2012Oxford University Press eBooksRequires access

Environmental Ethics, Hunting, and the Place of Animals

Gary Varner

Open publisher page 11 citations

Abstract

Abstract This article notes that deep philosophical differences divide environmentalists and animal welfarists. Environmental ethicists often see the practical implications of animal welfare and animal rights views as anti-environmental; they are seen as sometimes harming ecosystems and as sometimes inexcusably banning interventions that environmentalists support. This article argues that environmental ethicists have sometimes zealously caricatured animal welfare and animal rights views, and that a close examination of the interests of each group shows that there is more of a convergence of values than many have thought. While it is true that ecosystems and non-animal species have only instrumental value from an animal welfare or animal rights perspective, an appropriately structured environmental ethic need not deny this claim and can still attribute an appropriate level of value to ecosystems and non-sentient organisms.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract This article notes that deep philosophical differences divide environmentalists and animal welfarists. Environmental ethicists often see the practical implications of animal welfare and animal rights views as anti-environmental; they are seen as sometimes harming ecosystems and as sometimes inexcusably banning interventions that environmentalists support. This article argues that environmental ethicists have sometimes zealously caricatured animal welfare and animal rights views, and that a close examination of the interests of each group shows that there is more of a convergence of values than many have thought. While it is true that ecosystems and non-animal species have only instrumental value from an animal welfare or animal rights perspective, an appropriately structured environmental ethic need not deny this claim and can still attribute an appropriate level of value to ecosystems and non-sentient organisms.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 11 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract This article notes that deep philosophical differences divide environmentalists and animal welfarists. Environmental ethicists often see the practical implications of animal welfare and animal rights views as anti-environmental; they are seen as sometimes harming ecosystems and as sometimes inexcusably banning interventions that environmentalists support. This article argues that environmental ethicists have sometimes zealously caricatured animal welfare and animal rights views, and that a close examination of the interests of each group shows that there is more of a convergence of values than many have thought. While it is true that ecosystems and non-animal species have only instrumental value from an animal welfare or animal rights perspective, an appropriately structured environmental ethic need not deny this claim and can still attribute an appropriate level of value to ecosystems and non-sentient organisms.

Key concepts: Animal welfare, Animal rights, Environmental ethics, Value (mathematics), Animal ethics, Perspective (graphical), Intrinsic value (animal ethics), Welfare

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Environmental Ethics, Hunting, and the Place of Animals — Research Paper | ScholarLens