Research

Moral panics are rooted in often irrational fears that a social or environmental problem is an existential threat. Seen as a crisis requiring an immediate and extreme response, it is often blamed on individuals, communities and species who are profiled as evil. Even real problems are subject to moral panic when their scale or impact is exaggerated. Fanned by moral entrepreneurs in the media, politics, religion and science, moral panics thereby foment a rush to judgment resulting in unwise and unjust actions by a community.

N.C. Wyeth 1910 Alaskan Mail Carrier. Calendar Illustration

Examples of moral panics include the Salem witch trials in the 1690s, the Red Scare of the mid-twentieth century, and contemporary debates over same-sex marriage and gender identity. Each of these panics is characterized by irrational fears over a fictitious crisis fanned by vested interests seeking to exploit the panic for their own benefit.Moral panics also involve the relationship between people, animals and nature. These panics usually arise over the introduction of novel species, zoonotic threats to public health, claims of economic ruin, or fears over personal safety. Rhetoric around outdoor cats decimating biodiversity, urban wildlife spreading disease, marine mammals denuding the seas of fish, and wolves threatening people and their pets are all examples of animal-related moral panics.

Some moral panics are fictitious and require debunking. Others are rooted in a real if exaggerated problems. In both cases, strict ethical and scientific scrutiny is needed in the development of policy responses grounded in reason and evidence as opposed to fear mongering.

Recommended Readings
Lynn, W. S., Santiago-Ávila, F. J., Lindenmayer, J., Hadidian, J., Wallach, A., & King, B. J. (2019). A Moral Panic Over Cats. Conservation Biology, 33(4), 768-776. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13346

Lynn, W. S., Santiago-Ávila, F. J., Hadidian, J., Wallach, A., & Lindenmayer, J. (2020). Misunderstandings of Science and Ethics in the Moral Panic Over Cats. Conservation Biology, 34(4), 1038-1040. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13527

Maloney, C., & Unnithan, N. P. (2019). Reacting to Invasive Species: The Construction of a Moral Panic over Burmese Pythons. Sociological Inquiry, 89(3), 351-372. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12255

show less

The consistent conceptualization of justice as fairness is indispensable in social and political thinking. This is especially true given the unavoidable tension created by limited resources and the struggle to secure them that pervades the lives of people and animals alike. Yet despite its widespread use in social situations, justice as a moral concept has a long anthropocentric tradition in Western philosophical thought which excludes nonhuman animals from consideration.

Members of the anti-poaching unit, Black Mambas. Source: Global Citizen, https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/female-anti-poaching-group-saves-animals-crushes-c/.

Nonetheless, ethical, philosophical and scientific advances in the last centuries have made short work of arguments to exclude animals from the spheres of justice. Today, the view we have of all animals, humans included, is more nuanced and accurate. The weight of our current knowledge highlights a gradient of cognitive, emotional, and physical capabilities, and a diversity of types of rationalities, within and across all animal species. Sentience, sapience, sociality, autonomy and a diverse array of other morally-relevant capabilities are in play, and characterize the needs and relationships that are widespread throughout the animal kingdom and nonhuman world.Moreover, as humans we are embedded in an inevitable diversity of interacting relationships and have unavoidable responsibilities towards nonhumans. These social and ecological relationships highlight the lack of a purely ‘human community’, promoting instead what Mary Midgley named a ‘mixed-moral community’. Multispecies justice therefore promotes the appropriate consideration of individual nonhuman beings as members of our mixed-moral community through the establishment of baseline duties to others, individually and collectively.

Recommended Readings
Celermajer, D., Chatterjee, S., Cochrane, A., Fishel, S., Neimanis, A., O’brien, A., Reid, S., Srinivasan, K., Schlosberg, D., & Waldow, A. (2020). Justice through a multispecies lens. Contemporary Political Theory, 19(3), 475-512.

