Today's society is a complex system in which no individual is the same due to differences in ideals on various aspects of life. Wildlife unfortunately have to put up with humans and their inability to realize that their lives are just as important as theirs. Elephants are no exception and are known to be killed for their valuable ivory tusks. Ivory is extremely sought after by many and some are willing to do whatever it takes to meet the demand. Various stakeholders participate in the ongoing conflicts of the illegal ivory market and it is important to realize that humans commit their actions based on their ethical perspectives of the situation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay Poachers and traffickers work hand in hand when it comes to combating the flow of ivory into the market illicit, which continues to grow. Our society is often baffled by what they are capable of doing without any remorse for slaughtered animals and would like to know why they do such acts. Poachers may well behave as ethical egoists due to their desire to earn income for their own benefit. Ivory and other animal horns contribute to an illegal industry that brings in approximately $19 billion annually, and this money is known to fund terrorist groups (Wong, 2014). Poachers may make the decision to kill elephants for their own gain, as it will benefit them overall. Ivory provides enough income for poachers and the extremists they are affiliated with to operate and have a sense of power in their country. The people who trade in ivory are no better than the poachers; however, they can be considered people who follow virtue ethics. People who follow this path often commit actions that a virtuous person would do. This is confusing because it is hard to believe that selling ivory is something a virtuous person would do. However, it must be understood that not all cultures are the same and 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 because of the culture that has been cultivated in their society. This situation seems somewhat unorthodox, but it is a phenomenon known as cultural relativism. The principle of cultural relativism allows a culture to view certain aspects of life as morally correct or not (Shafer-Landau, 2018). It is important to realize that it is healthy to have diverse cultures to develop the identity of different civilizations; However, there is a fine line to draw 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 reason ivory is so sought after is due to its history of providing religious purposes and social status. The main contributors reside in Asia and their idea of ​​why ivory is acceptable is due to their ancestry and what they believed in the past. According to the documentary Battle for the Elephants by John Heminway, Asians want to stay true to their roots so that they can feel a sense of connection to their ancestors and core values ​​(Heminway, 2013). The culture that exists in Asia is heavily involved in religion and the previous ancestry predates the importance of themeaning of ivory. Individuals who rely on their spiritual beliefs are those who perform actions based on divine command theory. Religions like Buddhism and Confucianism have a strong influence on the use of ivory to represent their gods in a way that honors them and will in return be rewarded with a life of happiness. The use of ivory is permitted for this culture because their religious ancestors morally justified its use to worship their gods in the way they would want to be worshipped. Ivory became very popular after the Ming dynasty and it is still evident that China remains the largest consumer of both legal and illegal ivory (Smith, 2018). Cultural relativism is very relevant in this predicament, as people carve ivory tusks because their culture socially approves of it. There have been people who have been carving ivory for many generations, and current generations continue the tradition through many other individuals who follow the same practices. Many countries have their share of dilemmas in their systems where the government must make decisions that have power. the best interest of their citizens and Africa is no exception. Africa is notorious for its lack of funds to help improve its society as a whole; however, ivory may well contribute to a stable income stream. It has been claimed that in 1989, well-known international conservation organizations succeeded in banning ivory and helping elephant populations increase their numbers; however, sub-Saharan African countries had argued that the ivory trade was necessary to generate revenue that could contribute to conservation efforts and anti-poaching campaigns (Williams, 2016). Countries like Tanzania have certain expectations from their citizens and these expectations include preserving the land in which they live. 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 available. is based on the need for poachers to kill elephants. Making a country prosperous is an important aspect between a government and its people. The decision not to burn the ivory could be seen as a choice that arises from social contract theory, as it is in the governments interest to provide a prosperous country so that they build a healthier relationship with the citizens . The government has political authority over these situations, and if people respect them, then they will be rewarded with an improved nation of which they can be proud. Although this might be the case that Tanzania would like to achieve, it is not very practical to resolve. illegal ivory trade by selling the ivory itself to get more money. From 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 entering the black market; nevertheless, the few African countries that objected would be considered unethical if they did not follow what most organizations would do. John Frederick Walker even claims that legal sales of ivory encourage poachers to continue their unjust acts against elephants (Walker, 2013). Various organizations believe that destroying ivory would signal to poachers that ivory is no longer a valuable commodity and that people can burn it without any remorse. The fact that African countries wish tobetter conservation efforts is a good thing; However, the way they get it isn't very ideal. Conservation organizations are undoubtedly an important pillar in helping elephant populations avoid extinction, and it is important that people are invested in protecting wildlife. An organization known as the Big Life Foundation had found effective ways to increase the number of scouts by offering competitive salaries and improving the overall atmosphere of a ranger's job (Heminway, 2013). The ingenuity of these activist leaders is quite impressive, as they are able to achieve what their community desires and this could be used to persuade the rangers to complete the tasks that need to be done. Money makes the world go round and this concept is no exception when it comes to African populations. Creating competitive salaries forces rangers to work harder in order to earn a higher salary, and this is important because these organizations need people who actually want to do the hard work necessary to protect wildlife. Conservation efforts changed in 2012 when everyone started paying attention to wildlife crime issues, and this trend happened because organizations figured out how to properly execute safety practices that will repel poachers effectively (LaFontaine, Allgood and Ratchford, 2014). . When it comes to conservation, it is essential that activists examine all possible outcomes and find one that produces the most beneficial consequences with the fewest negative results. It is easy to see that these activists behave from an ethical utilitarian perspective in their lives and that is probably for the best. Campaigners are studying the best possible way to increase the number of rangers and believe that by sacrificing more money to pay their workers there would be a domino effect of an improved organization able to better combat poaching. Activists' decisions to raise wages generated more positive results, including improved livelihoods, improved moral character, and large numbers of people applying to become rangers for conservation efforts. Now that Africa has stable front lines, other countries should become more involved in being the voice of the elephants. The poaching situation that elephants have to endure cannot be won by the people of Africa alone; therefore, the rest of the world needs to understand why they should genuinely want to contribute to the battle for elephants. It was observed that elephants were somewhat impervious to human presence, but over time began to show increasing signs of fear and aggression as poaching persisted over a long period of time (Heminway, 2013). It's no surprise that elephants are more afraid of humans, and the way an animal is treated is reflected in how they behave around those who care for them. Ethically, humans should not isolate an animal in a way that is different from how we view our own 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 several children does not have a favorite child and wants to give them all unconditional love and give them the best life. Humans should behave similarly by sincerely wanting to give all wild animals the best life possible, and the animals will benefit., 310(2), 18-18.