To stop mass extinction, reform the outdated Victorian harm principle

UngulateNerd92

Well-Known Member
10+ year member
Premium Member
What a fascinating perspective! I like the idea of integrating philosophy into conservation policy. Philosophy was actually one of my favorite classes during my last stint in college. It really encouraged my critical thinking.

"In 1859, the English philosopher John Stuart Mill published the first of his two major works, On Liberty, which helped him become, as many agree, the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the 19th century. In that essay, Mill defined what came to be known as the harm principle. Stated briefly, it says:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Today we might baulk at Mill’s use of “civilised” and “his” in this sentence, yet the general principle quickly came to dominate all legal debates about crime and the justice system. Liberal democracies the world over enshrined – and largely still use – this idea to give individuals the freedom to generally do as they please. But this ignored a deeper problem — the definition of “harm” itself."

To stop mass extinction, reform the outdated Victorian harm principle
 
"Human governance systems at all times must take account of the interests of the whole Earth community and must … maintain a dynamic balance between the rights of humans and those of other members of the Earth community on the basis of what is best for Earth as a whole … [and] recognise all members of the Earth community as subjects before the law."

Yes, I totally agree, this would be a significant improvement from "externalities".
 
It is very nice to see such compassionate attitude.

However, as it was discussed earlier on this forum, such views can practically do more harm than good. The problems include: watering down the law, shifting interest away from practical solutions, impossibility to enforce, putting significant added burden on researchers and conservationists but being ignored by big harm-makers, even perversely encouraging illicit killing or extinction of animals so their rights are no longer an obstacle.

And there are paradoxes inherent to the concept. Among others: giving animals legal status similar to humans can mean that relations between animals (e.g. predator-prey or competition) would become subject to law, and compliance of animals would be expected.

Sorry for being telegraph-short, I hope you can follow and I don't sound too cold and heartless.
 
It is very nice to see such compassionate attitude.

However, as it was discussed earlier on this forum, such views can practically do more harm than good. The problems include: watering down the law, shifting interest away from practical solutions, impossibility to enforce, putting significant added burden on researchers and conservationists but being ignored by big harm-makers, even perversely encouraging illicit killing or extinction of animals so their rights are no longer an obstacle.

And there are paradoxes inherent to the concept. Among others: giving animals legal status similar to humans can mean that relations between animals (e.g. predator-prey or competition) would become subject to law, and compliance of animals would be expected.

Sorry for being telegraph-short, I hope you can follow and I don't sound too cold and heartless.

You have some fair valid points for there. I think perhaps the author may be on to something, but conservation biologists and other relevant scientists are going to have to help write up these reforms if you will.
 
It is very nice to see such compassionate attitude.

However, as it was discussed earlier on this forum, such views can practically do more harm than good. The problems include: watering down the law, shifting interest away from practical solutions, impossibility to enforce, putting significant added burden on researchers and conservationists but being ignored by big harm-makers, even perversely encouraging illicit killing or extinction of animals so their rights are no longer an obstacle.

And there are paradoxes inherent to the concept. Among others: giving animals legal status similar to humans can mean that relations between animals (e.g. predator-prey or competition) would become subject to law, and compliance of animals would be expected.

Sorry for being telegraph-short, I hope you can follow and I don't sound too cold and heartless.

Good points, agree with most of what you've said about the hidden and potential drawbacks of this kind of principle being broadly applied.
 
Back
Top