The most common objections (part 1)
The proposal to help wild animals faces many objections. This chapter sums up some of them and the answers.
Objections and answers
- "It's not an ethical issue, because nobody is to blame." Saying we shouldn't help is already an ethical position. And nobody has to be to blame for suffering to deserve help.
- "Wild animals are doing fine." Actually, most are born and die young, suffering.
- "It's arrogant to intervene in nature." We already intervene a lot, for human and environmental reasons. The accusation only comes up when the goal is to help the animals.
- "The less human influence, the better." Untouched nature isn't necessarily better for animals.
- "It violates their freedom." An animal trapped by hunger or disease isn't free; helping it increases its freedom.
- "It will create dependence." Most kinds of help don't take away the ability to survive.
- "It's paternalism." Helping a starving animal doesn't go against its wishes.
- "Suffering is useful." Most of the suffering in nature does nothing for those who suffer.
In short
- Helping wild animals is indeed an ethical issue.
- Many objections are based on false ideas about life in the wild.
- Others use standards we would never accept for humans.