Is the Proposal to Help Wild Animals Arrogant?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume VII, p. 21 of the PDF edition · English translation

The proposal to help wild animals is sometimes accused of being arrogant because it involves interventions in the natural course of things¹⁹. It is commonly said that those who advocate helping wild animals are “playing God.” Does this accusation make sense?

Interventions in the natural course of things are widely accepted and practiced, as long as the goal is anthropocentric or environmentalist. For example, building homes, schools, hospitals, and libraries, agriculture, medicine, and interventions to keep ecosystems in the configurations valued by environmentalism are not accused of arrogance or of “playing God.” Yet they involve massive interventions in the natural course of things.

Indeed, helping animals who are victims of natural processes is widely accepted and practiced, as long as the goal is anthropocentric or environmentalist. One example is vaccinating wild animals in order to prevent the transmission of disease to humans, to animals who live alongside humans, or to animals whom humans intend to exploit directly. Another example is vaccinating wild animals to preserve endangered species.

This suggests that, despite what they say, those who make the accusation of arrogance are not opposed to intervening in nature or in natural processes. Rather, they are opposed to the goal of benefiting nonhuman animals.

Moreover, there is nothing in this objection that actually shows that it is wrong to intervene in the natural course of things. So even if there were someone who rejected any and every intervention in nature (whether to benefit nonhuman animals, to benefit humans, or to achieve environmentalist goals), this would not show that their position is correct.

At other times it is argued that the arrogance lies not in intervening in natural processes, but in the fact that, by choosing to help, we are deciding the fate of those animals. Obviously, however, by deciding not to help we are equally deciding their fate. The difference is that, if we choose not to help, the fate of these animals will be suffering and death.

A similar objection arises when it is said that those who advocate helping animals are arrogant because they are trying to make the world the way they want it to be. But, again, when someone takes a stand against helping, they too are trying to make the world the way they want it to be. In one case, the person wants the world to stay as it is, and in the other, the person wants to change it. But in both cases people are equally trying to make the world the way they want.