The Pros And Cons Of Regulating The Sale Of African Elephants

Introduction Through much of Western history animals had no rights protected by humankind and courts of law. However, in recent history that is appearing to change. Animal rights developments can come in many forms whether it involves setting stricter conditions on factory farming to shutting down a dog-fighting ring. One condition that is in the news rather recently with President Trump making a decision whether or not to allow hunters to bring back trophy animals back from two African nations, is hunting of African elephants and more specifically using them for meat and ivory as has been the case for much of the past three decades. One way someone can analyze this complex issue is through the capability approach. The capability approach

However, many African countries believe this provides a loophole for poached ivory to enter the international market. Unregulated markets refer to small markets within a country's borders; for example, any local person can trade livory at a local market without having to maintain inventory or report it to a local government. This also places a danger for the elephants of bordering nations due to weak border control policies. Not only can poachers easily bring in ivory but elephants also freely move around to look for food and water. Both regulated and unregulated markets provide loopholes for ivory to be freely traded only aiding the poaching of elephants. Elephants are also killed indirectly by armed conflicts. Many locations of armed conflicts between people groups and nations tend to coincide with the habitates of elephants, resulting in accidentaly elephant casulties. During the 1970’s and 80’s many African nations fought wars: Qaddafi’s Libya with Central Africa, Idi Amin invaded Tanzania, civil wars in Sudan, and numerous others. Some of the elephant killing done during in this time was in order to feed soldiers out in the field, but much of it was to fund and finance war by the selling of their

A less sentient animal would be one would that does not have a conscious awareness of itself or one that can not feel bodily pain. An example of a less sentient animal would be a mollusk or an insect. However, based upon Nussbaum’s definition, the killing of African elephants for meat and ivory would be considered wrong since they are aware of themselves and would feel bodily harm. Nussbaum also seems to favor the protection of animals with a complex nature and sentience because one could argue that they have more capabilities and functionings than a mentally handicapped person. If one could use the capability approach to justify the killing of animals, then would it be permissible to euthanize “less-sentient human beings?” Overall, one would argue that the killing of African Elephants for ivory would be social justice issue because it destroys their capability to live a life that they