| Abstrakt: |
The elementary consideration of the notion of balance of nature is a state of affair where interactions between different organisms and their environment produce a steady and balanced ecosystem. Nevertheless, this ideal situation no longer exists in nature due to constant interventions of human beings, which may not be ideal for the whole biotic community. Concerns on this subject offered a host of alternative perspectives in order to address the problem. One such alternative claiming need to kill animals to restore balance of nature is disheartening. This claim supplies the basis for most unethical arguments in the field of animal rights. The paper aims (a) to demonstrate, by analyzing various views, the existence of the balance in nature is uncertain; (b) to prove that the claim, there is a need to kill animals to restore balance, supplies basis for most unethical arguments in the field of animal rights; and (c) to explore moral arguments, which are considered to be philosophical foundation of animal rights, that are inevitable in the discourse of animal rights. The notion of balance of nature is a human imagination. The arguments denigrating moral status of animals in order to retain the balance in nature are premised solely on an anthropocentric framework and hence ethical elements are missing in those arguments. Animals have their own existence in nature and they can pursue their own good for their own wellbeing. Hence they do possess certain rights, at least right to life, whether human beings adore it or not. |
Full text from SpringerLink