Ñý¼§Ö±²¥

Theoretical Applications

• Philosophy of Animals

  Animal Wonders often intervenes in cases of wildlife suffering. Some of their ambassadors were once wild animals, who were taken into captivity after they lost the ability to survive on their own. There is a moral and ethical question of humanity’s responsibility to alleviate wild animal suffering. Some believe that we should not affect the lives of wild animals, arguing that we must respect their autonomy. There are many ways one may discredit this argument, however, I will offer a historic perspective on the suffering we have caused and argue that we have a duty to rectify such harm. 

  For many of the residents at Animal Wonders, they require care because of human harm. Beyond mistreatment and general negligence, animals, especially wild animals,  have been routinely harmed by humans. Through mismanagement, North America has created a difficult environment for wild animals to thrive in. Habitat degradation, human-animal conflicts, and excessive hunting have greatly harmed wildlife populations across North America. Wildlife mismanagement had “profound ecological effects in certain contexts, including disease outbreaks, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem state changes” (Lennox, 2018). Animal Wonders intervenes in many cases of human-animal conflicts, such as car collisions, that arise from the mismanagement of North American ecosystems and a general carelessness surrounding human development into wildlife habitat.   

  Human interference in North American wildlife populations caused a great deal of suffering, we have a duty to rectify such suffering. The concern for wild animal suffering is twofold. Firstly, wild animals are morally relevant beings. Many philosophers have argued this point, such as Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and Jemermy Bentham, to name a few. Secondly, human action, especially in North America, directly impacts animal suffering. In North America, the health and wellbeing of wildlife populations is directly impacted by human decision and action. If it is the case that wild animals are morally relevant beings and human decision has caused suffering to these beings, then we have an ethical duty to rectify such harm. While one could apply this principle in many different ways, I would like to consider our duties in reference to wild animal rescue and care. 

  Once one acknowledges that we must work to alleviate wildlife suffering, they may question what principles should guide our action. I believe the answer can be found in Tristian Katz’s paper Widely Agreeable Moral Principles Support Efforts to Reduce Wild Animal Suffering. In his paper, he argues that four widely agreed upon moral principles should guide our approach to wildlife suffering and intervention. In this section, I will outline Katz’s theory and its application to conservation. 

  To begin, Katz argues that top-down theories, such as Utilitarianism or Kantian ethics, fail to provide a feasible guide for alleviating suffering for wildlife. Such theories rely on individuals agreeing with particular and often narrow ethical frameworks; however, large-scale agreement on ethical systems tends to be rare. If we orient around a particular narrow theory, we will inevitably spend a significant amount of time arguing for and against such a theory. Rather than focusing on the necessary causes, we are likely to spend time squabbling over whose theory is a better framework. 

  To avoid the problem of unruly ethical debates, Katz argues that we should ground our efforts on widely agreed upon moral principles. This principlist account is able to avoid endless debate by providing a common start point between interested parties. If individuals can collectively agree to broad moral principles, discussions concerning wildlife suffering can focus on how to properly apply such principles. While opinions concerning the application of principles may vary, having an agreed upon starting point guides intervention in a way that top-down theories can not. Rather than focusing on a narrow ethical system to justify intervention, we should be oriented by widely agreed upon moral principles that are able to focus on the aims of alleviation. 

  Katz established four widely agreed upon moral principles: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. These principles are taken to be noncontroversial for those committed to the wellbeing of wildlife. Katz argues that those concerned with wildlife protections should all readily agree to the importance of these principles when considering wildlife. With these principles in mind, conservationists can orient their conversations around how to best promote wildlife wellbeing. For the sake of clarity, I will recount how Katz defines these principles and their application. 

  Firstly, Katz defines beneficence as an “act for the benefit of others (contribute to their health, welfare or flourishing)”. He argues, with the support of various authors, that we generally owe a degree of beneficence to all humans. This is largely taken as a widely agreed upon ethical principle. He then extends this condition to non-human animals by identifying their moral status. He argues that if we acknowledge the suffering of wild animals, we must pick up the cause of beneficence and relieve their suffering. This principle guides conservation by clearly identifying the importance of relieving wildlife suffering. 

  Secondly, Katz defines non-maleficence as “avoid causing harm to others”. Katz claims that non-maleficence varies from benefice because while “(beneficence) focuses on promoting welfare in general, non-maleficence focuses on the harms that we cause”. In the case of non-maleficence, individuals are charged with a degree of responsibility to others. In this way, beneficence and non-maleficence cover every aspect of one’s responsibility to alleviate suffering. Due to the moral principle of  non-maleficence, we must consider how our actions harm wildlife. This principle grounds our conservation efforts by centering the potential harms intervention may bring. 

  Thirdly, Katz defines respect for autonomy as “respect and support the autonomous choices of others”. Katz argues that autonomy is an important moral principle because it entails “recognizing others as having their own ends, requiring us both to avoid treating them as mere means and to support them in achieving their ends”. If we value the autonomy of wildlife, we must also value their lives and agency; moreover, we must avoid the objectification of wild animals that previous models of conservation have employed.

   One may question whether we can respectfully intervene in the lives of animals while respecting their autonomy. Katz responds by identifying the importance of wellbeing for autonomy. He identifies an example to illustrate his point. There may be a circumstance where a child is sick and desperately needs a shot, however, the child is terrified of needles and rejects the treatment. A doctor can interject for the wellbeing and health of the child and administer the shot anyways. While this temporarily disrespects the child’s autonomy, it provides her the medicine needed to continue living her life and achieve her ends. In this way, we can intervene in wild animal suffering, even in ways that may momentarily disrupt autonomy, if it enables further wellbeing and expression of autonomy. In cases where animal populations or individuals are severely suffering, the best way to respect their autonomy is to intervene so that further autonomy and flourishing can be achieved. 

  Finally, Katz defines justice as “ensuring that individuals are treated fairly”. He argues that all sentient beings are entitled to certain rights, namely the right to life and the right to not suffer. If we accept this principle, Katz argues that we have a positive duty to uphold these rights. In the case of wild animal suffering, if we apply the moral principle of justice, we have a duty to administer aid and relieve suffering. This guides conservation by reminding us of wildlife’s rights to live and not suffer; furthermore, through this lens of justice, we must also work to rectify previous suffering we have caused. 

  To summarize, Katz argues that four widely agreed upon moral principles must guide our conservation efforts. These principles are beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. I believe each of these principles can be applied to the work Animal Wonders is doing. Through rescue and care, Animal Wonders demonstrates beneficence and non-maleficence. Animal Wonders also facilitates autonomy for their residents by providing the life-saving care necessary for such animals to thrive. Finally, Animal Wonders promotes justice for wildlife by seeking to rectify harms caused by human-wildlife conflicts and providing animals harmed by such conflicts the chance to live with minimal suffering. Without such intervention, many of the residents at Animal Wonders would be euthanized. As such, Animal Wonders truly alleviates suffering and provides not only the right to life, but the ability to thrive. 

  There may be a question of how one can properly respect the principle of autonomy while keeping once wild animals in captivity. As mentioned in Katz’s argument, there are cases in which intervention is the only avenue to preserve potential autonomy and well-being. All of the ambassadors at Animal Wonders are unable to be released into the wild; furthermore, most residents would not have survived without intervention and would not survive their release into the wild. In the case of wild animals, autonomy would mean generally respecting an animal's independence. Since ambassadors at Animal Wonders are wholly reliant on staff to survive, this goal post has to shift. Rather than focusing on independence, caretakers at Animal Wonders have to primarily ensure an ambassador’s survival. Once life has been preserved, caretakers can then focus on how to maximize autonomy within a captive existence. While it may seem counterintuitive to maintain autonomy through captivity, such intervention is the only way for the residents at Animal Wonders to continue surviving. Within this context, the preservation of autonomy through continued flourishing holds greater value than complete autonomy (for a very short time) before death. 

  This project significantly engages with the cause of alleviating wildlife suffering. The goal of “Rock for Raccoons” was to build an enclosure for four raccoons: Rocky, Rolo, Ringo, and Roana. Each of these raccoons came to Animal Wonders due to human harm and intervention in their lives. These raccoons had nowhere else to go and would have been euthanized if it wasn’t for Animal Wonders’s intervention. Raising funds for Rocky, Rolo, Ringo, and Roana was a direct action I took to help alleviate their suffering and ensure they could thrive. 

