Is the Proposal to Help Wild Animals Anthropocentric?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume VII, p. 23 of the PDF edition · English translation

There is an objection to the proposal to help wild animals that accuses it of imposing anthropocentric values on animals (or at least of humanizing them, by assuming that they value things only humans value)²⁰.

A simple response to this objection is to point out that the aim of the proposal to help is to prevent occurrences that would in fact harm animals, such as suffering and premature deaths. It is not only humans who have an interest in avoiding suffering and in enjoying positive lives: these things are in the interest of any sentient being.

Nonhuman animals have no interest in having their suffering and premature deaths maximized so that nature can take its course. Only some humans value that (usually only when they themselves are not the victims, it should be said). Therefore, it is holding that “the right thing is to let nature take its course, even when this results in suffering or death for animals” that would amount to imposing anthropocentric values on animals (or at least humanizing them).

It could be objected that what is meant by the claim that the proposal to help animals is anthropocentric is that it implies that humans decide what will happen to animals in natural ecosystems. However, the appropriate word here would then be anthropogenic (in the sense of a practice carried out by humans), not anthropocentric (since the proposal in question aims to benefit nonhuman animals). Moreover, when our decision has the power to change a situation, we decide what will happen in it, whether we decide to change it or decide to leave it as it is. So those who are against helping wild animals are equally deciding what will happen to animals in natural ecosystems.