Trophy hunting: Role of consequentialism

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  25 Oct 2019:
Vol. 366, Issue 6464, pp. 432
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaz4951

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

  • The Ethics of Violent Conservation
    • Dan Brockington, Director, Sheffield Institute for International Development, University of Sheffield
    • Other Contributors:
      • Rosaleen Duffy, Professor of International Politics, University of Sheffield

    When Science published this letter by Guillaume Chaperon and José Vicente López-Bao it prompted a mixture of confusion, anger and dismay. On twitter several people suggested that it was actually probably just satire.1 When we explored it, and the authors’ other work, we found that it was a strange mixture of shoddy arguments, outlandish claims and flawed logic (Figure 1). Given the quality of the authors’ other research (which is good) we too suspected it was satire; Dan Brockington then tweeted a thread that explained why.2

    We presume that this reaction prompted Science and the authors to publish a correction two weeks after the letter was first published. We reproduce that correction in full below.

    Correction (11 November 2019): Our Letter “Trophy hunting: Role of consequentialism” (25 October, p. 432) was a response to Dickman et al.’s letter “Trophy hunting bans imperil biodiversity” (30 August, p. 874), which implied that even if trophy hunting is morally “repugnant,” it should be promoted in the interest of conserving biodiversity. That line of reasoning is entirely consequentialist (i.e., an action is judged by its outcome) and can be dangerous because it removes other types of ethical objections from consideration. We tried to illustrate this by demonstrating how it can be used to promote other actions also done for a conservation purpose and which also may be viewed as morally repugnant. Our Letter was deliberately provocative and blended credible...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.

Stay Connected to Science