Can scientific laws be discussed on philosophical grounds? a reply to naïve arguments on ‘predators’ proposed by Bramble

  1. A. Cordero-Rivera
  2. R. Roucourt Cezário
  3. R. Guillermo-Ferreira
  4. V. Marques Lopez
  5. I. Sanmartín-Villar
Revista:
Animal Biodiversity and Conservation

ISSN: 1578-665X

Ano de publicación: 2021

Volume: 44

Número: 2

Páxinas: 205-211

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.32800/ABC.2021.44.0205 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Animal Biodiversity and Conservation

Resumo

A recent paper by Bramble (2021) argues that given that predators inflict pain and fear on their prey we have the moral right to act to minimize these effects. The author proposes two alternatives. The first is to transform predators by 'genetically modifying them so that their offspring gradually evolve into herbivores'. The second is simply 'painlessly killing predators', which is the title of Bramble's essay. We address the misconceptions that Bramble uses as central in his arguments and present scientific reasoning to discuss the ethical implications of disregarding scientific knowledge when addressing animal welfare and animal rights. We conclude that both Bramble's alternatives are nonsensical, not only from a scientific point of view, but also, and more importantly, from ethical ground

€ Ver financiamento

Información de financiamento

We acknowledge the useful suggestions made by two anonymous referees on a first draft of this paper. We also thank Darrell Ferriss for making public his extraordinary observation of a gomphid dragonfly (Hagenius brevistylus) preying on a hummingbird (fig. 1C). ACR was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science, including ERD funds (PGC2018–096656–B–I00). RRC, RGF and VML thank National Council for Scientific and Technological Development–CNPq (130346/2020–9, proc. 307836/2019–3 and 142299/2020–0).

Financiadores

Fonte de datos: Dialnet