Meagan Crockett
Phil 2300
Position Paper
Fontenelle Forest Association
Peter Singer (1974) has a very unique yet insightful view on Animal Liberation
and Animal Rights. He believes that all animals are equal. If animals can feel pain and
pleasure then they are considered in the moral circle. The moral circle, according to our
lectures, is the boundary drawn around the entities in the world deemed worthy of moral
consideration. Jeremy Bentham (1907) states, “The question is not, can they reason?
Nor can they talk? But, can they suffer?” When Singer describes equality between
animals he compares them to beings. He believes that all animals should be treated
equally and fair but only to their own ability. That does not necessarily mean that just
because you offer a little girl dance lessons that you have to offer them to a cheetah
also. Just so long as the human race and animals species needs and interests are both
getting met to their own ability and if the interest of avoiding pain and suffering is
present then they would be considered equal. Therefore, Singer does not agree with
hunting because it does cause pain and suffering.
Tom Regan (1980) not only expresses his views on animal rights but searches
for moral criteria. Regan has strong views on cruelty and the terminology behind it.
Cruelty denotes that one intends to be cruel. He exclaims, “We should not be cruel to
animals because cruelty to animals leads people to be cruel to other people.” Even
though one’s intentions may have been moral sometimes the effect may come out as
being immoral. Regan also talks about his view on Animal Rights and he believes in
“rights” over “goods”. Whether the initial act may be moral or beneficial to a large
number of people, but in turn, violates someone’s rights or dignity then without question
it is immoral. In my mind I think Regan would have a tough time with hunting.
Sometimes the initial act of hunting is not always for cruel reasons such as for sport; but
maybe it is to feed a family or help with over population. In the end, whether it was for
the right reasons, someone is always going to view it as immoral and in Regan’s mind, if
it violates just one being then it is considered immoral.
Aldo Leopold (1949) talks about the Land Ethic and the holistic ecological part of
it. “The land ethic changes the role of Homo Sapiens from conqueror of the landcommunity to plain member and citizen of it.” The Land consists of soil, water, plants,
and animals. Leopold designs a Biotic Pyramid, this pyramid consists of all animal and
plant life and they are put into different stages or categories. The bottom of this pyramid
consists of energy and soil and goes all the way to big meat eating animals. Leopold
was the founder of the science of wildlife management. He does not believe in hunting
but when managing wildlife sometimes hunting is required. Looking out for humans,
species and the lands rights all at once to provide safety and equality within the wildlife.
Gary Varner (2003) makes a very good theoretical conflict between Animal
Rights/Welfare vs. Holistic Environmentalism. All animal rights go against hunting,
sport, food and wilderness management. Hunting causes pain, suffering, and violates
animal’s rights. On the Holistic side of things Leopold points out, “A thing is right when
it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong
when it tends otherwise.” When making our environment a holistic environment then
sometimes wilderness and ecosystem management is required due to overpopulation,
invasive species and the loss of members of the upper Pyramid levels.
Now that I have explained the ideas of hunting from various philosophers, I would
like to talk about a story by Jared Diamond (1992) called, Must we shoot deer to save
nature? This is about an all-natural forest called Fontenelle Forest. The idea of this
forest was to preserve it in its natural state. The Fontenelle Forest Association runs this
forest and they are a nonprofit organization. This association has created two rules f or
the forest. Rule 1: For visitors; all plant and animal life is strictly protected. Rule 2: No
fishing, hunting, or weapons. The idea behind these rules is that there will no be no
management or interference by humans. In result of creating these rules for this forest
a lot of negative has come of it, more than positive. A major issue with this “experiment”
as I call it, is the abundance of species, which causes for plants, nuts and berries to
diminish. After all the non-species food sources become low to non-existent the
species begin to diminish also due to starvation. Some people looked at the philosophy
of laissez-faire which means to let things be and everything will be fine and wanted the
forest ran that way. After research it was shown that this does not work for nature
reserves either. One example of that was at Kenya’s National Park where they refused
to kill the elephants and let them overpopulate and eventually destroyed their own
habitat. Another example of mismanagement in the Grand Canyon was when they
decided to kill thousands of mountain lions, wolves, coyotes and bobcats to help protect
the Rocky Mountain mule deer. As a result, the plan had been successful in saving the
mule deer but short after the mule deer then began to overpopulate and overgraze the
vegetation and die.
Some people think that just because it seems like the right idea at that moment
and that it saves species or wildlife right then that it is the right decision. After reading
about and researching the Fontenelle Forest, I think it proves that nature cannot
preserve itself and it needs management to survive and be prolonged. We cannot
ignore our responsibility to help preserve wildness and wildlife because there are
obvious heavy consequences. I really like the idea of having this forest as an
experiment and example for everyone to learn from and teach us how to preserve our
land.
As for hunting, I have many mixed feelings about it and still have not exactly
decided on my personal moral stance. I love animals and do not agree with them
getting killed for sport. After learning about wilderness and wildlife management and
the importance of it I have to agree with hunting as long as it is for management. I
understand that overpopulation and big predators will always need to be managed for
the safety of the environment and other species. I would not completely agree with one
philosopher or another, but I do agree with preserving the beauty and stability of the
community. As long as hunting is not done out of cruelty or for sport then I understand.
Our environment is so important in keeping us alive and some people take that for
granted.
References
Aldo Leopold, “The Land Ethic,” from A Sand County Almanac. (New York, Oxford
University Press, 1949. p. 201-226.
Gary Varner, “Can Animal Rights Activists Be Environmentalists?” Environmental
Ethics: An Anthology. (Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III, eds.). (Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing, 2003), p. 97-99, 101-103, 104-106
Jared Diamond. 1992. Must we shoot deer to save nature? Natural History 101(8):2-6.
Jeremy Bentham. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. 1907.
Library of Economics and Liberty.
Peter Singer, “All Animals Are Equal,” from Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 1, No. 5
(Summer 1974), 243-257.
Tom Regan, “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs,” from Environmental Ethics, Vol 2, No 2.
(Summer 1980), 99-120.