Can scientific laws be discussed on philosophical grounds? A reply to naïve arguments on 'predators' proposed by bramble (2021)

Abstract

Can scientific laws be discussed on philosophical grounds? a reply to naïve arguments on 'predators' proposed by Bramble (2021). 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 grounds.