Plumwood, V. (2000). Ecological Ethics from Rights to Recognition: Multiple Spheres of Justice for Humans, Animals and Nature. In N. Low (Ed.), Global Ethics and the Environment (pp. 188-212). Routledge.

Santiago-Ávila, F. J., & Lynn, W. S. (2020). Bridging compassion and justice in conservation ethics. Biological Conservation, 248, 108648. 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108648

show less

All life on our planet faces wicked problems of our own species’ making. Examples include a warming climate, the collapse of biodiversity, contamination of our oceans, drinking water and air, and emerging infectious diseases. One health spurs us to appreciate the interdependencies of health and wellbeing between and across three domains of moral and scientific concern – people, other animals, and nature.

Even today, science tends to reduce questions of health and wellbeing to direct cause-and-effect relationships separate from the complex context in which they occur. This belies the fact that, as demonstrated so clearly in the COVID19 pandemic, we are often forced to make decisions in complex cases where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.” Furthermore, “Our understanding of the world emerges not from isolated, linear lines of scientific inquiry but rather from multiple, sometimes conflicting perspectives, and varying historical, moral, and ethical frameworks, not all of which are based in science (Bunch and Waltner-Toews, 2015).

Science is never value-free. This becomes clear in the trajectory of One Health today. One Health is applied overwhelmingly for the benefit of people, privileging human health and wellbeing over that of animals and nature. This is particularly true concerning questions about emerging infectious diseases (Humboldt-Dachroeden 2020). Yet the ethics and science of nature, society and medicine increasingly appreciates the complex interdependence of living beings in ecological and social systems. One Health needs to keep pace and develop a rigorous multispecies ethic.

In this respect, One Health Ethics ought to emphasize that the health and well-being of all three domains is considered simultaneously. It should ensure that the entire health and wellbeing of the planet and all its occupants is considered in the design, implementation and evaluation of education, research, policy and practice.

As such, it requires us to make informed choices that balance the health and wellbeing of all. This is not a zero-sum game and may even require us to trade off short-term gains for people in the interests of other animals and nature. It also requires us to anticipate, as best we can, broader and longer-term consequences of our actions or inactions on the entire community of life.

Recommended Readings
Bunch, M.J. & Walter-Toews, D. (2015). Grappling with complexity: The context for One Health and the EcoHealth approach. In One Health: The Theory and Practice of Integrated Health Approaches. ed. Bresalier, M., Cassidy, A., Woods, A et al. Oxfordshire: CAB International, 415-426.

Coghlan, S., & Coghlan, B. (2018). One Health, Bioethics, and Nonhuman Ethics. American Journal of Bioethics, 18(11), 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1524224

Humboldt-Dachroeden, S., Rubin, O., & Frid-Nielsen, S. S. (2020). The state of One Health research across disciplines and sectors–a bibliometric analysis. One Health, 10, 100146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100146

Lindenmayer, J. M., & Kaufman, G. E. (2021). One Health and One Welfare. In One Welfare in Practice (pp. 1-30). CRC Press. https://tinyurl.com/OHC-OHOW-Chapter

Nieuwland, J., & Meijboom, F. L. B. (2019). One health: How interdependence enriches veterinary ethics education. Animals, 10(1), 13. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/1/13/pdf

show less

When we consider the variety of relationships we have with nonhuman animals such as dogs, the list might look something like this: dogs are pets, dogs are food, dogs are to be experimented upon, dogs are for protection and/or policing and/or war, dogs are for fighting, dogs are significant in religious practice, dogs are mascots, and dogs are for racing. Dogs are also considered the greatest angels in earthly form, or property of value and ownership, or disgusting and dirty, or evil. How is it we’ve come to have this incredible continuum of relations with this one domesticated species? If we trace the developmental context of each of these relations, what we find is that it comes down to where you are. We cannot understand why we have the relations we do with other species without understanding the geographical context of these relations.
Animal geography’s contribution to helping scholars and society-at-large think through the ethical conundrums we are faced with has been to continually ground us in the places and spaces where these relations occur. This situated ethics perspective helps provide a pathway for proscribing normative positions based on locational complexity rather than abstract arguments or rigid universal doctrines. Animal geography can provide a space for plurality, yet its practitioners must constantly reflect upon themselves as to what ethical biases and blind spots they might be bringing to their research. The result of doing the internal reflection is that animal geographers can become better facilitators of public discourse around ethical choices/options with animal-related issues.

