Download Predation versus transplantation

Predation versus transplantation
Is the animal rights ethic consistent?
Stijn Bruers, IARC Esch, 15-09-12
Predation
One predator needs more than one prey to survive
Transplantation
More than one patient needs one victim to survive
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 1
Gamble 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: wellbeing
• 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 wellbeing)
• 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