From the New York Times. (H/T Secondhand Smoke via ECM)
Excerpt:
Here, then, is where matters stand thus far. It would be good to prevent the vast suffering and countless violent deaths caused by predation. There is therefore one reason to think that it would be instrumentally good if predatory animal species were to become extinct and be replaced by new herbivorous species, provided that this could occur without ecological upheaval involving more harm than would be prevented by the end of predation. The claim that existing animal species are sacred or irreplaceable is subverted by the moral irrelevance of the criteria for individuating animal species. I am therefore inclined to embrace the heretical conclusion that we have reason to desire the extinction of all carnivorous species, and I await the usual fate of heretics when this article is opened to comment.
Here is his bio:
Jeff McMahan is professor of philosophy at Rutgers University and a visiting research collaborator at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University.
Ah yes. The Center for Human Values. That’s the same group that is headed up by famous ethicist Peter Singer, who advocates infanticide. One can only assume that this loon is an atheist and a secular humanist.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Acadamia: where psychopaths can be themselves–and get paid well for it.
LikeLike
Stop leaving comments while I’m chatting with you.
LikeLike
I’m doing it again! AHAHAHAHA! You can’t stop me!!
LikeLike
How can you send me stories and chat at the same time? It’s very strange.
Anyhoo, ready to convert to Christianity yet? You’d make a great Christian! Or have I already asked you that?
LikeLike
You guys are funny!
LikeLike
Lion capital punishment sounds a little cruel and unsual to me ? Maybe we could have Lion jails where they can get sensitivity training and get out for good behavior ? :)
LikeLike
Brilliant! :D
LikeLike
We could put them in Lion jails, but, in order to ensure they don’t reproduce, we could insist they wear condoms.
LikeLike
Once, as an exercise in logic, I followed the current arguments of the environmentalists to this conclusion: “We ought to exterminate human beings.” I, of course, thought that it was not only a ludicrous conclusion, but a conclusion that no environmentalist making their own arguments would come to. I found out I was wrong. Not only do they, but so do many others. Too many.
LikeLike
And the irony is: If you ask these same lefties: “Is the death penalty acceptable for murderers?”they will call it inhumane and impossible to rectify if wrongly convicted, etc.
LikeLike
I think the guy has written on the paradox and even immorality of war (specifically the Iraq war).
Ironies
LikeLike
It’s an extreme position, but a logical one if we reject moral relativism and demand that morality be objective, constant and universal. Fortunately, since I don’t demand those things, there is no contradiction in my rejecting the proposal. Moral relativism WIN!
LikeLike