Wild animal suffering

Wild animal suffering (WAS) is the suffering of animals due to natural processes, although the term could also be used for “unnatural” instances of wild animal suffering, such as when wild animals suffer due to human activity. Wild animal suffering has historically been discussed in the context of theodicies as an example of the large amount of evil in the world. In this context, it is also an example of evil that humans are not responsible for causing and that is inflicted on animals which are not usually considered able to be morally responsible or able to deserve punishment. More recently, a number of academics have considered the issue from a secular stand point as a general moral problem that we might be able to take action towards preventing., It is also now starting to gain the interest of animal protection activists .

The moral basis for intervention can be rights based or welfare based. In terms of rights, if animals have positive rights it might be required to intervene in nature to help them. In terms of welfare, there are animals in the wild that could have their welfare improved. Due to the large numbers of animals that live in the wild, that vast majority of suffering occurs there. Advocates of intervention in nature argue that not doing so is inconsistent with most moral theories. Some proposed interventions are refraining from reintroducing predators to areas and vaccinating wild animals.

Notable academics on wild animal suffering

John Stuart Mill

In "On Nature",John Stuart Mill, a British utilitarian philosopher, argued that nature is not moral:

In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another, are nature's every day performances. [..] The phrases which ascribe perfection to the course of nature can only be considered as the exaggerations of poetic or devotional feeling, not intended to stand the test of a sober examination. No one, either religious or irreligious, believes that the hurtful agencies of nature, considered as a whole, promote good purposes, in any other way than by inciting human rational creatures to rise up and struggle against them.

Yew-Kwang Ng

Economist Yew-Kwang Ng published a paper in 1995 entitled "Towards welfare biology: Evolutionary economics of animal consciousness and suffering" . In his paper Ng discusses which animals may be able to suffer, how population dynamics and r-selection cause vast amounts of suffering, and how the situation of wild animals may be improved.

Oscar Horta

Oscar Horta, a professor of moral philosophy at University of Santiago de Compostela, has written several papers on the subject of wild animal suffering. He also often presents lectures on the subject of wild animal suffering.

Jeff McMahan

In 2010 The New York Times published an article by Jeff McMahan, entitled "The Meat Eaters" in which he argues that phasing out predation would be a moral thing to do.

Tyler Cowen

The economist, Tyler Cowen, argues in his paper, "Policing Nature," that the idea of intervening in the wild to protect animals has been neglected and should be on the agenda. He argues that there are ways that we can protect animals in the wild at no cost to ourselves, such as by not reintroducing predators to areas, and that most moral theories are probably committed to protecting animals in these cases.

Richard Dawkins

In "God's Utility Function," Richard Dawkins argues that Darwinian nature has no interest in the wellbeing of organisms and that there is much suffering in the natural world.

Holmes Rolston III

Holmes Rolston argues that only unnatural animal suffering is a morally bad thing and that humans do not have a duty to intervene in natural cases. He celebrates carnivores in nature because of the significant ecological role it plays. His position is a relatively common one in environmental ethics.

See Also

• The Problem of Evil
• Appeal to nature
• The Problem of Pain
• God's utility function