Bridging compassion and justice in conservation ethics

Santiago‐Ávila, Francisco J.; Lynn, William S.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108648

Cited by 34 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, our intent is less to assert the preeminence of compassion as to expand upon its role in conservation and validate it as a source of moral understanding. We agree with Santiago‐Ávila and Lynn (2020) that other values, such as justice, are important as well. We also highlight their observation that “empathy and compassion are vital to, and even considered the precursors of, ethics and ethical behavior.”…”

Section: The Meaning and Implications Of Compassion In Conservationsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Although some of the discomfort with compassion evidently relates to its general emotionality, lingering questions about compassion itself, as specifically envisioned within a compassionate conservation approach, have also emerged as a source of unease (Rohwer & Marris 2019; Beausoleil 2020; Callen et al. 2020a; Santiago‐Ávila & Lynn 2020). We cannot pretend to speak for the diverse group of people who, in different ways and to different degrees, gravitate toward a compassionate conservation approach.…”

Section: The Meaning and Implications Of Compassion In Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Emotion as a source of moral understanding in conservation

Batavia

Nelson

Bruskotter

et al. 2021

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent debates around the meaning and implications of compassionate conservation suggest that some conservationists consider emotion a false and misleading basis for moral judgment and decision making. We trace these beliefs to a long‐standing, gendered sociocultural convention and argue that the disparagement of emotion as a source of moral understanding is both empirically and morally problematic. According to the current scientific and philosophical understanding, reason and emotion are better understood as partners, rather than opposites. Nonetheless, the two have historically been seen as separate, with reason elevated in association with masculinity and emotion (especially nurturing emotion) dismissed or delegitimated in association with femininity. These associations can be situated in a broader, dualistic, and hierarchical logic used to maintain power for a dominant male (White, able‐bodied, upper class, heterosexual) human class. We argue that emotion should be affirmed by conservationists for the novel and essential insights it contributes to conservation ethics. We consider the specific example of compassion and characterize it as an emotional experience of interdependence and shared vulnerability. This experience highlights conservationists’ responsibilities to individual beings, enhancing established and widely accepted beliefs that conservationists have a duty to protect populations, species, and ecosystems (or biodiversity). We argue compassion, thus understood, should be embraced as a core virtue of conservation.

show abstract

Section: The Meaning and Implications Of Compassion In Conservationsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: The Meaning and Implications Of Compassion In Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotion as a source of moral understanding in conservation

Batavia

Nelson

Bruskotter

et al. 2021

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, the contraction, depletion and extirpation of large carnivores has contributed to simplification of trophic structures linked to both lower biodiversity and degraded ecosystem functions [1][2][3] , suggesting the elimination of large carnivores "is one of the most significant anthropogenic impacts on nature" 1,3 . Moreover, there is a growing concern for the wellbeing and claims of individual nonhuman animals and large carnivores within conservation [4][5][6] . Increased consideration of nonhuman claims demands robust assessments of how anthropogenic activities, including those aimed at other species, impact risk of harm, including death 7,8 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Poaching of protected wolves fluctuated seasonally and with non-wolf hunting

Santiago‐Ávila

Treves

2022

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poaching is the main cause of mortality for many large carnivores, and mitigating it is imperative for the persistence of their populations. For Wisconsin gray wolves (Canis lupus), periods of increased risk in overall mortality and poaching seem to overlap temporally with legal hunting seasons for other large mammals (hunting wolves was prohibited). We analyzed monitoring data from adult, collared wolves in Wisconsin, USA (1979–2012, n = 495) using a competing-risk approach to test explicitly if seasons during which it was legal to train hunting hounds (hounding) or hunt other large mammals (hunting) affected wolves’ hazard of cause-specific mortality and disappearance. We found increases in hazard for disappearances and documented (‘reported’) poaching during seasons with hunting, hounding or snow cover relative to a season without these factors. The ‘reported poached’ hazard increased > 650% during seasons with hunting and snow cover, which may be due to a seasonal surge in numbers of potential poachers or to some poachers augmenting their activities. Snow cover was a major environmental factor contributing to poaching, presumably through increased detection of wolves. Our study suggests poaching is by far the highest mortality hazard for wolves and reinforces the need for protections and policies targeting poaching of protected populations.

show abstract

“…In line with Deckha, we regard nonanthropocentrism and an attitude against human sovereignty over animals as inherently feminist and anti-imperialist (Deckha 2012, 537). Yet we also intend to affirm and propose some solutions based on recognizing and respecting animals’ differences and vulnerabilities (Taylor 2008; Deckha 2015; Taylor 2017) through an ethics of care (Donovan and Adams 2007; Gruen 2015; Santiago-Ávila and Lynn 2020). This involves regarding animals as embodied, rather than abstract, living beings (Deckha 2015, 56; Gruen 2015, 33–34).…”

Section: Against Anthropocentrism and Human Sovereignty Over Animals:...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…25We thank Charlotte Blattner for highlighting this point. See also Santiago-Ávila et al 2018, for gray wolves, and Santiago-Ávila and Lynn 2020, for conservation.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation after Sovereignty: Deconstructing Australian Policies against Horses with a Plea and Proposal

Castelló

Santiago‐Ávila

2022

Hypatia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation scholarship and policies are concerned with the viability of idealized ecological communities constructed using human metrics. We argue that the discipline of conservation assumes an epistemology and ethics of human sovereignty/dominion over animals that leads to violent actions against animals. We substantiate our argument by deconstructing a case study. In the context of recent bushfires in Australia, we examine recent legislation passed by the parliament of New South Wales (NSW), policy documents, and academic articles by conservationists that support breaking communities of horses and/or killing 4,000 horses in Kosciuszko National Park (KNP), NSW. Theoretically framing our deconstruction against human sovereignty over animals and anthropocentrism, we affirm an intersectional, ecofeminist approach that values animals as relational and vulnerable agents. We uncover first the epistemic violence of categorizing horses as “pests,” and the anthropocentric nature of recently passed legislation in NSW. We analyze next the deficient ethics of NSW's government, and the argument that killing animals is justifiable when they suffer from starvation and dehydration. We close with a realistic proposal that does not involve breaking horses’ communities and/or killing horses, and a plea to the government of NSW and conservationists not to harm any horses in KNP.

show abstract

Bridging compassion and justice in conservation ethics

Cited by 34 publications

References 22 publications

Emotion as a source of moral understanding in conservation

Emotion as a source of moral understanding in conservation

Poaching of protected wolves fluctuated seasonally and with non-wolf hunting

Conservation after Sovereignty: Deconstructing Australian Policies against Horses with a Plea and Proposal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About