The idea being debated
Some people say every animal should be treated according to its "nature," and that this nature depends on the territory it belongs to:
- domesticated animals belong to human territory, so we should take care of them;
- wild animals belong to nature, so we should leave them on their own.
A biased choice
The author shows that this view conveniently picks what counts as each animal's "nature." Why would a wild animal's nature be "to starve and die of disease without help"?
He makes an observation: the people who defend this view belong to the "domestic territory," meaning they get care, medicine, and protection. This view probably would never be accepted by someone who didn't know which territory they'd be born into.
Why respect someone's nature?
Normally, we respect someone's nature because it's good for them. For example, respecting that a bird needs to fly.
But this view says we should "respect the nature" of wild animals by letting them suffer and die. That flips the reason around: respecting someone's nature should serve their good, not work against it.
In short
- This view sorts animals by territory and only takes care of domesticated ones.
- It picks what counts as "nature" in a biased way.
- Respecting someone's nature should be for their good.