Perspective Piece
Should we Painlessly Kill Predators?
Some thoughts about a disturbing question
Should humans kill all the predators on this earth to end the never-ending suffering of their prey? I admit, when I first thought about this question a few weeks ago, I shuddered. For me, this is a theoretical animal-philosophical question that shakes the foundations of humanity itself.
Ben Bramble, lecturer in philosophy at the “Australian National University”, pursues this question in his article “Painlessly Killing Predators”, recently published in the “Journal of Applied Philosophy”.¹
Others felt the same as I did. For example, there already is a very good response on Medium that deals with the question:
Jared Dyer: No, We Should Not Painlessly Kill Predators, on: medium.com (16 October 2020). Jared’s opinion is already apparent from his story’s title. His final conclusion is:
“While well-intentioned, the call to kill predators is one which should be answered with a firm and definitive, no.“
In his text, Jared explains his answer to the question in an excellent way. Nevertheless I would like to emphasize a few more aspects of Bramble’s statement.
But first, to be clear from the start: I totally agree, humans should NOT painlessly kill predators.
Since in philosophy there is freedom of expression, (almost) all opinions are allowed and open to discussion. Despite the theoretical nature of the discourse, the content of the article kept me very busy. So I think it is worth reading. It is also worth writing a few words about it, from a more philosophical point of view.
Why should we kill all predators?
For Bramble, living and dying in nature is one single “bloodbath of suffering” (p. 4). His conclusion therefore is (p. 5):
“PKP [painlessly killing predators] could be justifiable given its massive benefits to prey. While it has costs for predators, its benefits to prey far outweigh these. Not only is a painless death less bad for an animal than years of anxiety and a nightmarish death in the jaws of a predator, but for every predator killed, many prey would be saved”.
The author prefers the killing of predators to their re-education as herbivorous predators (“herbivorise predators”) for the following reason, among others (p. 4):
“While PKP [painlessly killing predators] would harm predators by shortening their lives, HP [“herbivorise predators”] would deprive them of many valuable pleasures, damage their relationships with their offspring, and possibly induce depression”.
The disappearance of predators would hardly be a disadvantage for humans and their culture. After all, the dinosaurs are gone as well, and dragons, for example, never existed at all (p. 4):
“Dinosaurs no longer exist, but we still benefit from our records of them. Dragons never existed, but it doesn’t follow that they cannot figure in our stories. Do we really need there to be ferocious beasts in order for us to dream up and tell stories to each other about them?”
The argumentation
All in all, therefore, that’s an utilitarian argumentation, elaborated in detail and carried through to the extreme. An action (the killing of predators) is judged by weighing the well-being of the affected group against the negative effects. As the affected group I define animals (predators and prey) together with humanity. Obviously the conclusion is: The well-being of prey animals is more important than that of predatory living animals, while humans could adapt to the new situation and could get along with it.
Having this in mind, the main question I ask myself is: Are animals equal to humans in this intellectual game? After all, for Bramble, the “rescue” of all prey animals on this earth becomes a desirable goal.
But how can man then presume to decide on the death of all the world’s predators? Doesn’t he kill his own kind then?
Or is man, as a cultural being, seen above the animals? This might legitimize him to intervene in nature in such a way. Then it is not understandable why one could not just as well continue — more or less arbitrarily — to kill prey animals (e.g. to eat them).
Which predators are meant?
Beyond all that: Aren’t almost all predators also prey at the same time? The only exceptions are those species that are at the top of the food chain in their respective environment. This is, at least in modern times, almost exclusively man himself …
Where do you even start the bodycount? The concept of “eat and be eaten” extends to the level of microorganisms and beyond. “Predators” are not just tigers, lions or wolves …
One might ignore that concept. On an ontological level (ontology is the philosophical study of being, meaning existence or reality for example), the author represents the concept of ontological veganism. In this worldview veganism (meaning not harming animals by not using their bodies or their products) is the only ethically acceptable way to live:
“I want to end by asking you to consider how predators themselves might feel about their lives were they somehow to come to understand the true nature of the harms they inflict on prey. Many of these predators, I suspect, would feel deeply sad, or even horrified, at what they are involved in — indeed, at what they are.” (p. 7)
My own conclusion
Though just an intellectual game, the idea of killing all predators is most disturbing. Just as humans, animals in general should have the right to physical integrity. The human made division of the animal world into predators and prey itself is arbitrarily, as well as the distinction between humans and animals in the first place.
Applied philosophy can lead to ethically disturbing results that (hopefully!) only seem plausible to a very small fraction of the species Homo sapiens, the biggest and most dangerous predators of them all.
About the author
I’m an archaeologist from Germany. On medium purely private. Love asking questions, especially about myself. Trying to stay curious and open-minded.
