Abstract

To resolve a moral dilemma created by the rescue of carnivorous species from exploitative situations who must rely on the flesh of other vulnerable species to survive, Cheryl Abbate applies the guardianship principle in proposing hunting as a case-by-case means of reducing harm to the rescued animal as well as to those animals who must die to supply food. This article counters that Abbate’s guardianship principle is insufficiently applied given its objectification of deer communities. Tom Regan, alternatively, encouraged guardians to think beyond individual dilemmas and adopt a measure of systemic reconstruction, that being the abolition of speciesist institutions (The Case for Animal Rights; Empty Cages). In addition, politics of non-vegan pets and vote-with-your-dollar veganism are addressed as relevant moral dilemmas that highlight the limited utility of individual decision-making within a larger system of speciesism. It is argued that guardians are obliged to work toward the abolition of speciesism, while guardians may, in the meantime, support carnivorous refugees with animal agriculture byproducts given the reality of sellercontrolled foodways.

How to Cite:

Wrenn, C. L., Ph.D., (2018) “How to Help When It Hurts? Think Systemic”, Animal Studies Journal 7(1), 149-179.