Eye in the Sky: Dr. Adam Cruise
In wildlife conservation, there is a dominant ethical system that has been in place for decades. This is an approach that has been widely deployed by the international organisations such as UNEP, IUCN, CITES, most governments and the big NGOs. It is known in ethics as ‘instrumental valuation’. Wild species are valued as ‘instruments’ – things for human use. The ethical aspect of it is if a wild species provides a continuous benefit to human animals, it will tend to be conserved.
Instrumental valuation is an anthropocentric construct otherwise known as ‘sustainable utilisation’ – the prolonged use of wildlife for the well-being of humans.
The Controversy of Trophy Hunting: Conservation or Exploitation?
Trophy hunting is a perfect example of this. Proponents of trophy hunting argue that killing wild animals for the enjoyment of human hunters helps conserve them. At its foundation, a trophy-hunted species, like an elephant or lion, needs to be conserved in order for hunters to continue killing them for fun.
South Africa’s Kruger Park was originally proclaimed for this exact reason, when dwindling populations of targeted species prompted hunters to adopt a sustainable approach in order to continue hunting them. While the Kruger (and all South Africa’s national parks) no longer permit trophy hunting, many private parks still operate on this principle.
These days funds paid by a trophy hunter ostensibly are ring-fenced back into conserving species – in the form of anti-poaching measures, fences etc.
Most importantly, though – and this is really where the instrumental value kicks in – is that impoverished human communities living among or alongside wild species can benefit financially from the income trophy hunting supposedly provides.
This kind of valuation is measured by consequences – killing wild animals may be morally abhorrent to most of us, but the consequences of trophy hunting are deemed crucial to the survival of the species and, more importantly, to provide economic well-being to poor people. It’s a necessary evil that purportedly provides a win-win situation for both wild animals and humans.
The Dark Truth Behind Trophy Hunting: Devastating Consequences for Wildlife and Human Communities
However, during the dominant tenure of instrumental value (of which trophy hunting plays a major role) during the past 50 years, wildlife populations have declined by 73% and in Africa 76% during the same period, according to the latest Living Planet Report (2024).
Furthermore, those impoverished human communities that are supposed to receive benefits from trophy hunting remain as impoverished as ever. In Botswana, for example, in areas where trophy hunting dominates the income landscape, those communities are the poorest in the country with the worst access to basic services like education, health and job opportunities.
Trophy hunting does benefit some humans, but they make up a tiny minority and mostly it’s the wealthy land-owners that benefit financially. That’s not very utilitarian and in terms of consequences to wildlife populations and humans, its disastrous.
But relying on consequences has other problems. It ignores the process of getting there.
Here is an analogy, somewhat different, but it highlights the problem.
Jonathan Swift was an 18th century satirist (of Gulliver’s Travels fame) who wrote an essay called A Modest Proposal on the dangers of consequential ethics.
In the essay, Swift adopts the persona of a concerned, clinically rational economist who suggests that in order to better combat poverty and overpopulation in Ireland, the children of the poor be sold as food to the wealthy. The consequence, he argues, will not only reduce the population, but the income of the poor will increase significantly and raise the general standard of living.
The Paradox of Swift's Satirical Economist: Rationality Leading to Horrific Consequences
Swift's satire relies on the persona of the economist, a well-meaning visionary whose sympathy for the poor leads through the reliance of consequences to suggest a remedy of murderous cruelty. His arguments, rationally presented, support a profoundly irrational proposition, and their appalling callousness radically undermines their benevolent intent. The horror of such a suggestion is manifest when the intrinsic value of children’s lives is removed for a favourable collective outcome.
The same line of argument is adopted by proponents of trophy hunting, albeit theirs is not a satirical hyperbole. ‘Kill to conserve’ is the slogan often used by trophy hunters themselves. Like Swift’s economist, who believes the killing and selling the flesh of children to the rich will solve poverty and overpopulation, the same line of reasoning shows just how trophy hunting lacks any form moral obligation to the lives of endangered individuals, even though the claim will help conserve the species.
The Value of Animals in Ethical Considerations
Of course, human children are not wild animals, so the next ethical question is just how valuable are other animals? Do they deserve equal moral consideration, or is there a difference? And, is there a difference between species? Are elephants and lions worthy of more moral consideration than buffalo or impala?
These are tricky and complex questions that dominate the discourse in conservation these days and one with no straight answer.
What do you think should be the correct ethical course of action to take?
Comments