obligation · Obligation · Political science · Prima facie · Psychiatry · Sociology · Law · Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations · Philosophy · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Citations per year | 0.6 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2016 - 2025 (10) |
| Highly cited | No |