In the field of animal ethics\, domesticated animals receive nearly all the attention. \; But the ethical questions about our treatment of non-domesticated animals are probably knottier. \; We&rsquo\;re responsible for the existence of domesticated animals and consequently it isn&rsquo\;t too difficult to establish that we bear some degree of moral responsibility for the quality of their lives. \; But what do we owe to animals whose procreation is out of our hands? \; The majority view is that life in nature is\, in Hobbes&rsquo\;s memorable phrase\, &ldquo\;solitary\, poor\, nasty\, brutish\, and short&rdquo\;\, but there is not yet an emerging consensus as to what\, if anything\, we should do about that. \; And when overpopulation and disease threaten animal populations\, can hunting be an ethical answer? \; What about the reintroduction of predator species? \; The questions become perhaps even more complex when we focus our attention toward those animals who are (to borrow Donaldson and Kymlicka&rsquo\;s expression) liminal&mdash\;i.e.\, those who live at the fringes of human civilization but aren&rsquo\;t domesticated: rats\, foxes\, pigeons\, etc. \; May we demand certain behaviour from these animals and treat them as pests when they don&rsquo\;t comply? \; Do we incur new obligations to animals when we expand our settlements into their territory and thus render them involuntarily liminal?
\nInformation/Registration
\nEmail Ben Sachs at bas7@st-andrews.ac.uk
\n* This conference will take place at the University of St. Andrews if it is safe to hold it in person. \;Regardless\, we will make it possible for people to attend virtually.
ORGANIZER;CN=Ben Sachs;CN=Mara van der Lugt: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR