My chosen ethical dilemma has to do with killing one species of owl in order to save another native species of owl. The barred owl is large and aggressive, and can easily adapt to new surroundings. The northern spotted owl is much smaller and is being attacked by the growing population of the barred owls. The federal wildlife officials of the area are releasing a statement that allows the killing of barred owls in the area, and it is stated that, “officials acknowledge the ethical dilemma of killing one species to benefit another” (Mortenson, 2012).
Kant would argue that killing is wrong, in any situation. The ends do not justify the means in any way, and the act of ornithic genocide would indeed be a wrong choice to make. He would argue that there would be another choice to help the northern spotted owl, and that maybe placing either the barred owls or the spotted owl in a new location to thrive would be a better solution to the problem. Nature has always been cruel and there would be no reason for humans to be just as cruel to the predators that are naturally becoming predominant in the area.
I think that there are many different approaches that can be taken to ethically come to a solution to this issue. I however do believe that in some very few cases the ends justify the means. I am from an area that actively hunts, and I understand that some animal populations can become dangerous if they become overgrown. Deer for example can become very dangerous when they start to become so over populated that they find themselves in populated areas and get into traffic. I think that I would support the consequentialist theory in this situation. It also seems to be the easiest way for the spotted owl to continue to survive. It is for the greater good of each species to control the populations so that both the spotted owl and barred owl can continue to thrive in the areas that they call home.
It is also not ethical to choose one species over another, and by...