The most common objections (part 2)
This chapter continues with more objections to the proposal to help wild animals, and the answers.
Objections and answers
- "Natural suffering is neutral." What makes suffering bad is the suffering itself, wherever it comes from.
- "It's part of life." Disease is part of life too, and we still fight it.
- "We should respect animals' nature." Respecting someone's nature should serve their good, not leave them to suffer.
- "We're only responsible for what humans cause." With human victims, we help in natural disasters too.
- "Domesticated animals come first." Priority should go to whoever needs it most.
- "The best-adapted genes should win out." Being adapted means leaving more offspring, not having a good life.
- "We could make things worse." That calls for more research, not sitting back.
- "We can't help them all." Not being able to help everyone is no reason to help no one.
- "It's wrong to help, because humanity should..." Even if there were no duty to help, that wouldn't make helping wrong.
What this debate is for
Chapters 6, 7, and 8 gave a brief overview of the debate. In the full version, Volume VII discusses each objection in detail.
In short
- Suffering is bad even when it's natural.
- Priority should go to whoever needs it most.
- Practical difficulties call for research, not giving up.