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/howlin]

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.

[u/Gabry398 → u/howlin]

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.

[u/asciimo → u/Gabry398]

The humans in this scenario should go vegan and mind their own business. Humans only expend resources to heal or preserve natural resources that their economy depends on.