Can I pose a puzzle? (well it puzzles me) This comes out of the possum
thread but does not relate to it specifically.
If we have an island whose rich ecosystem is threatened by a rapacious
introduced species It is possible, say , that there might be a consensus
among environmentalists, ecologists interested bystanders indigenous
peoples etc that a programme of culling is acceptable. (a big if perhaps)
If ours is the responsibility is to choose who does the killing does ethics
offer any guidance to our choice (all other things being equal) between
a: a group which appreciates the necessity but grieves over each death
b: a group of hunters which doesn't particularly enjoy death but enjoys
the hunting and shooting
c: a group which enjoys death.
Should the motivation matter?
A secondary question also arises:
If the above list is in increasing order of skill (that is 'c' causes the
least suffering to the culled creatures) should that influence our ethical
choice?
Kind regards Paul K
|