Theses and Dissertations
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Theses and Dissertations by Subject "animal ethics"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Invasive species management: an animal ethics perspective(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2012) Tuminello, Joseph A., author; Rollin, Bernard, advisor; McShane, Katie, committee member; Archibeque, Shawn, committee memberIn the scholarly literature on invasive species management, there exists a tendency to neglect the moral relevance of sentience when determining best possible management strategies regarding sentient members of invasive species. In addition, there is also a negative bias against invasive species, where such species are viewed as inherently "bad." Because of this negative bias, many wildlife managers, conservation biologists, and ecologists share the default view that invasive species are nuisances and must be gotten rid of, using the most cost-effective and efficient means possible. The neglect or omission of sentience within the literature often carries over into the implementation of invasive species management techniques, where sentient members of invasive species are often not treated as humanely as possible. In this thesis, I defend Bernard Rollin's animal ethic, where sentient beings are those capable of having interests, and which are also capable of self-valuation, which is necessary for possessing intrinsic value (on Rollin's view). Because such beings are capable of having interests which can be fulfilled or thwarted, they are objects of moral concern on this view. While I defend Rollin's view, any moral theory which considers sentience morally relevant at all will be compatible with the majority of my arguments regarding our treatment of sentient members of invasive species. If sentience is a morally relevant criterion, I argue that it continues to be so even when sentient beings are members of species which are considered to be "invasive." This claim is strongly supported by the large-scale vagueness and disagreement over terms such as "invasive," "native," and "exotic" within the literature. Because sentience is a morally relevant criterion when determining best possible management practices regarding invasive species, members of such species should be treated as humanely and in accordance with their respective telos as much as possible. Typically, this will entail prioritizing nonlethal and preventive methods of control over lethal methods. However, even when lethal control is deemed to be the best possible type of management strategy in a given situation, it should be implemented as humanely as possible. In addition to arguing for sentience as a morally relevant criterion when determining best possible management strategies regarding invasive species, I also argue that the negative bias against invasive species as inherently "bad" is ultimately unfounded. I support this claim by providing evidence of a variety of potential negative, positive, and neutral aspects of invasive species. Because invasive species are not inherently "bad" or "good," I argue that our attitudes toward and management of members of such species should be developed on a case-by-case basis. It is also important that the assessment of invasive species on a case-by-case basis be combined with the moral relevance of sentience. The bias against invasive species may serve to perpetuate the omission of sentience as a morally relevant criterion of invasive species management. The omission of sentience may also perpetuate the negative bias against invasive species. Understanding the moral relevance of sentience may help to diminish the negative bias against invasive species, and vice versa. After considering and responding to several objections to my arguments, I provide an overview of different sorts of lethal, nonlethal, and preventive methods of invasive species management, and discuss how each of these can be implemented in a more humane fashion, in order to present ways in which my arguments and view can be successfully applied in a variety of real-world scenarios.Item Open Access Nin gii nisaa a'aw waawaashkeshii: engaging animal rights theory with Ojibwe and Cree theories of hunting ethics(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2023) Persinger, Corinne, author; McShane, Katie, advisor; Shockley, Kenneth, advisor; Schneider, Lindsey, committee memberIn this thesis, I call on animal ethicists working in Western traditions to reflect on deeply held assumptions, prejudices, and colonial histories that continue to marginalize not only Indigenous hunting practices, but the very theories that defend their ethical justification. Such reflection is necessary for genuine engagement to take place between Western theories and Indigenous theories of hunting ethics. This thesis can be understood as part of a larger project to clear the way for critical conversation between these different traditions. However, the scope of the thesis is limited to a particular Western theory, that is animal rights theory, and a particular version of Indigenous hunting ethics, based in reciprocity and contextualized by the hunting practices of Ojibwe and Cree cultural groups. I argue that animal rights theorists must engage with Indigenous theories of hunting ethics as a matter of moral and epistemic responsibility. This thesis contains three chapters. In the first