Animal Rights and the Problem of r-Strategists

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 20 (2):333-45 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Wild animal reproduction poses an important moral problem for animal rights theorists. Many wild animals give birth to large numbers of uncared-for offspring, and thus child mortality rates are far higher in nature than they are among human beings. In light of this reproductive strategy – traditionally referred to as the ‘r-strategy’ – does concern for the interests of wild animals require us to intervene in nature? In this paper, I argue that animal rights theorists should embrace fallibility-constrained interventionism: the view that intervention in nature is desirable but should be constrained by our ignorance of the inner workings of ecosystems. Though authors sometimes assume that large-scale intervention requires turning nature into an enormous zoo, I suggest an alternative. With sufficient research, a new form of gene editing called CRISPR promises to one day give us the capacity to intervene without perpetually interfering with wild animals’ liberties.
No keywords specified (fix it)
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-12-23
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
The Case for Animal Rights.Regan, Tom & Midgley, Mary
Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights.Donaldson, Sue & Kymlicka, Will
The Theory of Island Biogeography.Macarthur, Robert H. & Wilson, Edward O.
Animal Liberation.Puka, Bill & Singer, Peter

View all 23 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Wild Animal Suffering is Intractable.Delon, Nicolas & Purves, Duncan

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
467 ( #8,163 of 47,165 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
84 ( #7,604 of 47,165 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.