Rabbits, stoats and the predator problem: Why a strong animal rights position need not call for human intervention to protect prey from predators

Animal rights positions face the ‘predator problem’: the suggestion that if the rights of nonhuman animals are to be protected, then we are obliged to interfere in natural ecosystems to protect prey from predators. Generally, rather than embracing this conclusion, animal ethicists have rejected it, basing this objection on a number of different arguments. This paper considers but challenges three such arguments, before defending a fourth possibility. Rejected are Peter Singer’s suggestion that interference will lead to more harm than good, Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s suggestion that respect for nonhuman sovereignty necessitates non-interference in normal circumstances, and Alasdair Cochrane’s solution based on the claim that predators cannot survive without killing prey. The possibility defended builds upon Tom Regan’s suggestion that predators, as moral patients but not moral agents, cannot violate the rights of their prey, and so the rights of the prey, while they do exist, do not call for intervention. This idea is developed by a consideration of how moral agents can be more or less responsible for a given event, and defended against criticisms offered by thinkers including Alasdair Cochrane and Dale Jamieson.

Partial Cooperation in Location Choice: Salop’s Model with Three Firms

We consider how three firms compete in a Salop location model and how cooperation in location choice by two of these firms affects the outcomes. We con- sider the classical case of linear transportation costs as a two-stage game in which the firms select first a location on a unit circle along which consumers are dispersed evenly, followed by the competitive selection of a price. Standard analysis restricts itself to purely competitive selection of location; instead, we focus on the situation in which two firms collectively decide about location, but price their products competitively after the location choice has been effectuated. We show that such partial coordination of location is beneficial to all firms, since it reduces the number of equilibria significantly and, thereby, the resulting coordination problem. Subsequently, we show that the case of quadratic transportation costs changes the main conclusions only marginally.