  “Mission Match-Up” also embodied the cause of alleviating wildlife suffering. “Mission Match-Up” brought a group of 35 volunteers to Animal Wonders. Each volunteer demonstrates the application of Katz’s philosophy in the world. These volunteers learned of the suffering Animal Wonders’s residents experienced and decided to affect such suffering. They recognized the moral importance of caring for animals; furthermore, they actively chose to take action to ensure residents could live the best lives they could.

• Topics in Value Theory

  Close attention can be understood through many lenses. There are numerous traditions, faiths, and philosophies that utilize attention and an awareness of it. Reflection, observation,mediation, prayer, and awareness can all be examples of close attention in various traditions. There are also many ways one may experience close attention. Attention can be experienced at varying levels and understood in multiple relationships to reality. Regardless of different interpretations, the umbrella term “close attention” can be used to describe this phenomenon. 

  While there are many different conceptions of close attention, I will primarily consider two main kinds: the tame view and the radical view. The tame view and the radical view are interpretations of close attention provided by Silvia Panizza. Her conversation of attention is grounded in Iris Murdoch’s theory that virtue is grounded in one’s ability to pay close attention to something. This conversation of attention is had through the lens of virtue, which is unimportant for my use of attention. It is important to note that while the tame view and the radical view of attention fail to accurately address what Murdoch meant with her conception of virtuous attention, they can still be useful terms in understanding one’s ability to connect with reality. 

  The tame view argues that close attention happens through the regulation of self-interest. It is the “removal of selfishness” (Panizza, 2022, pg 71). If one adheres to the tame view of attention, they attempt to limit self-interest and attend to their present reality. One practicing the tame view works to acknowledge the possible distortions selfishness can impose on their perception of reality and works to mediate such distortions. Self awareness remains present for someone practicing the tame view, it is only selfishness that is removed. 

  The radical view argues that close attention happens through a release of the self. According to the radical view, one achieves close attention when they are fully attending to reality and lack an awareness of the self. The self is not repressed or controlled in the radical view, it is nonexistent. “The experience of attention is not one of the self participating in it, nor a personal vision” (Panizza, 2022, pg 88). When one is fully enraptured by reality, so enraptured that the self falls away, they achieve close attention. This view varies from the tame view in the acknowledgement of the self. Someone practicing the radical view of attention is fully unaware of themselves in any regard; moreover, they are wholly concerned with the reality in front of them. 

  There are multiple ways one can access close attention. As close attention is not a strict phenomena, there are almost infinite ways in which someone could achieve close attention. For this reason, I will specifically focus on the intentionality of someone experiencing close attention. I will consider three ways someone can access attention: intentionally, accidentally, and openly. 

  Firstly, one can accidentally access close attention. In an accidental state of close attention, one happens to find themselves in such a state. Close attention in this case is inspired by the nature of an activity. Close attention comes about organically and often unexpectedly. One may not even be aware that they are in such a state until it passes. 

  Secondly, one can intentionally access close attention. In an intentional state of close attention, one purposely achieves such a state. Close attention in this case is accessed through willpower and concentration. In this case, one intentionally accessed close attention and the goal of their activity was to do so; moreover, close attention is one’s intentional activity. 

  Finally, one can intentionally set time aside for full attention and let their reality inform their attention. The condition for this state is that one intentionally creates the space for close attention but allows the nature of reality to inform their experience. No conscious effort beyond initial intentionality is necessary to achieve close attention in this instance. In other words, one remains open to the possibility of close attention, though they do not attempt to force it to arise.This example of intentionality is dichotomous in the sense that close attention is the one’s aim, yet they do not necessarily force such attention to arise. 

  Animal Wonders utilizes close attention in a unique way. Many residents at Animal Wonders are typically difficult to observe in the wild. When individuals come across such animals, they are often unable to truly observe them. When someone finds a raccoon in their backyard, or runs across a fox on a hike, the experience is often so short lived that they never have the opportunity to reach a state of close attention. Through educational presentations, Animal Wonders inspires close attention to incredible animals that may not receive such attention otherwise. 

