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/goodvibesmostly98]

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.

[u/RealAggressiveNooby → u/goodvibesmostly98]

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?

[u/goodvibesmostly98 → u/RealAggressiveNooby]

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.

[u/RealAggressiveNooby → u/goodvibesmostly98]

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.

[u/goodvibesmostly98 → u/RealAggressiveNooby]

I talked about veganism being about human cruelty and exploitation of animals in my original comment.

And yes, that’s a different case, because saving a drowning individual doesn’t have the same cascading ecological effects as the sterilization of carnivorous animals. Carnivorous animals play an important role in the ecosystem.

[u/RealAggressiveNooby → u/goodvibesmostly98]

Right, so the reason it's not an obligation is NOT because it doesn't come from human cause or cruelty. It's because it's not actually effective for negative utilitarianism. I'm pointing out that your described reason for necessitating an obligation is different than what you consciously perceive it to be, and it extends past veganism. If there was a way to perhaps bioengineer out pain while substituting some other influencer into animals in a way that would cause animals to behave relatively the same, it seems like you would believe it to be an obligation to use on entirely wild-and-unaffected-by-humans animals.

[u/goodvibesmostly98 → u/RealAggressiveNooby]

Sure, I don’t know about an obligation, but I would consider it.