Does Respecting the Nature of Wild Animals Require Leaving Them to Fend for Themselves?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume VII, p. 43 of the PDF edition · English translation

There is a position that holds that each individual should be treated according to what fulfills its nature, and that this nature is determined by the territory to which each individual belongs³¹. According to this position, the nature of members of the domestic territory is fulfilled by a long life free from suffering, and that of members of the wild territory is fulfilled if they are left to fend for themselves in a hostile environment. This view has been used as an objection to the proposal to help wild animals who live in the wild and are victims of natural processes.

According to this view, what we should do depends on the territory to which each individual belongs (and not on where it happens to be). For example, if a human or a dog gets lost in a forest and is starving to death, this view advocates helping them and then returning them to the domestic territory. On the other hand, if a wild animal is having a positive life in the domestic territory, this position will advocate returning it to the wild territory, even if this makes it have a life full of suffering and a premature death.

One possible criticism of this view consists in pointing out that it chooses in a biased way what counts as the nature of the beings of each territory³². For example, it could be said that our nature, vulnerable to disease, is fulfilled when we do not treat ourselves with remedies of our own making. It could also be said that the nature of wild animals, like that of humans and domesticated animals, is also sentient, and is fulfilled when it is free from suffering. In short, the position in question is completely biased in favor of members of the domestic territory and against members of the wild territory.

It seems no coincidence that the proponents of the view in question all belong to the domestic territory: this view would never be accepted if we did not know which territory we belonged to. If so, then it does not pass the impartiality test, and is therefore unjust.

There is an additional reason to reject this view. When we hear about “fulfilling the nature of each being,” we tend to think of something that benefits the beings in question.

But, as we have seen, what the view we are discussing advocates is fulfilling the nature of wild animals by leaving them to fend for themselves, even if this results in their suffering enormously and dying. Thus, another possible criticism of this view consists in pointing out that it is based on the idea that the right action should be determined entirely independently of what harms or benefits those affected by our decisions. So if how we positively or negatively affect those affected by our decisions is what matters, we must reject the idea that the right thing is to fulfill the nature of each being if doing so will harm them.

In short, we must ask the following: why should we respect someone's nature? If the answer is “because doing so would benefit them,” then it is false that respecting the nature of wild animals requires leaving them to fend for themselves, since this would probably harm them. If, on the other hand, the answer is “just because, even when it would harm them,” then no reason at all is being given to explain why respecting someone's nature would be more important than avoiding harming them.