Recommended Readings
Buller, H. (2016). Animal geographies III: Ethics. Progress in Human Geography, 40(3), 422-430.

Gillespie, K. (2018). The Cow with the Ear Tag #1389. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Hovorka, A. (2017). Animal geographies I: Globalizing and decolonizing. Progress in Human Geography, 41(3), 382-394.

Jones, O. (2004). (Un)ethical geographies of human-nonhuman relations: Encounters, collectives and spaces. In Wilbert C and Philo C (Eds.) Animal Spaces, Beastly Places. New York: Routledge, (pp. 267-290).

Lynn, B. (1998). Animals, ethics and geography. In Wolch J and Emel J (Eds.), Animal Geographies: Place, Politics and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands. New York/London: Verso (pp. 280-298).

Urbanik, J. and C. Johnston. (Eds.) 2017. Humans and Animals: A Geography of Co-Existence.
Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Urbanik, J. (2012). Placing Animals: An Introduction to the Geography of Human-animal Relations. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

show less

Rewilding is a relatively new paradigm of conservation. Its proponents believe we need to rewild (preserve, conserve and restore) up to half of the earth’s terrestrial and marine habitat to protect biodiversity, fight climate change, and sustain human and other life now and in the future. While the science and need to maintain the earth’s life support systems is certain, ethical justifications for rewilding have increasingly focused on the instrumental benefits to current and future generations of humanity alone

Areas for rewilding in North America.

This focus on human benefits betrays the early roots of rewilding. Born out of critiques of human supremacy from animal protection, deep ecology and ecofeminism, the ethics of rewilding ought to concern more than humanity and recognize that we owe a direct moral responsibility to animals and nature.Like all paradigm shifts in society, rewilding is fundamentally rooted in changing values and ethics. Recovering the ethical meaning of rewilding is indispensable to its long-term success, which depends on articulating a compelling moral and political vision that reframes the personal and political.

Key to an ethical vision of rewilding is recognizing that many animals are sentient beings, who should not be reduced to their functional role in ecology or membership in a species. As individuals, their wellbeing counts in rewilding. What we need, and what this project works towards, is a deep rewilding that embraces our ethical responsibilities to people, animals and nature, as both individuals and members of social and ecological communities.

Recommended Readings
Crist, E., Kopnina, H., Cafaro, P., Gray, J., Ripple, W. J., Safina, C., Davis, J., DellaSala, D. A., Noss, R. F., & Washington, H. (2021). Protecting half the planet and transforming human systems are complementary goals. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 91. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2021.761292/full?fbclid=IwAR3D4rL2zAAJU_rzz0k7IaYfLv1yF5sju-mbt_8Jjlgh4E8RiZAYRjMGSgE

Crist, E. (2019). Abundant Earth: Toward an Ecological Civilization. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Derham, T., & Mathews, F. (2020). Elephants as refugees. People and Nature, 2(1), 103-110. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/pan3.10070

Derham, T. T., Duncan, R. P., Johnson, C. N., & Jones, M. E. (2018). Hope and caution: rewilding to mitigate the impacts of biological invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1761), 20180127. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2018.0127

Kopnina, H., & Cryer, P. (2019). The golden rules of rewilding – examining the case of Oostvaardersplassen. Ecos, 40(6), 1-19. https://www.ecos.org.uk/ecos-406-the-golden-rules-of-rewilding-examining-the-case-of-oostvaardersplassen/

Lynn, W. S. (2015). Rewilding: The Ethical Imperative. Geographical. http://geographical.co.uk/opinion/item/1390-the-ethical-imperative

Lynn, W. S. (2020). Rewilding the Covenant of Life with Compassion: A Future for Global and Sustainability Ethics. In P. Burdon, K. Bosselmann, & K. Engel (Eds.), The Crisis in Global Ethics and the Future of Global Governance: Fulfilling the Promise of the Earth Charter Debate (pp. 225-245). Edward Elgar Publishing.

show less

Being wild is a psycho-ecological and sociocultural event for non-human animals. We thus ask what does it mean to be wild, and how can we assess wildness for animals themselves? Towards this end, we have developed and continue to refine a Wildness Index of Wellbeing (Baker, 2019) by which wellbeing can be meaningfully evaluated, moving us beyond mere welfare measures that rely largely on mitigation of negative states, and extrinsic factors. Integral to this index is to probe which parameters matter to the lives of the animals in question, and to understand how to properly weight such parameters.

Chelsea Greer conducting field work, with Ele in the distance. Photo courtesy of Liv Baker.

A state of being wild evokes a sense of agency, dignity, and a notion of freedom; wild is choice and access to a range of emotions, challenges, and relationships. Where all wild animals are varyingly impacted by human behaviour, we ask what is at the heart of being wild, and more broadly press the worlds of conservation and animal protection to reckon with how to return the power of being wild to animals that have been stripped of it.

To develop a reliable assessment process that is robust, meaningful, and reproducible, external validation and standardization of the wildness index has been necessary. This has involved applying the index within and across varied situations. In particular, we have assessed formerly captive (rewilded) elephants introduced to native habitat, as well as individuals living in more controlled environments.

Recommended Readings
Baker, L. (2013). Why individuals matter: Lessons in animal welfare and conservation. In M. Bekoff (Ed.), Ignoring nature no more. The case for compassionate conservation (pp. 159-166). University of Chicago Press.

Baker, L., & Winkler, B. (2020). Asian Elephants rescue, rehabilitation and rewilding. Animal Sentience, 28(1). https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol5/iss28/1/

Baker, L. (2020). Rewilding and mixed-community collaboration in conservation. Animal Sentience, 28(21). https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol5/iss28/21/

show less

Society wildlife values are shifting from an emphasis on domination and consumption of animals toward placing greater prominence on the intrinsic value of nature, biodiversity conservation, and the social connections between animals and people. This changing ethical landscape, supported by an improved science-based understanding of life, has created challenges for wildlife management agencies.

Most wildlife departments and their governing bodies cling to traditional worldviews and organizational structures focused on the sustained use of animals for human purposes. Despite changing public values, wildlife agencies are understaffed in the social sciences and rarely employ ethicists or apply tools for values assessment. As a result, wildlife agencies continue to prioritize managing a relatively small number of commercially and recreationally important species for the benefit of human use, and consequently, biodiversity conservation and animal wellbeing suffers.

Recommended Readings

Bruskotter, J.T. Nelson, M.P., Peterson, M.N., Peterson, T.R., Sullivan, L. & Vucetich , J. A. (2022). Beyond game management: toward a more inclusive ethic for wildlife conservation. School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13989.58085

Manfredo, M. J., Sullivan, L., Don Carlos, A. W., Dietsch, A.M., Teel, T. L., Bright, A. D., & Bruskotter, J. (2018). America’s wildlife values: the social context of wildlife management in the U.S. National report from the research project entitled “America’s Wildlife Values.” Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources.

Manfredo, M. J., Berl, R., Teel, T. L. & Bruskotter, J. T. (2021). Bringing social values to wildlife conservation decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. DOI: 10.1002/fee.2356

Teel, T L., Bruyere, B., Dayer, A., Stoner, K. E., Bishop, C., Bruskotter, J., Freeman, S., Newmark, J., Jager, C., & Manfredo M. J. (2022). Reenvisioning the university education needs of wildlife conservation professionals in the United States. Conservation Science and Practice. 2022;4:e610. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.61.

show less