The Ethics of Human⁻Animal Relationships and Public Discourse: A Case Study of Lions Bred for Their Bones.

Publisher: Molecular Diversity Preservation International Country of Publication: Switzerland NLM ID: 101635614 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 2076-2615 (Print) Linking ISSN: 20762615 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Animals (Basel) Subsets: PubMed not MEDLINE

Original Publication: Basel, Switzerland : Molecular Diversity Preservation International, 2011-

Conservation and natural resource management are increasingly attending the ethical elements of public decisions. Ethical considerations are challenging, in part, because they typically require accounting for the moral consideration of various human and nonhuman forms of life, whose interests sometimes conflict (or seem to conflict). A valuable tool for such evaluations is the formal analysis of ethical arguments. An ethical argument is a collection of premises, logically interrelated, to yield a conclusion that can be expressed in the form, " We ought to… " According to the rules of logic, a conclusion is supported by an argument if all its premises are true or appropriate and when it contains no mistaken inferences. We showed how the formal analysis of ethical arguments can be used to engage stakeholders and decision-makers in decision-making processes. We summarised the method with ten specific guidelines that would be applicable to any case. We illustrated the technique using a case study focused on captive-bred lions, the skeletons of which form part of an international trade to supply traditional medicine markets in Southeast Asia with felid bones. As a matter of public policy, the practice is a complicated nexus of concerns for entrepreneurial freedom, wildlife conservation, and the fair treatment of animals.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Science. 2000 May 12;288(5468):979-81. (PMID: 10841718)
Psychol Rev. 2001 Oct;108(4):814-34. (PMID: 11699120)
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003 Oct;4(10):846-9. (PMID: 14523384)
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2007 Mar;38(1):85-109. (PMID: 17324810)
Conserv Biol. 2009 Oct;23(5):1090-101. (PMID: 19459889)
Conserv Biol. 2010 Apr;24(2):424-31. (PMID: 19878237)
Conserv Biol. 2010 Aug;24(4):957-65. (PMID: 20345401)
Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2010 Sep;6(3):221-2. (PMID: 20512431)
Trends Ecol Evol. 2013 Feb;28(2):100-9. (PMID: 23040462)
Conserv Biol. 2014 Feb;28(1):244-57. (PMID: 24471784)
Conserv Biol. 2015 Feb;29(1):54-60. (PMID: 25103555)
Conserv Biol. 2015 Apr;29(2):321-32. (PMID: 25704250)
Sci Total Environ. 2015 Dec 1;536:419-431. (PMID: 26231772)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 1;112(48):14894-9. (PMID: 26504235)
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 24;12(10):e0185996. (PMID: 29065143)
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 26;12(10):e0187060. (PMID: 29073202)

Keywords: Panthera leo; captive lion breeding; captive lion hunting; conservation ethics; cultural value; intrinsic value; traditional medicine; wildlife trade

Date Created: 20190213 Latest Revision: 20200930

20221213

PMC6406519

10.3390/ani9020052

30744079