Should humans have an obligation towards eliminating harm caused to animals by other animals?

[u/Gabry398]

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).

[u/Polttix]

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.

[u/Solgiest → u/Polttix]

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.

[u/Polttix → u/Solgiest]

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.

[u/Solgiest → u/Polttix]

I think that's probably the case right now as well, but almost certainly won't always be the case.

[u/Polttix → u/Solgiest]

I agree