chapter, I will motivate the claim that the persistent ignorance to Indigenous ethical theories by Western theorists—and animal rights theorists in particular–is a form of epistemic injustice. I argue that engagement with Indigenous theories by animal rights theorists is a necessary step for overcoming this injustice. In the following chapters, I attempt to motivate the theoretical importance of overcoming the injustice. In the second chapter, I offer an account of animal rights theory that emphasizes possible points of overlap with Indigenous theories. In this account, I argue that animal rights theory requires the addition of relational accounts of animal ethics to be tenable. Relational accounts leave open two substantive theoretical questions that I will take up in chapter three: first, whether relational context matters for our negative obligations; and second, the extent to which animals possess agency and power in their relationships with humans. Ojibwe and Cree hunting ethics, based in a theory of reciprocity, also center relational context for determining our obligations to animals. However, these theories respond to these open questions differently than their Western counterparts. I argue that the difference in how these theories respond to these questions illustrates why they come out so differently in their evaluation of the moral character of hunting. Western and Indigenous ethical theories appeal to quite different conceptual frameworks to assess ethical behavior within hunting relationships. Integral ethical concepts like those of taking life, harm, intentionality, and power can be understood differently when a theory of reciprocity is used to define human-animal relations, instead of the relational theories of their Western counterparts. As a result, the kinds of obligations associated with the act of taking life are different on Indigenous theories. I take these different understandings of ethically significant concepts to be at the heart of the disagreement between animal rights theory and Ojibwe and Cree theories of hunting ethics regarding the moral character of hunting. The ignorance of Western theorists to Indigenous conceptual frameworks allows them to downplay the theoretical significance of this disagreement. These theorists have an ethical and epistemic responsibility to address this ignorance.Item Restricted Research on prisoners: an alternative to animal testing(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2011) Abbate, Cheryl Elizabeth, author; Rollin, Bernard E., advisor; Cafaro, Philip, 1962-, committee member; Hogan, Michael, committee memberMembers of the biomedical community justify biomedical research on sentient beings by depicting the benign results which are regarded as necessary for scientific and medical progress, which in turn is absolutely necessary for maintaining human health, well being, and life. Rather than take for granted that the burden of biomedical research should rest only on nonhuman animals, I will explore whether or not there is a more appropriate class of sentient beings that we should conduct our biomedical research on. I will argue, based on utilitarian principles, that if we can maximize overall happiness by conducting our research on a different group of beings, then we should opt to conduct our biomedical experiments on these beings. My central proposal is that our decision to experiment on nonhuman animals is not the best alternative available; rather, if we were to experiment on violent criminals, we would increase overall happiness. Since conducting biomedical research on this particular group of prisoners would fulfill the aims of retributive punishment, deter violent crime, and procure optimal scientific results, we would produce the maximal amount of benefits by experimenting on these transgressors. Thus when faced with the choice to experiment on either violent criminals or nonhuman animals, the morally commendable decision would be to perform research on violent criminals.Item Open Access The othering of pets: Palmer, Plumwood, and pet technology ethics(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2019) Forrest, Marielle, author; McShane, Katie, advisor; Shockley, Kenneth, committee member; Grandin, Temple, committee memberIn Chapter 1, I explore some of the central theories in the field of animal ethics, those by: Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Martha Nussbaum, and Clare Palmer. I also examine the views of Stephen Budiansky and Gary Francione in conversation with one another to consider the wrongfulness of domestication. In Chapter 2, I provide a brief historical account of pet-keeping. I then look at our current practices of keeping pets and in what ways these practices are or can be harmful. Finally, I argue that there are more subtle ways that we indirectly harm our pets, that is, through 'othering attitudes' (of polarization, homogenization, backgrounding, assimilation, and instrumentalism). These attitudes can invite harm to our pets, particularly in light of their social needs. In Chapter 3, I consider seven animal-computer interactions (ACI) and see in what ways our pets can benefit from or be harmed by them. I argue that these technologies reinforce, rather than eliminate, attitudes of othering and can, in this way, be harmful. Still, with moderation, a loving eye, and a spirit of "critical anthropomorphism," we can use ACI responsibly.