The accusation
"Helping wild animals is paternalism."
Helping usually isn't against their wishes
By its very definition, helping wild animals usually isn't paternalistic. A hungry animal wants to eat. A sick animal doesn't want to be sick. The help goes along with what it wants, not against it.
Is paternalism always wrong?
Besides, we can question the idea that paternalism is always unjustified.
Think of a kid who wants to run across the street without looking. Grabbing their hand goes against what they want, but it's the right thing to do. Why? Because the kid doesn't have the information needed to know how that wish will affect their well-being.
"Shouldn't someone's wishes count more?"
Someone might say: "Sometimes getting what you wish for matters more than good and bad experiences." For example, someone who dies without getting their last wish. The author answers that examples like this show that some paternalism is wrong, not that all paternalism is wrong.
What about autonomy?
People also say: "The more autonomy someone has, the more wrong it is to decide for them." That may be true for human adults, but most animals don't have that kind of complex autonomy over decisions that affect their whole future.
In short
- Helping hungry or sick animals doesn't go against their wishes.
- Paternalism can be justified when information is missing, as with kids.
- Some paternalism is wrong, but that doesn't make all of it wrong.