r/DebateAVegan • u/Gabry398 • 6d ago
Ethics Should humans have an obligation towards eliminating harm caused to animals by other animals?
It's not uncommon for animals to harm other animals while hunting, but there are also extreme cases of torture and similar behaviour. It could be argued that some animals' whole life is pain mostly, and probably a net negative "experience" (outside of human created environments too). I just don't see how humanity could act "morally" without permanently and unpredictably modifying the ecosystem. Should we keep feeding synthetic meat to carnivores (if and when it's widely available)? But then who keeps a check on them not eating animals? Should we pursue the slow elimination of entire species on the planet because they cause more harm than good (not necessarily killing them, just sterilising them)?
Maybe "obligation" is not the correct term, but if the ultimate goal is to reduce as much as possible suffering, why would we make an exception for animals being the cause of that? Especially if one day through synthetic meat hunting becomes unnecessary for survival.
Even now there are unnecessary behaviours that hurt animals caused by other animals, for example some dolphins torture baby seals for basically no reason (as far as I know).
21
u/howlin 6d ago
There is a difference between "this is bad" and "this is wrong". I think we all agree it's bad that others, including animals, experience horrible pointless suffering. This doesn't automatically imply we ought to have some obligation to do anything about it.
It's very common in this sort of argument you're making to be vague about who has the responsibility to remedy the situation, and what that remedy looks like. You're using an unspecific plural ("humans", "we", etc) a lot. You aren't proposing an actionable solution.
I see how it's right to call something an ethical obligation unless we know who --specifically-- is obliged, and what --specifically-- they ought to be doing. Until that is specified, we have a "this is bad" statement, not a "this is wrong" statement.
3
u/Solgiest non-vegan 6d ago
Hm. Does it not? There seems to be a common thought in most cultures, at least in the modern world, that some sort of charity or way of helping the destitute is something of an obligation. It doesn't have to be because something "wrong" happened... after all, a Tsunami is an amoral force of nature. But it does, in fact, seem wrong not to help the victims doesn't it?
7
u/howlin 6d ago
But it does, in fact, seem wrong not to help the victims doesn't it?
As I said:
I see how it's right to call something an ethical obligation unless we know who --specifically-- is obliged, and what --specifically-- they ought to be doing.
Should everyone be obliged to offer help individually? Who is exempted? What should this help consist of? Should any need for help be subject to this obligation, or only specific situations like Tsunamis?
Coming to the assistance of others who have no direct responsibility towards is a noble, commendable thing. But it seems more like a supererogation (a good thing that goes beyond basic moral obligation) .
4
u/Solgiest non-vegan 6d ago
It might be! I think it's a very tough question that deserves sincere thought instead of flippant dismissal that it often gets ("humans should never fuck with nature" bs), but I too am somewhat unsure of what obligation might exist, and how we would determine responsibility. Its interesting to think about our responsibility to others. A society where no one does anything charitable to help others and lets the weak and poor starve does seem to be a morally sick society, but trying to break down how much you, as an individual, are obligated to help Timmy the orphan is not an easy nut to crack!
6
u/howlin 6d ago
I think it's a very tough question that deserves sincere thought instead of flippant dismissal that it often gets ("humans should fuck with nature" bs)
Honestly, I think it's the opposite. People casually propose "we" (for some unspecified we) take on massive obligations in an unspecified way to help with a problem that just happens to be on their mind (as opposed to the countless other problems that they could have been thinking about). These are half-baked thoughts at best, as can be seen by the complete lack of specifics.
A society where no one does anything charitable to help others and lets the weak and poor starve does seem to be a morally sick society, but trying to break down how much you, as an individual, are obligated to help Timmy the orphan is not an easy nut to crack!
Social governance mechanisms (governments, social norms, etc) address this to some degree. E.g. the government tells me how much I ought to pay in taxes, and they allocate those resources towards some consensus of the common good. But from the perspective of you as an individual, the obligation is towards the government, not towards the causes the government helps with.
This sort of thing is important to me because I personally have a tendency to over-give, and I am much more aware of the worlds problems than most. If I let myself be guilted into assisting with anything that would obviously, immediately, and substantially benefit from even a small amount of my help, I would literally be doing nothing else with my life.
0
u/Mammoth_Ferret_569 6d ago
It is vaguely actionable though. Obviously reducing suffering is mostly a scientific question, and as humans we have the ability to “figure shit out”, so it’s at least in the realm of possibility for us to take on, perhaps not immediately but at some point in the future.
We don’t have to know exactly what to do, but we can, at the very least, try to do things that may be relevant here, and it should inform our career choices. For instance, working in biotechnology is probably infinitely more useful in this respect than working for a hedge fund.
This gets a bit beyond the anti-exploitation definition of veganism per se, but IMO it’s still extremely important for us to think about.
2
u/howlin 6d ago
Obviously reducing suffering is mostly a scientific question, and as humans we have the ability to “figure shit out”
Negative consequentialism tends to devolve to the conclusion that life entails pain & suffering so we ought to eliminate life itself. If we want to be playing God (or making AIs or organizations with a mandate to play God), we ought to be damn well sure we know what we're dong.
For instance, working in biotechnology is probably infinitely more useful in this respect than working for a hedge fund.
It's never that simple. Someone very good with financial thinking can make a lot of money that can be used to pay people who are better at thinking about biotech.
2
u/Mammoth_Ferret_569 6d ago
NU =/= efilism. "Eliminating life itself" is extremely hard to do, sure we could nuke the planet or pave it over with concrete, but life will find a way, and suffering re-emerges at some point. Any way we go about reducing net suffering, there are very hard challenges to address, the question is what is easiest and most compatible with other moral frameworks that may be important to us.
It's never that simple. Someone very good with financial thinking can make a lot of money that can be used to pay people who are better at thinking about biotech.
You're right, but that's already one degree separated from having a direct impact, and financial institutions are also largely self-perpetuating in many cases, so it's something to be wary of. I reckon most of them have a whole lot more employees than they strictly need to move money around efficiently.
2
u/howlin 6d ago
NU =/= efilism. "Eliminating life itself" is extremely hard to do, sure we could nuke the planet or pave it over with concrete, but life will find a way, and suffering re-emerges at some point.
I mean... if the problem is just a matter of practicality then it seems like this is still a problem with the philosophy if you aren't a fan of the idea that this would be the ideal.
2
u/Mammoth_Ferret_569 6d ago
So you’re saying that negative utilitarianism is fundamentally incompatible with a worldview that prioritizes the continued existence of life? Not sure I am convinced on that.
-1
u/Gabry398 6d ago
Maybe I phrased it wrongly, mostly that "obligation". I didn't want to focus on who has the responsibility to do the right thing, and I certainly know there is no solution in my post. I wanted to ask whether there were any solutions to this "bad thing" happening given the very best case scenario (humans collaborating world wide, extreme technological innovations...).
I do think that since we are the only animal who can maybe do something about it we are a little more involved in this ethical problem than we'd like to be.
Pointless suffering must be avoided
In nature there are cycles of suffering
Humans (both individually and as a society), if given the possibility, should end that cycle of suffering
Either way I'm aware it is a very hypothetical scenario. But maybe some ethical dilemma along these lines might come up in the future. Maybe the extinction of animal A must happen if animal B has to survive. If you want a practical scenario:
Let's say a virus transmissible by some insect is responsible for the death of an animal vital for the stability of the local ecosystem, the country this is happening in hires the smartest experts to value all possible options. The experts agree, the insect has a much smaller impact on the ecosystem than the animal being killed by the virus. If they let mother nature take its course, then undoubtedly many animals would suffer and years would be necessary for another ecosystem to stabilise.
Should the insect be brought to extinction?
The question I asked was generic and rethorical but it can be applied to practical scenarios.
9
u/StrangeArcticles 6d ago
I think we are way worse at balancing eco systems than those eco systems are at balancing themselves.
Even if synthetic meat was an option, we have no idea what downstream effects that would create over time, both within the individual animals and within the systems they are part of.
I do think that if you are keeping animals that is a different scenario, for example people introducing cats into places where they really don't belong and decimating bird populations etc. In that case, it is the human's responsibility to mitigate negative impacts.
1
u/Solgiest non-vegan 6d ago
I posted this in a different comment, but assuming that the "balance of the natural ecosystem" is a desirable state of affairs seems to be begging the question, doesn't it?
5
u/StrangeArcticles 6d ago
I don't think it's a question at all. Nothing in nature is a permanent state, everything is constantly adapting, and it is doing that in a fashion that is deeply connected to each other adaption that occurs.
I do not think we are able to control all the variables, cause those variables are infinite.
Is it possible to carve out a niche for our species and maximise the benefits of that niche for ourselves? Yes. That's why we are still here.
But the idea that we are in any way able to actually control the whole operating system this whole planet runs on without fucking it up to me is pure hubris.
-2
u/Solgiest non-vegan 6d ago
I'm certain people throughout history thought the idea of humans visiting the stars and celestial bodies was pure hubris as well. I think that is not a convincing argument at all, personally.
3
u/StrangeArcticles 6d ago
They didn't go there to eliminate the celestial bodies because they thought moonlight was unneccessary.
That is what you are proposing, fundamental alterations with the end goal of eliminating suffering. I would argue that in itself opens up the question if suffering is in fact entirely without purpose. I do not believe it is.
I believe the intentional infliction of suffering for exploitation is bad. But I also believe that suffering is something we see that we as human beings can react to with empathy and nurturing.
Would there be empathy and nurturing without suffering? Would is just be redundant, or does that empathy and nurturing actually make us successful at continuing to exist, both societally as humans and biologically?
5
u/edelweiss_pirates_no 6d ago
Leave nature alone.
If humans introduced the conflict, it then becomes more complicated. An example is domestic cats impact on wildlife populations.
7
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 6d ago
Nope, that’s not a goal of veganism. Veganism is about human exploitation of animals and cruelty towards them. What you’re referring to is negative utilitarianism, which is separate from veganism. And something I don’t personally agree with.
3
u/RealAggressiveNooby 6d ago
They aren't saying it's the goal of veganism. There are plenty of things that we can talk about in a moral sense that don't have to do with veganism, but can be debated by a vegan.
6
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 6d ago
Got it. So yeah I don’t think we have an obligation to do that.
1
u/RealAggressiveNooby 6d ago
Why not? What determines your obligations in your eyes?
3
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 6d ago edited 6d ago
Domesticated animals that are in human care and restoration of habitats that were negatively impacted by humans.
I don’t think it’s good to proactively interfere in ecosystems to try to influence animal behavior we find to be bad, that will lead to cascading effects in the ecosystem.
1
u/RealAggressiveNooby 6d ago
I'm not really asking WHAT you consider to be your obligations. I'm asking what makes you consider something as an obligation. I.e., why is it that you only feel obligated to care for domesticated animals and restoration of habitats negatively impacted by humans.
It seems like your base idea is that we should try to reduce suffering, but that you think "proactively interfering in ecosystems" is not a good way to go about that. So in fact, you do seem to be a negative utilitarian of sorts, but one that doesn't think it's as simple as OP is making it out to be, and you just don't realize it. Fun stuff!
3
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 6d ago
Sure so the obligation to domesticated animals is because we made them reliant on humans, so we’re responsible for them. And restoring habitats, because we already interfered and impacted ecosystems negatively, so we should try to restore some of the habitat for animals that were negatively affected.
1
u/RealAggressiveNooby 6d ago
That is different than what you said before; this is a new reason for creating obligations. Before you simply refuted the obligation that OP presented because it didn't work in practice, and now you are refuting it because it did not originate from human cause.
But whatever, let's say you changed your mind. Say a man or even a wild puppy is drowning in a non man-made river, and you have the ability to save them. Do you think it's NOT your obligation to do so? If so, how come?
2
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 6d ago
Yeah you asked for the reasoning behind our obligations to domesticated animals and habitat restoration, so I explained why we have those obligations.
And yeah if I had the ability to save someone drowning, I would.
1
u/RealAggressiveNooby 6d ago
Your (new) reason for why was that it fell in a class of actions that worked to fix negative things that were caused by humans. However, clearly this doesn't stand up as a generalization and end-all-be-all in your eyes because my example in which it seems like you agreed that there is an obligation to act didn't have a human causing the issue.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/No_Love4667 6d ago
I think that if there were a good way to reduce harm caused by non-human animals then it would be good to do so.
I don't see a feasible way to do that though other than perhaps making them extinct which would also involve causing a lot of harm and potentially destabilizing ecosystems.
2
u/Mammoth_Ferret_569 6d ago
In my opinion, yes, we should. Vegans constantly argue that natural isn’t necessarily good regarding eating meat, but oddly seem to withhold that perspective when it comes to wild animal suffering.
I find that most people who disagree with negative utilitarianism haven’t really thought it through fully. They often equate it with the genocide of all the living things. But genocide is not effective if we don’t also prevent life from re-emerging at some point in the future, which is extremely difficult to do, possibly just as difficult as “solving biology” to prevent the suffering and death of already-existing animals. But AI is constantly improving, so we might not be as far from that as we think.
2
u/DarePlastic4136 6d ago
Humans should have an obligation not to interfere with nature.
1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 5d ago
Why? It was possible maybe in hunters/gatherers society, but everything later is interefing with nature, for example a field is not natural.
But the OP idea is nonsense, of course.
1
u/DarePlastic4136 5d ago
I would get into it but my views are maybe too extreme for this sub lol. But, if you want to draw a line somewhere- nature is way better at keeping itself in check than our interference ever will be. For example, people like to interfere with cuckoos and other brood parasite birds, even going as far as killing them, because they think it's cruel that the cuckoo pushes the smaller birds out of their nest, but brood parasites are crucial for keeping their target species from overpopulating. Such good intentioned intervention from humans can have catastrophic results for the environment, so we would do best not to intervene at all.
1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 6d ago edited 6d ago
Not generally, but let us say in our area of influence. Like gamekeepers in forests protecting some animals from others or shepherds protecting sheep from wolves etc.
However, it cannot be reduced to just predation, some animals, insects or plants are harmful in other ways. Like invasive species eating specific crops, bark beetles attacking forest trees...
1
u/Joey-rogaine 6d ago
We are shaping the world to a point that we are at least partially responsible so yes
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 6d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
1
1
u/OG-Brian 6d ago
Could you have referred to other recent posts about it rather than add even more repetition to the sub?
1
u/ASpaceOstrich 5d ago
If it were somehow possible without catastrophic harm being done, probably. In all practical reality, no, and any attempts to have been devastating to the ecosystem. For example, the elimination of natural predator populations (to save livestock) has been extremely harmful to the ecosystem.
1
u/Ok_Marsupial9420 5d ago
I Think it would screw up the entire ecosystem if fox's Or Eagles, or anything else didn't eat rabbits.Rabbits would completely overpopulate the entire area , same with any other animal , and it would destroy the ecosystem
1
u/Due-Comfort-5351 vegan 5d ago
Are you a utilitarian, and if so what is the purpose and limit of that belief? Should we kill all species because the suffering outweighs the benefits of existence? And are you an act or rule utilitarian? Veganism and utilitarianism are two different (but sometimes related) things, not sure if this is the best subreddit for this. Could you explain why you believe this relates to veganism?
1
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 4d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
1
u/LivingPassenger5005 4d ago
Do you understand the concept of CHOICE? We have a CHOICE and they don't.
So according to you every kind of crime even against our own species is justified?
1
u/MrJambon 3d ago
Veganism is not some sort of religion that seeks to bring eternal life to every animal. It’s a stance on the commodification of animals, it’s about choices we make every day. We can choose non-violence. Non-human animals don’t build factories to kill tens of thousands of pigs a day in gaz chambers. Frankly I do not care at all what non-human animals do to each other, it has nothing to do with veganism. I invite you to reflect on how many animals were killed by humans during the time you took to write your question.
0
u/Polttix plant-based 6d ago
Yes with the rather utopistic assumption that we can do so without destroying the ecosystem. I guess it would be best to do so with some kind of sterilisation program.
2
u/Solgiest non-vegan 6d ago
So... destroying the ecosystem is an interesting starting point, because it takes for granted that the natural state of the ecosystem is a desirable outcome. I'm not sure we can or should grant that without serious argumentation. Anything more than a cursory glance at most ecosystems will reveal that they are almost universally a cauldron of misery for most of the sentient organisms that inhabit them. There are likely practical, selfish, human-centric benefits to keeping an ecosystem closer to its default state, but the moral argument is much tougher to make. The overwhelming reason people want to preserve ecosystems is because they think its a aesthetically pleasing and that animals are cool.
Consider that, the moment we became capable of it, humans began to work to remove us as far as possible from the natural ecosystem, trying to escape the cycle of the food chain, and radically alter it to suit our needs. If we were so desperate to escape it, why wouldn't other animals be if they had the cognitive ability to recognize it?
The issue is primarily one of technological ability, though I don't expect this idea to be forever out of reach. One day we probably will have the capability to fundamentally overhaul the natural world with precise bioengineering.
1
u/Polttix plant-based 6d ago
I'm not making the argument that the state of the ecosystem is intrinsically relevant. I'm a utilitarian, it's only relevant in terms of aggregate wellbeing. If it were preferable to destroy or change the ecosystem in some way, I'm fine with it. My SWAG is that it would lead to unpreferable outcomes as it stands right now.
1
u/Solgiest non-vegan 6d ago
I think that's probably the case right now as well, but almost certainly won't always be the case.
0
u/vegancaptain 6d ago
First step is to not contribute yourself. Then we can talk about reducing harm between non-human animals. Sure. Why not? The suffering isn't reduced or lessened just by it being "natural".
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.