  Animal Wonder’s presentation offers a perfect context for the public to intentionally practice the tame-view of close attention. Through education, Animal Wonders encourages viewers to challenge distortions concerning their perception of ambassadors. Some animals, such as raccoons, are typically viewed as nuisances. Through presentations, caretakers at Animal Wonders are able to challenge such perceptions. Learning about the individual personalities of various ambassadors, receiving educational information such as ambassador’s role within an ecosystem, and having the opportunity to truly observe ambassadors that are typically elusive are ways in which Animal Wonder’s presentations can inspire close attention. When each of these experiences are combined, audiences have the opportunity to fully engage themselves with the present reality of the ambassador, allowing their distortions and biases to fade away. 

  Outside of presentations, close attention is necessary for the operations of Animal Wonders. Each handler must utilize this form of attention when interacting with their residents; moreover, caretakers’ experience of close attention at Animal Wonders can be a form of radical attention. Through interaction, instances of radical attention can arise intentionally, accidentally, or openly. When caring for animals, especially previously wild animals, it is of utmost importance that handlers are able to recognize various behavioral cues. While academic knowledge can inform handles’ understanding of behaviors, they must learn the intricacies of each animal. Each resident is an individual with particular emotions, opinions, and behaviors. To accurately learn the intricacies of each resident, caretakers must radically attend to their animals. If self-interest or self-perception distorts interactions, handlers are likely to miss important details required for proper care. Caretakers must be fully immersed in the reality of their ambassadors to accurately learn behavioral cues, preferences, and standards of wellbeing for residents. Handlers are only able to successfully interact with and present ambassadors if they have experienced countless hours of close attention. 

  I have utilized close attention throughout my project. When creating the personal flyers for each raccoon to be distributed in adoption packets, I had to use information gained from close attention. Through the handlers’ knowledge about the raccoon, I created personal descriptions of each raccoon. I specifically focused on what set each raccoon apart as an individual. Without the use of close attention during handler interactions, I would not have been able to create the adoption packets. 

  During my events, I encouraged the use of close attention to inspire engagement with Animal Wonders. During “Rock for Raccoons”, we held a presentation with Roana. This presentation gave individuals the chance to fully immerse themselves in who Roana is. Our presentation started with a brief lecture concerning the best ways to engage with the current ambassador, ensuring the possibility of close attention was well established. During “Mission Match-Up”, I attempted to have personal, meaningful conversations with potential volunteers. During these conversations, I encouraged individuals to fully engage with the mission of Animal Wonders. This created an opportunity for volunteers to momentarily set aside their own perspective and truly embrace our mission. 

  Through the philosophical framework of close attention, we are able to reveal common distortions concerning the value of animals. Experiences of direct interaction with animals can inspire wonder, care, and consideration for animals. Certain residents, such as raccoons and rats, are often seen as pests and are consequently under-valued. With the use of close attention, individuals are able to challenge such perceptions and embrace the truth of such animals’ value. This may inform their future interactions with animals and encourage them to recognize the true value of the individual animal in front of them.

• Environmental Philosophy

  In American culture, there is a particular perception of wilderness. This perception categorizes nature as places and things unmarked by human development and wilderness as a pristine collection of such places and things. From this perspective, it easily follows that wilderness, both as a place and a concept, predates humanity. When one holds this view, they may think of nature as a totally wild and free landscape, completely untouched by humanity. This view of wilderness typically has a unique reverence for natural spaces and consequently demands it’s complete protection. Proponents of this view often argue that wilderness is a refuge from the corruption of society, and that we must preserve it to ensure future prosperity and humility. 

  Dr. William Cronon argues that this view of wilderness is not only untrue, but also harmful. Cronon argues that wilderness enthusiasts fail to recognize that nature is a human construct, not a truth of reality. While Cronon recognizes that the non-human world is certainly separate from human society, he claims that our current conception of wilderness is something created by history and culture. As America began forming a cultural identity, two ways of interacting with the non-human world formed. Some believed nature was sublime, a sacred place to be revered and protected. Others believed nature was a space to be conquered, a frontier of opportunity.  “The (sublime and the frontier) converged to remake wilderness in their own image, freighting it with moral values and cultural symbols that it carries to this day.” (Cronon, 1996). So, according to Cronon, the idea of wilderness is not as natural as it may seem. 

