The objection
"We're only morally responsible for the harms humans cause. What nature does isn't our problem."
Three criticisms
1. Not required doesn't mean wrong. Even if we had no obligation to help, that wouldn't show that helping is wrong. It could be allowed, or even admirable.
2. Many natural harms are connected to human actions. Many human practices create the conditions for natural processes to harm animals. For example, creating or expanding natural areas leads to the birth of many animals who will suffer.
3. Why would we only be responsible for what humans do? The author gives an example. Imagine two situations happening at the same time, with human victims: a fire someone started and a flood caused by rain. Nobody would say we only have a duty to help the fire victims.
Impartiality
The principle of impartiality helps here too. If we didn't know whether we'd be victims of a human-caused harm or a natural one, we'd want help in both cases.
In short
- Even without an obligation, helping wouldn't be wrong.
- Many human actions contribute to natural harms.
- With human victims, we help in natural disasters too.