Moral Disagreement about Wildlife

This chapter explores ethical decision making about wildlife in a context of disagreement. Moral disagreement can be about moral judgments in specific cases, or it can be about more general moral issues, for instance whether lethal wildlife control is permissible as such. First, we consider how individuals might make their own judgments, drawing on the idea of reflective equilibrium. We then consider how to make collective decisions that are sensitive to ethical concerns. We look at what to do when there is no consensus, where a robust compromise isn't desirable or feasible, but where differences have to acknowledged and lived with. We look at various deliberative methods, such as citizens' juries, and examine different procedural approaches, such as majority rule, fair treatment of special interest groups, and achieving justice, noting that, ideally, resolving conflicts would involve procedural justice delivering substantive justice.