Today's society is a complex system where no individual is the same due to differences in ideals on various aspects of life. Wildlife unfortunately has to put up with humans and their inability to realize that their lives are as important as theirs. Elephants are no exception and are known to have been killed for their valuable ivory tusks. Ivory is extremely sought after by many and there are those who are willing to do anything to satisfy the demand. Various stakeholders take part in the ongoing conflicts of the illegal ivory market and it is important to realize that human beings commit their actions based on their ethical perspective of the situation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Poachers and dealers work hand in hand when it comes to the flow of ivory into the ever-growing illicit market. Our society is often baffled by what they can do without any remorse for the animals that are slaughtered and would like to know why they carry out such actions. Poachers may well behave as ethical egoists due to their desire for gain for their own benefits. Ivory and other animal horns contribute to an illegal industry that brings in an estimated $19 billion annually, and this money is known to fund terrorist groups (Wong, 2014). Poachers are able to make the decision to slaughter elephants for their own gain because it will benefit them in the grand scheme of it all. Ivory provides enough revenue for poachers and the extremists they are affiliated with to operate and have a sense of power in their country. People who trade and trade in ivory are no better than poachers; however, they can be seen as people who follow virtue ethics. People who follow this path often commit actions that a virtuous individual would do. This is confusing because it is hard to believe that selling ivory is something a virtuous individual would do. However, one must realize that not all cultures are the same and that virtues vary from country to country. From our cultural perspective, it is frowned upon, but in other countries it is socially approved to sell ivory due to the culture that has been cultivated in their society. This situation seems to be somewhat unorthodox, but it is a phenomenon known as cultural relativism. The principle of cultural relativism allows a culture to deem aspects of life to be morally correct or not (Shafer-Landau, 2018). It is important to realize that it is healthy to have different cultures to expand the identity of different civilizations; However, there is a fine line to be drawn when it comes to dilemmas that affect humanity as a whole. This idea extends to other contributors to the ivory trade, and they are known as ivory buyers. The whole reason why ivory is so sought after is due to its history of providing religious and social status purposes. The main contributors reside in Asia and their entire idea of ​​why ivory is acceptable is due to their ancestors and what they believed in the past. According to John Heminway's documentary Battle for the Elephants, people in Asia want to stay true to their roots so they can have a sense of connection to their ancestors and core values ​​(Heminway, 2013). The culture that exists in Asia is heavily involved in religion and previous ancestors predate the importance of the meaning of ivory. Individuals who rely on their spiritual beliefs are those who perform actions based on divine command theory. Religionslike Buddhism and Confucianism have a strong influence on using ivory to portray their gods so as to honor them and in return they will be rewarded with a happy life. The use of ivory is permitted for this culture because their religious ancestors morally justify its use to worship their Gods the way they would like to be worshipped. Ivory became very popular after the Ming Dynasty and it is still evident that China remains the largest consumer of legal and illegal use of ivory (Smith, 2018). Cultural relativism is very relevant in this difficult situation because people carve ivory tusks because their culture socially approves it. There are people who have been carving ivory for numerous generations, and current generations continue the tradition because many other individuals follow the same practices. Many countries have their fair share of dilemmas in their systems as to where the government must make decisions that have the best interest for their citizens and Africa is no exception. Africa is notorious for its lack of funding to help improve society as a whole; however, ivory may very well help foster a stable income stream. It was claimed that by 1989 there were well-known international conservation organizations that had successfully created a ban on ivory and helped elephant populations recover numerically; however, sub-Saharan African nations had argued that ivory trade was necessary to generate income and ultimately support conservation efforts and anti-poaching campaigns (Williams, 2016). Countries like Tanzania have certain expectations of their citizens and these expectations include preserving the land they live on. By choosing not to burn naturally obtained tusks and use them to generate money, they would be able to provide a more suitable environment that is no longer reliant on poachers needing to kill elephants. Making a country a place of prosperity is an important issue between a government and its people. The decision not to burn ivory could be seen as a choice that stems from social contract theory, because it is in the government's interest to provide a prosperous country in order to build a healthier relationship with citizens. The government has political authority over these situations, and if people respect them, they will be rewarded with an improved nation they can be proud of. While this may be the case that Tanzania would like to achieve, it is not very practical to resolve. the illegal ivory trade by selling the ivory itself to get more money. Looking through a Kantian perspective, one could say that this decision is unfair because other governments are not willing to make the same decision as them. Many wanted to maintain the ban on the ivory trade and preferred to burn the ivory to prevent it from ending up on the black market; however, the few African nations that opposed this would be considered unethical for not following what most organizations would do. John Frederick Walker even states that the legal sale of ivory encourages poachers to continue their unjust acts towards elephants (Walker, 2013). Several organizations believe that in destroying ivory they would be telling poachers that ivory is no longer a valuable commodity and that people can burn it without any remorse. The fact that African countries want more conservation efforts is a good move; however, their way of obtaining it is less than ideal. Conservation organizations are undoubtedly an important pillar in helping elephant populations avoid their disappearance, and it is important that people invest inwildlife protection. An organization known as Big Life Foundation had found effective ways to increase the number of scouts by offering competitive pay and improving the overall atmosphere of a ranger's job (Heminway, 2013). The ingenuity possessed by these activist leaders is quite impressive, because they are able to achieve what their community wants and this could be used to persuade rangers to carry out the tasks that need to be carried out. Money makes the world go round and this concept is no exception when it comes to people in Africa. Creating competitive salaries makes rangers work harder so they can get higher pay, and that's important because these organizations need people who actually want to do the hard work needed to protect wildlife. Conservation efforts shifted in 2012, when everyone started to care about wildlife crime issues, and this trend occurred because organizations figured out how to properly execute safety practices that would effectively repel poachers ( LaFontaine, Allgood, & Ratchford, 2014). . When it comes to conservation, it is critical that activists examine all possible outcomes and find one that produces the most beneficial consequences with the fewest negative outcomes. It is easy to see that these activists are behaving from the perspective of ethical utilitarianism in their lives and that is probably for the best. Activists look for the best way to increase the number of rangers and thought that by sacrificing more money to pay their workers, there would be a domino effect of a better organization capable of better combating poaching. Activists' decisions to increase wages have generated more positive outcomes, including improved livelihoods, improved moral character, and an abundance of people applying to become rangers for conservation efforts. Now that Africa has a stable front line, other countries should do more to give elephants a voice. The current poaching situation that elephants have to endure cannot be overcome with its inhabitants in Africa alone; therefore, the rest of the world needs to understand why they should sincerely want to help aid in the battle for elephants. It was recorded that elephants were somewhat indifferent to human presence, but over time they began to show increasing signs of fear and aggression as poaching persisted for a long period of time (Heminway, 2013). Not surprisingly, elephants increase their fear of humans, and how an animal is treated reflects on how they behave towards those who care for them. From an ethical point of view, humans should not single out any animal differently than we consider our animals. The way people care for their dog or cat should be the same way they should care for all wild creatures. Theoretically, a mother who has multiple children does not have a favorite child and wants to give all of them unconditional love and provide them with the best life. Humans should behave similarly, genuinely wanting to give all wildlife the best life possible, and animals will gain happier lives from our healthier relationships with them. Even if it seems impractical to convert the world into an animal-loving world, it is worth trying to create a society that cares for all living creatures and gives them a higher priority rather than self-interest in decision-making. Please note: this is just an example. Get a personalized document now come on., 310(2), 18-18.