Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compassion as a Practical and Evolved Ethic for Conservation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Animal Ethics in the Age of Humans

  • 1520 Accesses

Abstract

The ethical position underpinning decision making is an important concern for conservation biologists when setting priorities for interventions. The recent debate on how best to protect nature has centered on contrasting intrinsic and aesthetic values against utilitarian and economic values, driven by an inevitable global rise in conservation conflicts. These discussions have primarily been targeted at species and ecosystems for success, without explicitly expressing concern for the intrinsic value and welfare of individual animals. In part, this is because animal welfare has historically been thought of as an impediment to conservation. However, practical implementations of conservation that provide good welfare outcomes for individuals are no longer conceptually challenging; they have become reality. This reality, included under the auspices of “compassionate conservation ,” reflects an evolved ethic for sharing space with nature and is a major step forward for conservation.

This is a reprint from Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy (1995), When Elephants Weep. The Emotional Lives of Animals (pp. 24–44). New York: Dell Publishing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ambarli, H., and C.C. Bilgin. 2008. Human–brown bear conflicts in Artvin, north-eastern Turkey: Encounters, damage, and attitudes. Ursus 19: 146–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artelle, K.A., J.D. Reynolds, P.C. Paquet, and C.T. Darimont. 2014. When science-based management isn’t. Science 343: 1311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. 2007. Impeding ecological sustainability through selective moral disengagement. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 2: 8–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. 2000. Field studies and animal models: The possibility of misleading inferences. In Progress in the reduction, refinement, and replacement of animal experimentation, ed. M. Balls, A.M. van Zeller, and M.E. Halder, 1553–1559. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. 2002. The importance of ethics in conservation biology: Let’s be ethicists not ostriches. Endangered Species Update 19: 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. 2003. Minding animals, minding Earth: Old brains, new bottlenecks. Zygon 38: 911–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M., D. Ben-Ami, K. Boom, L. Boronyak, C. Townend, D. Ramp, and D.B. Croft. 2007. The emotional lives of animals. Novato, CA: New World Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. 2010. Conservation lacks compassion. New Scientist 207: 24–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. (ed.). 2013. Ignoring nature no more: The case for compassionate conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. 2014. Rewilding our hearts: Building pathways of compassion and coexistence. Novato, CA: New World Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M., and D. Jamieson. 1990. Cognitive ethology and applied philosophy the significance of an evolutionary biology of mind. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 5: 156–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M., and D. Jamieson. 1996. Ethics and the study of carnivores: Doing science while respect-ing animals. In Carnivore behaviour, ecology, and evolution, vol. 2, ed. J.L. Gittleman, 15–45. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M., and J. Pierce. 2009. Wild justice: The moral lives of animals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Ami, D., et al. 2014. The welfare ethics of the commercial killing of free-ranging kangaroos: An evaluation of the benefits and costs of the industry. Animal Welfare 23: 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennitt, H.R., J.S. Dixon, V.H. Cahalane, W.W. Chase, and W.L. McAtee. 1937. Statement of policy. Journal of Wildlife Management 1: 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, B.J., L.C. Arias, A.D. Davidson, A.W. Ferguson, L.A. Randa, and S.R. Sheffield. 2014. License to kill: Reforming federal wildlife control to restore biodiversity and ecosystem function. Conservation Letters 7: 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, W.F., and T.G. Acott. 2007. An inquiry concerning the acceptance of intrinsic value theories of nature. Environmental Values 16: 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callicott, J.B. 1990. Whither conservation ethics? Conservation Biology 4: 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davradou, M., and G. Namkoong. 2001. Science, ethical arguments, and management in the preservation of land for grizzly bear conservation. Conservation Biology 15: 570–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doak, D.F., V.J. Bakker, B.E. Goldstein, and B. Hale. 2013. What is the future of conservation? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29: 77–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, S., and D. Fraser. 2013. Rating harms to wildlife: A survey showing convergence between conservation and animal welfare views. Animal Welfare 22: 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop, B.N. 2006. Conservation ethics. Society 43: 13–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, P.R. 2002. Human natures, nature conservation, and environmental ethics. BioScience 52: 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, P.R. 2009. Ecoethics: Now central to all ethics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6: 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, C.H., and M. Bekoff. 2011. Integrating values and ethics into wildlife policy and management: Lessons from North America. Animals 1: 126–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (1993). ‘Assessing animal well-being: Common sense, uncommon science,’ in Food Animal Well-Being Conference Proceedings and Deliberations, 13–15 April, Indianapolis (pp. 37–54). Purdue University Office of Agricultural Research Programs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. 2010. Toward a synthesis of conservation and animal welfare science. Animal Welfare 19: 121–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. 2012. A “practical” ethic for animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25: 721–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D., and A.M. MacRae. 