Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
We have a moral duty to intervene in nature to limit animal suffering.
We have a moral duty to intervene in nature to limit suffering of sentient beings.
The principle of predation is unfair.
According to the utilitarian morality we must preserve the happiness of the greatest number.
Human society has the capability of greatly reducing suffering of sentient beings. This causes responsibility to act on capability.
The Hedonistic Imperative outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life.
As a moral agent, the human has a duty towards all sentient beings.
Moral duties do not exist.
There is no such things as unnecessary suffering in nature. Saving a prey from being eaten induces suffering from hunger for its predator.
We do not understand nature enough to intervene. By meddling we risk making things much worse!
Animal suffering shouldn't be analysed from the point of view of human morality.
We must leave the nature make it's own way.
This may destabilize the ecosystem.
Nature is the survival of the fittest.
Humans are not capable of fairly and consistently applying such morals, which would make the attempt at it corrupt and immoral.
Suffering is a fundamental nervous response to live properly because it allows organisms that experience it to react to their environment and thus survive.
Should an Animal Shelter refuse food from a bullfighting company?
Is it Ok to incentivise moral behaviour?
Pure recreation is immoral when we could be helping to end suffering.