  Cronon argues that a human-nature distinction is a central problem in the general view of wilderness. Cronon identifies that humans have interacted with our environments for the entirety of human history. “Everything we know about environmental history suggests that people have been manipulating the natural world on various scales for as long as we have a record of their passing.” (Cronon, 1996). Humans have been affecting “wilderness” for our entire history. Even supremely “wild” places, like Yosemite and Yellowstone, have records of human activity and involvement. Even in our modern age, evidence of human life shows up everywhere. Evidence of this is that micro-plastics have been found ubiquitously across our globe (Parker, 2020). So, the idea that wilderness is pristinely untouched by humanity, is simply not true. 

  The general conception of wilderness is not only untrue, it’s harmful. If we only seek to protect and care for the “untouched” non-human world, then we will quickly run out of places to care for. “If we allow ourselves to believe that nature, to be true, must also be wild, then our very presence in nature represents its fall” (Cronon, 1996). Since evidence of human life is found across the globe, especially in the modern age, under the general view of wilderness, we have nothing left to protect. Maybe someone could argue that small signs of human life, such as micro-plastics and Indigenous artifacts, don’t truly change the essence of wilderness. Maybe they would say there’s an obvious difference between a national park and New York City. While that is true, this individual would be forgetting what they truly care for: the non-human world.

  This brings us to the central harm of the general view of wilderness. If we make harsh distinctions between what is “wild” and worth protection and what is “human” and already broken, we may not protect and care for the environments we currently live in. “ Idealizing a distant wilderness too often means not idealizing the environment in which we actually live, the landscape that for better or worse we call home.” (Cronon, 1996). The environments we live in, and the animals and plants that live in such environments, are still worth caring about. We currently live in a time where wilderness is shrinking and pollution is growing. According to Cronon, the only way to combat this is by caring for all of our environments. We should be protecting the non-human world every way we can. This means that we must continue the cause of “wilderness” conservation, yet, it also means we must care for our city. In order to truly protect the non-human things and places we love, we must acknowledge our responsibility to care for all environments and ecosystems. We must care for both Yellowstone and our own backyard. We must acknowledge both as our home. 

  Cronon’s theory is substantially related to my project. Many of the animals rescued by Animal Wonders have been harmed through human interaction. Some residents, such as raccoons and foxes, are typically treated as a nuisance in human society. Individuals may devalue such animals and be inclined to euthanize them. Cronon addresses this attitude by reminding us that our local environments and the beings we share such environments with have value. If one is inclined to protect and care for charismatic species, such as bears or bison, yet they are not inclined to protect and care for “nuisance” species, they are using a flawed value system. The first step to truly live in harmony with the natural world is to recognize the value of all of nature, not only the aspects that are aesthetically pleasing or “wild” enough. By rescuing devalued animals, animals that are devalued specifically for their proximity and interactions with humans, Animal Wonders embodies Cronon’s value for nature. 

  Animal Wonders also embodies Cronon’s philosophy by demonstrating the value of their ambassadors. One may feel a certain level of tragedy towards the ambassadors at Animal Wonders; moreover, one may feel as though ambassadors no longer have valuable lives. This can be especially true for ambassadors that were once wild. While it is true that it is unfortunate that ambassadors can not live independently, it does not negate their value. By demonstrating the value of their ambassadors, Animal Wonders reminds the public that even when removed from the wild, animals have value. 

  If one believes in the traditional view of Wilderness, there may be a tendency to devalue animals that have been rescued from the wild, or “dewilded” animals. Individuals may view such animals as losing their “natural” purpose, value, and interest. While there is undeniably a loss of natural function, this does not negate the value of a being’s existence. For those deeply vested in the nature-human dualism, one could easily associate an animal’s value through their proximity to nature, this could be especially true for wild animals. As Cronon demonstrates, the nonhuman world has value regardless of human intervention. Value for nonhumans arises not from their function, but from their existence. Animal Wonders excellently recognizes this value by promoting wellbeing for dewilded animals. By facilitating dewilded animal’s lives, Animal Wonders is able to demonstrate that such animals live valuable, complex, beautiful lives. 

  Cronon’s theory deeply impacted my project. By working with Animal Wonders and their ambassadors, I was able to explore the continued value of animals even throughout human intervention. While I was creating educational graphics about Rocky, Rolo, Roana, and Ringo, I was consistently orienting towards their value. When promoting Animal Wonders, I was sure to emphasize the value of the animals we are surrounded by. I promoted that both domestic and wild animals deserve consideration. Through advocating for Animal Wonders, I was able to deeply engage with this truth and take responsibility towards the Missoula animal community.