This ethical dilemma can also be referred to as wildlife management. Humans have always used wildlife to their advantage, whether it be for food, clothing, weapons, or any other resources they required. Wildlife management is more important in today’s time than the beginning of history when humans were using non-human animals for all their resources. This is because the affects towards nonhuman animal environments as well as the species themselves has had a major impact on humans. “Expanding human demands on land, sea and freshwater, along with the impacts of climate change, have made the conservation of wildlife and wild areas top priority.
However, humans are a very destructive species. For example, wildlife nonhuman animals partake in a large portion of the world’s economic income, due to the entertainment industry such as; zoos, wildlife safaris, and circuses. Immediate conservation of wildlife is important, to preserve nature for future generations. “Every 20 minutes, the world adds another 3,500 human lives but loses one or more entire species of animal or plant life – at least 27,000 species per year.
” (Source PBS). Humans can survive without the use of wildlife nonhuman animals, as well as the added things we do to create an abundance of pollution. However, the impact would be quite large on the daily life of humans.
There are multiple arguments on the rights of wildlife along with ideas of how humans should be living among wildlife.. For instance, the Utilitarian view states that since wildlife can experience pain and suffering and have certain desires, humans should take that into consideration when discussing management in order to maximize the happiness and welfare of humans as well as nonhuman animals.
Although the line is undecided with how much humans should interfere in wildlife, an example is a species of deer that has overpopulated, would need human control. Without the help of humans to control the population, the deer could all starve and eventually go instinct in a painful way. Another argument would come from the animal rights perspective. These philosophers share a portion of the Utilitarian view, however to a completely radical extent. A Philosopher like Tom Regan would state that animals have desires and feel pain/ pleasure just as much as humans.
Because of Tom Reagan’s statement, animals have rights just as much as humans do so, no harm of any sort should be done to the wildlife. As well as taking their land, because the environment they are in is considered theirs. The two views listed above are similar yet different in a way that a Utilitarian would simply say, if happiness in maximized in the best way possible then any wildlife management is acceptable. However, the animal rights perspective states since wildlife experience the same emotions as humans, they have rights and humans do not have the rights to take away nonhumans rights to please their own desires. Wildlife play a major role in the human environment, because they help keep the ecosystem in order and healthy ecosystems are what help humans survive. Whether by feeding humans or as a source of income, the relationship between humans and non-human is necessary. Therefore, I agree with the utilitarian view, I believe there is a way to maximize the happiness of humans and, non-human animals without causing any pain to either party.