Should We Try to Alleviate the Suffering of Wild Animals?

'Animal Ethics in the Wild' by Catia Faria.

Source: Cambridge University Press, with permission.

As a long-time field researcher, I've seen my share of pain, suffering, and death in various wild animals stemming from injuries incurred when running through wild environs, various sorts of altercations, and becoming a meal. I've always been plagued by trying to figure out if I or my field assistants should do anything when there was no reason to think that we had anything to do with what was happening to these unfortunate individuals. However, this isn't always the case, and humans can intentionally or unintentionally harm wild animals, and researchers themselves can have strongly negative effects on the physical and emotional lives of the animals they're studying.

The sad fact is that injuries and death naturally occur among wild animals, and that's part of what it is to be one of these amazing beings. We never did intervene in their lives because their injuries occurred naturally as they did the things they needed to do. Needless to say, we all hated to see the suffering of various prey animals hunted by wild coyotes, animals who were severely beaten up by others, 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. We felt that once we intervened, we became part of their lives, and there was no way we could always be there to help all individuals who needed assistance.

Source: David Selbert/Pexels

Because 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.

Marc Bekoff: Why did you write Animal Ethics in the Wild?

Catia Faria: I started writing Animal Ethics in the Wild because I recognized the importance of addressing the moral problem of wild animal suffering, which has been largely overlooked. In a nutshell: Wild animals suffer too. Should we help them?^1,2

MB: 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 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? As mentioned earlier, there is a significant number of people who struggle to accept this fundamental proposition. Therefore, a substantial portion of the book is dedicated to addressing various objections that have been raised or could potentially be raised against 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," and this is perhaps one of the 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.

Ethics and Morality Essential Reads

Can Bad People Make Beautiful Art?

Can Utilitarianism Replace Ethics?

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.

Welfare biology is a systematic discipline that revolves around the study of sentient organisms and their well-being. Its primary objective is to understand the factors and relations that affect the welfare of these organisms, focusing on strategies that can contribute to their overall improvement. Moreover, there are already feasible, low-impact interventions available that can make a difference. 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.³

Animal Ethics in the Wild aims to contribute to a necessary moral shift. While there is much work to be done, it is my hope that through collective efforts, we can make progress and pave the way for a future where the welfare of wild animals is given the attention and care it truly deserves. This calls for a proactive pursuit of knowledge, with the ultimate aim of developing optimal strategies to address the challenges faced by wild animals.