Zoopolis, Interventions and the State of Nature
Article Sidebar
Google Scholar citations
Main Article Content
In Zoopolis, Donaldson and Kymlicka argue that intervention in nature to aid animals is sometimes permissible, and in some cases obligatory, to save them from the harms they commonly face. But they claim these interventions must have some limits, since they could otherwise disrupt the structure of the communities wild animals form, which should be respected as sovereign ones. These claims are based on the widespread assumption that ecosystemic processes ensure that animals have good lives in nature. However, this assumption is, unfortunately, totally unrealistic. Most animals are r-strategists who die in pain shortly after coming into existence, and those who make it to maturity commonly suffer terrible harms too. In addition, most animals do not form the political communities Zoopolis describes. The situation of animals in the wild can therefore be considered analogous to one of humanitarian catastrophe, or to that of irretrievably failed states. It matches closely what a Hobbesian state of nature would be like. This means that intervention in nature to aid nonhuman animals should not be limited as Donaldson and Kymlicka argue.
Article Details
Copyright
The authors transfers a non exclusive rights of distribution, public communication and reproduction of his or her work for publication in Law, Ethics and Philosophy (LEAP) and inclusion in databases in which the journal is indexed.Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Oscar Horta, In Defense of the Internal Aspects View: Person-Affecting Reasons, Spectrum Arguments and Inconsistent Intuitions , Law, Ethics and Philosophy: 2014: Núm: 2