Animal welfare and nature conservation laws in Singapore: A moral duty to non-human nature?

Abstract

I examine the broad ethical basis of animal welfare and nature conservation laws in Singapore. Three different worldviews of the environment, namely anthropocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism, each with a different locus of value and a different set of associated ethics, are considered. Setting the backdrop to this study, I introduce and evaluate the claims made by some writers that international environmental law has begun to shift towards a non-anthropocentric ethic. I examine and find such claims exaggerated but not unfounded; there are weak signs of a non-anthropocentric ethic driving aspects of international environmental law, but it is still early days to conclude that international environmental law is becoming non-anthropocentric. I then examine the animal welfare and nature conservation laws in Singapore and conclude that in contrast to developments in international environmental law, the environmental ethic underlying animal welfare and nature laws in Singapore remains strongly anthropocentric. Finally, I consider and reject the normative arguments for a shift towards protecting animal welfare and conserving nature out of respect for the inherent worth of animals or nature. © Australian Centre for Environmental Law Sydney 2005.