2011. Four types of activities that affect animals: Implications for animal welfare science and animal ethics philosophy. Animal Welfare 20: 581–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston, K.J., and R.A. Fuller. 2007. Biodiversity and extinction: Losing the com-mon and the widespread. Progress in Physical Geography 31: 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelcich, S., M.J. Kaiser, J.C. Castilla, and G. Edwards-Jones. 2008. Engagement in co-management of marine benthic resources influences environmental perceptions of artisanal fishers. Environmental Conservation 35: 36–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, J.L., D. Keltner, and E. Simon-Thomas. 2010. Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin 136: 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrop, S.R. 1999. Conservation regulation: A backward step for biodiversity? Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 679–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinchliffe, S., M.B. Kearnes, M. Degen, and S. Whatmore. 2005. Urban wild things: A cosmopolitical experiment. Environment and Planning D 23: 643–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jepson, P., and S. Canney. 2003. Values-led conservation. Global Ecology and Biogeography 12: 271–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewell, Z. 2013. Effect of monitoring technique on the quality of conservation science. Conservation Biology 27: 501–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva, P., and M. Marvier. 2012. What is conservation science? BioScience 62: 962–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, B. 2007. An alien approach to invasive species: Objectivity and society in invasion biology. Biological Invasions 9: 947–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lejano, R.P., and F. Fernandez de Castro. 2013. Norm, network, and commons: The invisible hand of community. Environmental Science & Policy 36: 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. 1949. A sand county almanac: And sketches here and there. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littin, K.E. 2010. Animal welfare and pest control: Meeting both conservation and animal welfare goals. Animal Welfare 19: 171–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorimer, J. 2007. Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D 25: 911–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., K. French, and R. Major. 2012. Behavioural adaptation of a bird from transient wetland specialist to an urban resident. PLoS ONE 7 (art. e50006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Minteer, B.A., and J.P. Collins. 2005. Why we need an “ecological ethics”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 332–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naess, A. 1973. The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement: A summary. Inquiry 16: 95–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, K., and P.D.I., Johnson, (Eds.). 2013. Trash animals: How we live with nature’s filthy, feral, invasive, and unwanted species. University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, S. 2011. Animals, equality and democracy. Macmillan: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paquet, P.C., and C.T. Darimont. 2010. Wildlife conservation and animal welfare: Two sides of the same coin? Animal Welfare 19: 177–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, B. 2010. Dingo. Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramp, D. 2013. Bringing compassion to the ethical dilemma in killing kangaroos for conservation. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10: 267–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redpath, S.M., et al. 2013. Understanding and managing conservation con-flicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 100–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Routley, R. 1973. ‘Is there a need for a new, an environmental, ethic?’ 15th World Congress of Philosophy, 205–210. Sofia, Bulgaria: Sofia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé, M.E. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35: 727–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tisdell, C., and H.S. Nantha. 2007. Comparison of funding and demand for the conservation of the charismatic koala with those for the critically endangered wombat Lasiorhinus krefftii. Biodiversity and Conservation 16: 1261–1281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treves, A., and K.U. Karanth. 2003. Human–carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology 17: 1494–1499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vucetich, J.A., and M.P. Nelson. 2013. The infirm ethical foundations of conservation. In Ignoring nature no more: The case for compassionate conservation, ed. M. Bekoff, 9–25. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vucetich, J.A., and M.P. Nelson. 2007. What are 60 warblers worth? Killing in the name of conservation. Oikos 116: 1267–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, T.J., and D. Raffaelli. 2008. Conversations in conservation: Revealing and dealing with language differences in environmental conflicts. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1198–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo, J.H., and H. Neo. 2010. Monkey business: Human–animal conflicts in urban Singapore. Social and Cultural Geography 11: 681–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to the Born Free Foundation, particularly Will Travers and Chris Draper, for supporting and promoting the conceptualization of compassionate conservation . Liv Baker, Dror Ben-Ami, Louise Boronyak, and Kate Litten provided helpful discussion. The manuscript was greatly improved by comments from Paul Paquet and anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Daniel Ramp

  2. University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

    Marc Bekoff

Authors
  1. Daniel Ramp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc Bekoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Ramp .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wageningen, Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands

    Bernice Bovenkerk

  2. Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Jozef Keulartz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ramp, D., Bekoff, M. (2016). Compassion as a Practical and Evolved Ethic for Conservation. In: Bovenkerk, B., Keulartz, J. (eds) Animal Ethics in the Age of Humans. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44206-8_23

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation