Human moral codes are not fit for animals

Any management strategy should focus on the baboons as sentient beings who should be allowed to flourish as they coexist with humans.

- By Adam Cruise

Baboons, as fellow primates, bear remarkable similarities to humans biologically, behaviourally, historically and even culturally. These shared traits compel us to reconsider how we assess their wellbeing and relate to them ethically.

To truly protect and coexist with baboons, we must develop a unique and more relevant moral framework one that goes beyond traditional anthropocentric ethics and accounts for their sentience, social lives and shared history with humans.

Given their proven capacity to suffer, any act that causes baboons physical pain or psychological distress whether lethal or nonlethal raises ethical red flags. Tools commonly used to deter baboons, such as paintball markers, gel blasters, bear bangers, strobe lights and high-pressure water units, may not kill, but they do cause harm, stress and discord. As such, they are ethically indefensible under a sentience-based framework.

However, an ethical system based solely on the avoidance of suffering is inherently flawed. For example, it might permit the “humane” killing of an individual if done painlessly. Yet, removing a single baboon from its troop disrupts the social cohesion vital to their collective wellbeing. Baboons are deeply social creatures, and harm to one can reverberate through the entire group.