Can a critical reading of Zoopolis by Donaldson and Kymlicka lead to advocating dialogue between animal rights theorists and zoologists

This essay is a zoologist’s response to Zoopolis. A political theory of animal rights by Donaldson and Kymlicka (2011). What drew me to look at their new approach was that geography played a part in conceptualising animal communities and, in particular, the specific focus on wild animals and urban wildlife. To oversimplify, Donaldson and Kymlicka say, much of the debate operates within one of three basic moral frameworks: a welfarist, an ecological and a basic rights approach, but none has proved capable of fundamental change. That change will only be possible, they consider, if we can develop a new moral framework that connects the treatment of animals more directly to the fundamental principles of liberal–democratic justice and human rights. A major point of agreement between zoologists and Donaldson’s and Kymlicka’s views is that animals deserve more than being over-ridden at every encounter with human interests. A major stalling point in advocating a dialogue between animal rights theorists and zoologists is where Donaldson and Kymlicka accept the animal rights position at the outset, rather than letting their thesis play out to see what their position might be for each geographic zone and for each species. Also, it is clear that Donaldson’s and Kymlicka’s starting point is the traditional animal rights agenda, which rules out animal research as morally illegitimate. The conservation of Australia’s fauna could not survive in that regime. Consequently, I cannot advocate dialogue between animal rights theorists and zoologists from a critical reading of Zoopolis.