Russow’s Noah’s Ark Fallacy

Having living individual members is not a condition for a species to exist as a category, e.g., extinct species.  Having living individual members is a necessary condition when talking of preservation of a species, as this implies the existence of actual living members.   Russow’s argument that “we value and protect animals because of their aesthetic value” is predicated on human interests overriding any and all other concerns.   Her call for the preservation of certain animals (She suggests but does not develop a theory of value based on stronger or weaker duties or obligations) is sympathetic at first glance, but a thorough review of her intent reveals a motive very similar to the one proposed by Richard Epstein, (Professor of Law, legal theorist,  and author).    Epstein posits that humans have absolute rights over animals and the environment, this is fundamental and non-negotiable.  Animals are property and anyone who disagrees with this idea should be considered a threat to human existence.   Animal rights activists and abolitionists that seek rights for animals on par with humans e.g., a basic right to life, are a danger to society, “a mortal threat to human society that few humans would, or should accept”.

Russow questions the value of interest rights theory in general siding with the “generally accepted” and the “majority”.   Arguments based on sentience alone are a good place to start for anyone seeking alternatives to interest based theories, or any other moral obligations defined by “special” attributes.   Note how Russow might preserve certain individual members of species without committing to the preservation of the whole.   She states (197) that rarity and unexpectedness is more delightful than everyday encounters.   Based on this premise, do we have a moral obligation to reduce the number of certain species so that we may have more delightful and enriching life experiences?  

Russow does not think it wrong to deprive individual members of their natural habitat (191).   

We might envision an Orwellian scenario of sorts where we have a select few individual members of a species in an artificial environment for our aesthetic pleasure, while we breed billions of other more ordinary “everyday” animals for our culinary delights, fashion trends, and entertainment.   This is why Epstein and others say it’s a matter of human survival that animals remain property; for human tastes and interests.