Animal Ethics in the Wild: Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature
Wild animals suffer too. Should we help them? If we acknowledge the importance of animal suffering, it becomes our responsibility to prevent or alleviate it whenever possible. It is disheartening to see how this crucial moral issue has been overlooked, persisting as the greatest taboo in animal rights advocacy.
MARC BEKOFF: Injuries and death occur among wild animals, and that’s part of what it is to be one of these amazing beings. Adélie penguins leaping out of the ocean after being ripped apart by leopard seals or killer whales, or individuals injuring themselves when running around, tripping, or colliding with rocks or cactuses…
I’ve long thought about the different sorts of responsibilities we have to wild animals, I learned a lot by reading the highly acclaimed book Animal Ethics in the Wild: Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature by philosopher Dr. Catia Faria, and I believe it should be required reading for field researchers and anyone who spends a lot of time outdoors watching other animals. Here’s what she had to say about her deeply thoughtful book…
MB Why did you write Animal Ethics in the Wild?
CF: I started writing “Animal Ethics in the Wild” because I recognized the importance of addressing the moral problem of wild animal suffering, which had been largely overlooked in the field. In a nutshell: Wild animals suffer too. Should we help them?… If we acknowledge the importance of animal suffering, it becomes our responsibility to prevent or alleviate it whenever possible. I find it perplexing that some individuals struggle to grasp this fundamental idea…
It is disheartening to see how this crucial moral issue has been overlooked in the animal ethics literature for so long, persisting as the “greatest taboo in animal rights advocacy” until recently. Considering the profound significance of the topic, its widespread neglect, and my own personal horror in the face of wild animal suffering, it felt imperative to delve into animal ethics in the wild…
MB: What are some of the topics you weave into your book and what are some of your major messages?
CF: The first part of the book delves into fundamental discussions of animal ethics, including the moral consideration of nonhuman animals, the significance of their well-being, and a critical examination of speciesism. These explorations serve as a foundation upon which I build a minimal case for intervening in nature to mitigate wild animal suffering.
Drawing directly from widely accepted moral beliefs and backed by relevant facts about the lives of wild animals, I argue that intervening in nature becomes an imperative when we acknowledge our reasons to help and fully recognize the moral worth of nonhuman animals. After all, most people believe that we should help others in need due to natural events. But what about starving, wounded and sick wild animals, shouldn’t we also help them? If nonhuman suffering matters, wild animal suffering matters too and we should do something about it whenever we can. This conclusion gains further support from the contention that suffering is likely pervasive in the lives of wild animals, which may come as an unexpected but significant revelation.
Various factors contribute to wild animal suffering, including the wasteful reproductive strategies adopted by the majority of wild animals and the multitude of natural threats to their health, physical well-being, and psychological integrity. The primary aim of such intervention is thus to alleviate the extensive suffering experienced by wild animals to the greatest extent possible. Their suffering matters, just as ours does, and it’s our responsibility to take action whenever we can. It’s a straightforward proposition, isn’t it?…
One concern is that intervention could backfire and have counterproductive consequences. But, of course, this ignores something crucial: that intervention should be performed only when the expected outcome is net positive for wild animals. By recognizing the need to alleviate suffering in the wild, we are compelled to carefully evaluate the consequences of intervention. Another concern regards how intervention might pose risks to other values that are deemed more important, such as ‘the natural’ Yet, and this is perhaps one of central messages of the book, if you think we should always “leave nature alone” and you genuinely care about the suffering of other animals, you simply can’t have it both ways.
Now, another common objection is that addressing wild animal suffering might be an insurmountable challenge or simply impossible to achieve. Wild animal suffering is not an insurmountable challenge, even if interventions to reduce it now are often infeasible. To label certain interventions as infeasible simply indicates that we currently lack the knowledge or means to achieve them. Feasibility should not be seen as something static, but rather as dynamic and conditional upon our efforts to try. From this, it follows that we ought to put ourselves in a position, both individually and collectively, to develop future safe and effective solutions to the plight of wild animals. This can be accomplished by fostering the development of welfare biology as a distinct field of research…
For instance, we have witnessed successful vaccination programs implemented for wild animals to combat diseases like rabies or tuberculosis for several decades. In national parks, additional food is occasionally provided to starving animals, ensuring their survival. These examples, among many others, illustrate the feasibility of interventions to alleviate wild animal suffering. Moreover, they imply that there is potential for numerous other interventions to be successfully implemented.
It is important to note though that the fundamental discussion does not solely revolve around the interventions that are already available. Rather, the focus lies in examining whether we have moral reasons to develop the means to increasingly make these interventions more feasible. The scale of the problem is clearly enormous and our current capacity for action is fairly limited. Much more work is needed on different fronts to address this crucial moral topic…
MB: Can you say something about when we shouldn’t interfere — maybe that’s something you write about?
CF: As discussed earlier, the scope of large-scale interventions aimed at reducing wild animal suffering is presently quite limited. Consequently, there are instances where interference may not be advisable due to our current lack of knowledge and ability to execute scientifically informed interventions that would reliably yield a net positive outcome… Therefore, it is crucial to exercise prudence and refrain implementation until we have a more comprehensive understanding of the potential risks and benefits associated with such interventions.
However, rather than viewing this as a justification for inaction, it should instead motivate us to actively position ourselves, such as through research endeavors, to discover the most effective and safe approaches for alleviating wild animal suffering. This calls for a proactive pursuit of knowledge, with the ultimate aim of developing optimal strategies to address the challenges faced by wild animals. This is precisely why I strongly advocate for an urgent moral shift, aiming to transform the value orientation of relevant research. By doing so, we can progressively create the conditions necessary to ensure that wild animals have the best possible lives. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEOS: