In the recent past, the world has witnessed renewed interest in environmental conservation. For instance, a youth-led movement is pushing countries to do more to reserve the damage that the environment has suffered as a result of climate change and global warming. While some environmental challenges have been fairly easy to solve, other complex ones have been stubborn and remain prevalent. Poaching is among the latter type of challenges. Today, across the globe, different countries are lamenting that poaching is threatening their wildlife populations. For example, recently, the authorities in the Democratic Republic of Congo warned that the country’s chimpanzee population is under serious threat from poaching (BBC, 2019). The danger that poaching poses has forced countries to re-evaluate the interventions that they have in place. The problem of poaching raises the question of whether killing poachers is justified homicide or a violation of human rights.
Case Study
As part of efforts to shed light on the environmental ethics surrounding poaching, a case study was developed. This case study involves three employees at a gorilla sanctuary. The sanctuary has witnessed an alarmingly sharp increase in the number of attacks by poachers. These attacks have resulted in the deaths of at least five gorillas in the past year alone. In response, the sanctuary’s authorities are mulling the implementation of tougher measures to contain the poaching problem. Among the measures being considered is killing the poachers. As the exchange between the three employees will reveal, there are sharp disagreements over whether the sanctuary will be able to issue sufficient moral justifications when it resorts to killing the poachers. The purpose of this case study is to highlight the moral conflicts and dilemmas that environmental ethics can generate.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The case study involves three officials of the sanctuary:
David- a 34-year old guard who was injured in a recent attack that has since been blamed on poachers;
Martin, the 56-year old manager of the sanctuary. He is under immense pressure from sponsors and the government to find a solution to the poaching problem;
Elizabeth, a 38-year old employee of the sanctuary who is in charge of the liaison office. Her primary mandate is to ensure that the sanctuary complies with all relevant laws and regulations.
(David and Martin are in the latter’s office. They have been in a heated discussion for five minutes. David is still bandaged up and complains of being in serious pain.)
David: But sir, you do not seem to understand. I need a few more days. I am lucky to be alive.
Martin: David, I totally understand. What happened to you is unfortunate. My hands are tied. I need you to come back tomorrow. We cannot hire a new guard right now. Our funding is tight and the incident has scared away some of your colleagues.
David: No sir. I cannot continue to work like this. You people do not seem to care about us. I am the one who places my life on the line. I cannot do this anymore.
Martin: Ok, Look. How about we discuss this some more with the HR office? In the meantime, I need your help deciding how we can keep this park more secure.
David: What else is there to do? Kill those bastards! Every last one of them. Do you see what they did to me? Kill all of them. Shoot them in fact.
Martin: Whoa! David, calm down. What I meant is that we need practical and lawful measures to ensure that the attack do not occur again. Remember, we are an institution bound by rules and laws.
David: Why should I care? Those fools did not care about rules and laws when they shot me and killed Nicholas. I am the one who had to go console Nicholas’ wife. So, with all due respect sir, I do not think that you understand our pain. We need to be decisive. I see no other option but to kill all the poachers.
(Elizabeth is drawn to the heated argument and pops into Martin’s office).
Martin: Hello there Liz. I hope we are not being too loud. I am trying to find out what David and the other guards suggest we should do about the poaching problem. I sent an email to your office the other day asking for suggestions.
Elizabeth: Oh, Yes. Sorry for not replying to your email sooner. You know that this issue is very sensitive and there are many people that I have to consult. Personally, I feel that we should prioritize the safety of our animals and employees. We should consider all options.
David: That is what I have been telling him. Thank you, Elizabeth. We must be safe here.
Martin: Liz, I am glad you are here because I felt that you would help to clarify the situation. The main question that I have is whether we would have the backing of the law if we chose to use lethal weapons against the poachers. You see what they did to David?
Elizabeth: Well, I am not sure what the law says. I would need to speak with Susan from the legal affairs division. But what I know is that after the attack last week, we must have all options on the table. As I have said already, our employees and the animals should be our priority.
Martin: I hear you. But I still have some concerns. I personally do not feel that killing the poachers is necessary. After all, they mostly pose a threat to animals. There must be a better way to deal with this. Besides, I do not feel that our sponsors and the tourism ministry will be too kind to us when they learn that we are now murdering poachers.
David: What do you mean they only threaten animals. You see this bandage on my arm, right? Sir, I do not think that you are taking this matter seriously. I feel that the only solution that will fix this problem is authorizing us to use lethal force whenever we spot poachers.
Elizabeth: David, I am sorry and truly sympathize with you. I truly do. But I think that we should proceed with caution. You are very upset and I understand your anger. However, we cannot forget that we are bound by rules. And killing humans is a serious thing that we cannot take lightly.
David: I knew this would happen. You people are not at all concerned with our welfare. I am taking this up with my colleagues.
(David exits the office).
Elizabeth: He must be very upset and we can’t blame him. While I do not rule out killing these poachers, I insist that we must be careful.
Martin: I agree completely but remember we need a decision by the end of this week. Speak with your people and I will also try to engage David and the other guards. Also, please get back to me regarding what the law says about justified homicide and self-defense. Have Susan send to my office any documents on international treaties that we need to consider.
Elizabeth: Understood. Between you and me, do you think we could get away with killing the poachers?
Martin: I don’t think that this is entirely a question of law. Most of these poachers are very poor and know no other way of making a living. They have families that would be devastated if we were to kill them.
Elizabeth: I get all that but I am pissed that it is our guards that continue to suffer. The animals in this sanctuary have rights too and we have an obligation to protect them. I am going to speak with Susan now.
(Elizabeth exits the office).
Commentary
From the case study outlined above, it is evident that the issue of killing poachers is complex and that there are no clear or simple answers. However, some clarity can be gained from the various ethical theories that attempt to shed light on such dilemmas. One such theory is biocentrism. Essentially, this theory posits that when resolving environmental ethics dilemmas, one must consider the welfare of animals (Gudorf & Huchingson, 2010). According to the theory, all animals possess “telos”, a purpose. Basically, as is the case with humans, animals have clear purposes that they strive to accomplish. These purposes serve as the basis for protecting the animals even when this occurs at the cost of human wellbeing and life. Therefore, while it is important to prioritize human life, biocentrism makes it clear that the welfare of animals is crucial and should not necessarily be sacrificed to safeguard human interests.
In resolving the ethical dilemma of killing poachers, one needs to look beyond the purpose of animals. It is also vital to consider whether killing poachers is an effective deterrent. The utilitarian approach holds that when a course of action delivers net benefit, it can be considered moral. In evaluating the moral status of killing poachers, this approach proves useful. There is evidence that the killing of poachers is among the most effective strategies for protecting vulnerable and endangered wildlife populations. For example, Magomosi and Madigele (2017) authored an article in which they examine the impact of a shoot-to-kill strategy that the authorities in Botswana implemented. This strategy was part of a broader effort by the authorities to protect rhinos. According to Magomosi and Madigele (2017), following the introduction of the policy, Botswana witnessed a significant decline in the number of rhinos killed by poachers. Given the success that Botswana has witnessed, one is tempted to conclude that killing poachers is justified homicide since this approach has proven to be an effective tool for combating poaching. In their text, Gudorf and Huchingson (2010) contend that when an action preserves the integrity, beauty and stability of the environment, it should be judged morally right. Since poaching appears to protect and safeguard the beauty, stability and integrity of animal populations, one can indeed argue that killing poachers is justifiable.
While it may be true that killing poachers has led to a drop in poaching, one cannot ignore the human cost that this measure imposes. The right to life is among the most fundamental liberties to which all humans are entitled. According to the United Nations, the right to life of all humans is inviolable. This right is enshrined in Article 10 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 2015). It applies to poachers who kill animals as well. Therefore, whereas killing poachers benefits the natural environment, it runs afoul of internationally established human rights standards. Therefore, such nations as Botswana which have authorized park rangers to shoot poachers fail to comply with these standards. On the other hand, as already noted, these nations also have a mandate to protect the natural environment. They face an arduous dilemma that forces them to choose between respecting human rights and safeguard the lives and wellbeing of endangered animals.
In exploring international human rights standards, there is a need to consider the possibility of violations and human rights abuses. Vira (2017) penned an article that sheds light on how the authorities in India are resorting to shooting poachers in a bid to protect rhinos. In the article, Vira observes that India has recorded an encouraging decline in poaching. However, he also laments that India has failed to institute measures to hold park officials accountable. Essentially, according to Vira, the killing of poachers can only be justified when the sanctity of human life is respected, authorities exercise restraint, and proper accountability mechanisms are put in place. Since India has failed to meet these conditions, it can be concluded that its shoot-to-kill approach is inconsistent with international human rights standards and therefore morally unjustifiable.
A consideration for the socioeconomic status of poachers is necessary in order to clearly and fully understand the complexities of killing poachers. As the case study demonstrated, most poachers are forced into killing animals by poverty. Research has also established that poverty is among the ills that underlie poaching. For example, Hauenstein et al. (2019) conducted a study to establish the socioeconomic dynamics of poaching. Focusing on the situation in Africa, these researchers observed that there is a direct and significant correlation between poverty levels and poaching. Given that many poachers are from poor communities, it seems morally questionable to kill them. In essence, these poachers are victims of dysfunctional economic systems that have condemned them to a miserable existence. Poaching therefore offers them an avenue to sustain themselves and provide for their families. One should also consider the fact that killing poachers causes their families and communities to suffer untold suffering, pain and anguish. According to Hauenstein et al. (2019), the poaching problem in African can be blamed on corruption. It therefore follows that killing poachers is not a long-term solution to the problem. There is a need for countries to address such issues as economic inequality and poverty if they are to make progress in securing wildlife.
Another important ethical consideration that one needs to make is whether there are other solutions besides killing poachers that nations can implement. Mukwazvure and Magadza (2014) determined that there are numerous interventions that have proven effective in containing poaching. For example, according to these researchers, dehorning such animals as rhinos with the goal of making them less valuable and attractive to poachers is among the solutions that countries can adopt. Furthermore, Mukwazvure and Magadza (2014) noted that the use of drones to track wildlife and anti-poaching heat sensing planes are other strategies that hold tremendous potential. Other strategies that they propose include DNA mapping and the use of wireless technologies to track animals. The fact that there are alternative solutions raises questions about the necessity of killing poachers.
In conclusion, the globe continues to grapple with the problem of poaching. This challenge is serious and poses a threat to many endangered species. Killing poachers is among the solutions that countries have implemented. While it has proven effective, this strategy remains controversial. In addition to violating established human rights standards, killing poachers also exacerbates economic inequalities and compounds the hardships faced by some of the world’s poorest and most disadvantaged communities. The main take-away from the discussion on the ethics of killing poachers is that nations should first adopt such other interventions as the use of drones and only resort to killing poachers when these solutions prove ineffective. Even as they kill poachers, the countries should strive to minimize deaths and institute structures to ensure accountability.
References
BBC. (2019). Gorillas pose for selfie with DR Congo anti-poaching unit. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-48011113
Gudorf, C. E.. & Huchingson, J. E. (2010). Boundaries. A casebook in environmental ethics. Second Edition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press
Hauenstein, S., Kshatriya, M., Blanc, J., Dormann, C. F., & Beale, C. M. (2019). African elephant poaching rates correlate with local poverty, national corruption and global ivory price. Nature Communications . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09993-2
Magomosi, G. E. J., & Madigele, P. K. (2017). Live by the gun, die by the gun. SA Crime Quarterly, 60, 51-9.
Mukwazvure, A., & Magadza, T. B. H. T. (2014). A survey of anti-poaching strategies. International Journal of Science and Research, 3 (6), 1064-66.
United Nations (UN). (2015). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf
Vira, B. (2017). Kaziranga’s ruthless rangers have reduced rhino poaching by simply gunning down poachers at sight. Quartz India. https://qz.com/india/908867/kazirangas-ruthless-rangers-have-reduced-rhino-poaching-by-simply-gunning-down-poachers-at-sight/
