“Consequentialist and deontological positions in the trophy-hunting debate use fundamentally incompatible moral standards and cannot reach agreement.”

Analogously, this paper proposes that, regarding trophy hunting, the implications of three major traditional perspectives in ethics (i.e. utilitarianism, deontology and virtue theory) may converge in opposition to the practice of trophy hunting. … Taking an approach analogous to Norton's convergence hypothesis (1991), utilitarian, deontological and virtue ethic principles all converge at the level of policy; hence, the opponents have ethical reasons to oppose trophy hunting.

Analogously, this paper proposes that, regarding trophy hunting, the implications of three major traditional perspectives in ethics (i.e. utilitarianism, deontology and virtue theory) may converge in opposition to the practice of trophy hunting. … Taking an approach analogous to Norton's convergence hypothesis (1991), utilitarian, deontological and virtue ethic principles all converge at the level of policy; hence, the opponents have ethical reasons to oppose trophy hunting.

Analogously, this paper proposes that, regarding trophy hunting, the implications of three major traditional perspectives in ethics (i.e. utilitarianism, deontology and virtue theory) may converge in opposition to the practice of trophy hunting. … Taking an approach analogous to Norton's convergence hypothesis (1991), utilitarian, deontological and virtue ethic principles all converge at the level of policy; hence, the opponents have ethical reasons to oppose trophy hunting.

Some opponents of trophy hunting maintain that it is unjustifiable regardless of any positive outcomes, in doing so identifying a moral imperative, a concept traceable to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. … In contrast, a utilitarian view, rooted in the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham, where every action is assessed against its outcome, acknowledges properly regulated trophy hunting, like it or not, as part of current African wildlife conservation, with the biodiversity gain outweighing the loss of individuals.

As far as the general debate around trophy hunting is concerned, there is a certain emphasis on assessing benefits against possible risks (e.g. economic benefits for communities vs endangering of species and/or ecosystems). Such emphasis looks at the consequences of human conduct – in our case trophy hunting - and is known as ‘consequentialism’. … Contrasting with the consequentialist perspective is the deontological perspective. Here rules and moral duty are central.

Analogously, this paper proposes that, regarding trophy hunting, the implications of three major traditional perspectives in ethics (i.e. utilitarianism, deontology and virtue theory) may converge in opposition to the practice of trophy hunting. … Taking an approach analogous to Norton's convergence hypothesis (1991), utilitarian, deontological and virtue ethic principles all converge at the level of policy; hence, the opponents have ethical reasons to oppose trophy hunting.

Trophy hunting and conservation: Do the major ethical theories converg...

In their Letter “Trophy hunting bans imperil biodiversity” (30 August, p. 874), A. Dickmanet al. adopt a radical consequen- tialist approach. Not only do they discard any deontological concern relevant to trophy hunting but also, remarkably, they oppose policies that would consider deontologi- cal objections against trophy hunting. Said otherwise, according to Dickmanet al., evidence-based policy-making must trump moral-based policy-making.

What they have in mind are, among other disputes, those between utilitarians and Kantians about what makes an action morally right and those between egalitarians and libertarians about what justice requires.

This article discusses the approaches of utilitarianism and deontological ethics toward “conservation hunting.” Specifically, how each moral theory deals with issues regarding age and functionality, when ending the life of the individual.

Indeed, the book provides, to me, a fairly definitive declaration that trophy hunting generates positive impacts on conservation and thus is justifiable in the absence of better alternatives, depending of course on one’s moral philosophy.

Indeed, judging whether the killing of endangered wildlife is justified requires analysis both of the consequences for the population (or species) and the individual organisms that are being killed, and the motivations and actions of the individual doing the killing. We urge the conservation community to consider these other ethical perspectives when deciding whether it should condone the various instances of killing in the name of conservation, including trophy hunting.

Consequentialism is thought to be in significant conflict with animal rights theory because it does not regard activities such as confinement, killing, and exploitation as in principle morally wrong. … We argue that this conflict is overstated. … Once we have properly accounted for indirect effects, such as the role that our policies play in shaping moral attitudes and behavior and the importance of accepting policies that are robust against deviation, we can see that consequentialism may converge with animal rights theory significantly, even if not entirely.

Many authors implicitly and per haps unknowingly adopt an ethical stance, following a frame work called consequentialism (Nelson et al., 2016), by suggesting the debate “hinges on whether trophy hunting sup ports or impedes” conservation agendas (Nelson et al., 2013, p. 501).

It uses deontology to critique the debate on trophy hunting, which, it reckons, is based on utilitarianism. This debate is wrongly pitched between those who consider trophy hunting as economically viable and those who decry this viability.

The analysis also draws on principles of 30 utilitarianism and deontology. The value of this analysis does not emerge from expecting it to resolve the issue – that would be an inappropriate standard even for a scientific paper. Rather the value of argument analysis lies in clarifying premises and logic upon which an ethical view rests.

This article attempts to unravel the underlying reasoning behind the contemporary practice of “trophy hunting.” It uses deontology to critique the debate on trophy hunting, which, it reckons, is based on utilitarianism.

There is nothing approaching agreement on this question. Answers, varied as they may be, hang upon the various factors that are taken into account while considering the good (i.e., the subfactors of the good).

Although it is not intended to replace more complex philosophical discursive 41 approaches and moral reasoning, its purpose is to highlight how fundamental differences 42 between value systems can lead to different prioritizations of available management options and 43 offer a common ground for discussion.