John Hadley (philosopher)

John Hadley (born 27 September 1966) is an Australian

Hadley is known for his account of animal

Hadley is known for his theory of animal property rights, according to which animals should be afforded property rights over their territory.^{[12][13][14][15][16]} Hadley has developed his theory of animal property rights through his doctoral research,^[17] his 2015 monograph,^[18] and other academic works.^[4][19] In addition, he has authored popular articles on the subject for The Guardian,^[20] The Conversation^[21] and The Ethics Centre.^[22] He also discussed the topic on Knowing Animals, a podcast series produced by Siobhan O'Sullivan.^[23] His proposal has received attention in the popular press, with strong criticism from farmers' groups and journalists writing on rural affairs.^[24]

The practical side of Hadley's proposal rests on two key principles: a guardianship system, according to which knowledgeable guardians would be appointed to represent animal property holders in land management decision-making, and the use of animals' territory-marking behaviour to determine the limits of their property.

Hadley's proposal has been placed in the context of the "political turn" in animal ethics; the emergence of animal ethics literature focused on justice.^[14][15] Another academic who has proposed that wild animals be afforded property rights over their habitats is the British philosopher Steve Cooke. Like Hadley, he utilises an interest-based account of animal rights, but, unlike Hadley, he suggests that sovereignty would be an appropriate tool to protect animals' interest in their habitat if property fails.^[13][19] Other theorists exploring the normative aspects of human relationships with wild animals explicitly deny that they are extending property rights to animals. The US-based ethicist Clare Palmer, for instance, argues for a duty to respect wild animals' space, but claims that arguing for a property right for these animals would be "difficult", and instead bases her account on the fact that human actions can make animals "painful, miserable and vulnerable".^[30]

The Canadian theorists Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka are critical of Hadley's proposal to extend property rights to animals, claiming that property rights are insufficient to protect animals' interests.^[31] Instead, they argue that animals should be considered sovereign over their territories.^[32] They write that

It is one thing to say that a bird has a property right in its nest, or that a wolf has a property right in its den – specific bits of territory used exclusively by one animal family. But the habitat that animals need to survive extends far beyond such specific and exclusive bits of territory – animals often need to fly or roam over vast territories shared by many other animals. Protecting a bird's nest is of little help if the nearby watering holes are polluted, or if tall buildings block its flight path. It's not clear how ideas of property rights can help here.^[31]

They also compare the possibility of extending property rights to animals to the approach of European colonists, who were prepared to extend property, but not sovereignty, rights to native peoples, resulting in oppression.^[33] Hadley, however, is himself critical of Donaldson and Kymlicka's sovereignty proposal,^[34] though the British philosopher Josh Milburn suggests that the proposals may not be as far apart as the authors indicate.^[16]

The British political theorist Alasdair Cochrane also questions the extension of property rights to animals in his Animal Rights Without Liberation. Though describing Hadley's proposal as "ingenious",^[35] he criticises it on two grounds. First, he questions Hadley's claim of a relationship between property and basic needs, and, second, denies that animal property rights would appease environmentalists, given that they would allow the destruction of environments which do not contain sentient animals.^[36] However, in his Sentientist Politics, Cochrane includes animal property rights as part of his critique of Donaldson and Kymlicka's sovereignty model, writing that it "seems perfectly possible to argue, as John Hadley and others have, that wild animals ought to be granted habitat or property rights over their territories".^[37] In a book review, Milburn stresses the significance of Hadley's theory, but questions the extent to which the implementation of animal property rights would be desirable without the achievement of other animal rights and the extent to which Hadley's account is genuinely about property rights.^[15]

Animal neopragmatism

Having published a number of papers critical of the

Hadley has conducted research on animal rights extremism, concluding that the phenomenon is a complex one, and that a full understanding of individual extremists' intentions and targets are necessary to understand the ethical acceptability of extremist acts and whether such acts are appropriately classified as terrorism.[46] He holds that while direct action should be tolerated in liberal democracies, this toleration should not extend to certain campaigning tactics used by extremists, such as threat-making.^[47]

With O'Sullivan, Hadley has conducted research on utilitarianism and the relationship between obligations to animals and obligations to needy humans. The scholars argue that there is a conflict in Singer's philosophy between the obligation to aid needy humans and to protect animals,