If predation is necessary within various ecosystems and predators have no regard for the well-being of their prey, is it not ethical for humans to replace the role of predators to mitigate suffering?
This question is a great example of the existential crisis of our species. Where do we fit in?
As predators, it is impossible for us to be wholly concerned for the well-being of our prey. Allowing a creature to live out its life without an untimely or unwanted death would be part of preserving the well-being of that creature, so the very act of predation is a violation of well-being. Perhaps scavenging would get us around this problem, but even then we would still have to wish for the death of our meal.
The aim of your question, however, is not the complete removal of prey’s suffering, but just the reduction of it. In that case, we would just have to accept that all prey is going to have at least one bad day. Now, if humans were to replace all other predators in an attempt to mitigate such suffering, the only way we would be able to separate ourselves from the predators we replaced would be to express regard for the well-being of their (former) prey. This could be done by removing prey from the ecosystem and healing them when they are sick or injured, making sure that they have the food they need and that no harm befalls them – that is, until we have to exchange the role of steward for the role of predator. Though this model may seem to mitigate some suffering, there are some deep and concerning consequences. It doesn’t take much for the motivation here to slip from protection to exploitation of animals. Stewardship and ownership are easily and often confused.
Suppose that we opted to avoid this slippery slope by leaving prey within its natural ecosystem and inserting ourselves into the ecosystem instead. In this case, we would have to block the natural predators from preying on the animals concerned. Blocking this predation disrupts the ecosystem in a way that causes harm not only to the predators within the ecosystem (by denying them food), but also to the prey. Removal of predators often leads to a population explosion of the prey, which itself often leads to starvation and spread of disease within the prey community. (This is what happened to the mule deer of the Kaibab plateau.) Either way you slice it, it seems as though human intervention does not actually mitigate suffering, but merely displaces it.
What do you think? Should we replace predators to mitigate suffering? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Image: (credit)
I received a BA in philosophy from the University of Texas at El Paso in 2008. After that, I spent roughly a decade traveling Europe and North America as a touring musician. Now I am working on a master’s in philosophy and philology at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden with the goal of teaching at the university level. Some specific areas of interest include medieval grammar and free will. Michel Foucault’s approach to the history of philosophy has been a huge influence on me, and his work on notions of the self and power structures bring history to the present.