Predation versus transplantation Is the animal rights ethic consistent? Stijn Bruers, IARC Esch,

Predation One predator needs more than one prey to survive Dead Dead

Transplantation More than one patient needs one victim to survive Dead

Predation versus transplantation The difference problem: what is the morally relevant difference between predation and transplantation? The prey problem: is there a morally relevant difference between human versus non-human prey (in terms of our duty to protect the prey)?

The speciesist answer Solves both problems in one stroke: humans are more important than animals. But the speciesist answer has another problem – Either it discriminates arbitrarily (if species or a relational preference is the criterion) – Or it excludes atypical humans such mentally handicapped,… (if a higher mental capacity is the criterion) The speciesist solution is based on a moral illusion (see other talk)

The moral illusion answer Bite the bullet: the difference between predation and transplantation is a moral illusion – Either we should allow transplantation (and let humans be killed by predators) – Or we should prevent predation everywhere we can Problem with this approach: rather strong violation of most people’s moral intuitions – Can we find a principle that points at intrinsic, morally relevant differences between predation and transplantation?

The difference problem, invalid solutions The argument from moral agency (Regan) – What if lions gain moral consciousness? – What if some humans need animal products? The group argument: lions belong to a group (species), patients in the hospital don’t – But which group? – The lonely lion counter-argument The illness argument: the patients are ill, the lions are not The existence argument: lions would not even be here if predation didn’t exist

The difference problem: valid solutions Basic assumption: if a process (e.g. predation) is not allowed, if we have a duty to stop it if we can, then we should want its complete disappearance (cfr. universalist imperative)

1st solution to the difference problem: uncertainty aversion Ellsberg paradox: which gamble do you prefer? Gamble 1Gamble 2

Uncertainty aversion Ellsberg and predation – World with one predator and two prey – Predator needs two prey in order to survive – Veil of ignorance: you can be any of the three individuals – Allowing predation: two prey will certainly die, 1/3 that you are the predator and win – Not allowing predation: predator will certainly die, and one or both prey might possibly die due to ecological overshoot

Uncertainty aversion Ellsberg and transplantation – Hospital with two patients and one visitor – Patients need two organs from visitor – Veil of ignorance: you can be any of the three individuals – Not allowing transplantation: two patients will certainly die, 1/3 that you are the visitor and win – Allowing transplantation: visitor will certainly die, and one or both patients might possibly die due to unknown problem

Uncertainty aversion Problem 1: what if one predator needs > 100 prey? -> Distorted gamble: probabilities to win: – Either 1/100 – Or between 0 and 99/100 Problem 2: preference depends on our subjective state of knowledge. What if ecological science improves? Look for principles independent from our subjective state of knowledge.

2nd solution to the difference problem: the 3-N-principle Carnism (Joy, 2001): people have a strong intuition that meat is necessary, normal and natural, and therefore allowed Can we exploit and refine this intuition to make AR ethics consistent? Necessary = a sufficiently strong vital need for an individual (e.g. food) or a group of individuals (e.g. procreation) Normal = everything that occurs often Natural = everything that is directly formed by evolution. Evolution is the aimless (blind) process of genetic mutation and natural selection

3-N-principle If (a) a sufficiently large group of sentient beings became by (b) an evolutionary process (c) dependant on the violations of rights of other sentient beings for their survival, they are allowed to violate those rights for that purpose.

3-N-principle If a behavior is normal, natural and necessary, it is allowed, even if it violates rights. Consuming animal products is not necessary for humans (Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics) -> not allowed -> veganism Organ transplantations are conscious inventions and hence not natural -> not allowed Lifeboat cannibalism is not normal -> not allowed Rape is not necessary -> not allowed Predation is normal, necessary and natural -> allowed Killing insects by accident by moving around is normal, natural and necessary -> allowed  Principle corresponds with moral intuitions

3-N-principle But case can be made stronger We have the moral intuition that helping others is good. But there also exists a natural property that we can give intrinsic value: well- being Does the same work for the 3-N-principle? Yes: we can give the natural property of biodiversity an intrinsic value

3-N and biodiversity Biodiversity = all different things generated by evolution If a process (behavior, property,…) is natural, it contributes to biodiversity by definition If a process is natural and normal, it contributes a lot to biodiversity If a process is natural, normal and necessary, biodiversity would drastically decrease if that process no longer existed  3-N is morally relevant if biodiversity has (intrinsic) value

The value of biodiversity Sentient beings have well-being as intrinsically valuable property Ecosystems have biodiversity as intrinsically valuable property Sentient beings tend to increase their well-being by need satisfaction (although trade-offs and incompatible strategies limit their growth of well- being) Ecosystems tend to increase their biodiversity by genetic variation (although natural selection limits the growth of biodiversity)

The difference problem and biodiversity If predation was universaly prohibited, biodiversity would get lost If transplantation was universaly prohibited, biodiversity would not decrease

Refining the basic right Basic right = right not to be used as merely means to someone’s ends

The prey problem, 1st solution Relationships, life expectancies, mental capacities and potentialities are morally relevant – Difference in moral status between persistent mentally handicapped orphans and other humans

The prey problem, 2nd solution Tolerated choice equality Burning house dilemma – your child or the dog? – Your child or a child with another skin color? Partiality is allowed if we tolerate similar levels of partiality of everyone else – Sacrificing other child to use his organs is too partial

Conclusion Predation-transplantation is not a moral illusion An animal rights ethics can be reconciled with predation if biodiversity is valuable (or if we have uncertainty aversion towards ecological processes) We should include a principle of tolerated choice equality