This is in interesting article about the dilemmas that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association faces concerning whether and when to help marine animals in distress.

Dilemmas like this are sometimes used as a reductio ad absurdum of animal rights. For instance, people will sometimes ask, if we have an obligation not to wantonly kill animals or to inflict unnecessary suffering on them, then don’t we have an obligation to, say, prevent the wolf from eating the rabbit?

There are several responses that can and have been made to this, including pointing out that predators are acting under the pressure of necessity, whereas humans are more often acting under the pressure of taste. Plus, it seems likely that a universal policy of rescuing prey from predator would have disastrous consequences, while nothing of the sort seems likely to result from humans cutting back on meat or forgoing it altogether. Clearly the proponent of animal rights/liberation isn’t committed to a universal policy of rescuing animals from natural danger.

However, I do think that philosopher David DeGrazia, who’s quoted in the article, has a point:

“We should regard them to having the same moral entitlements as we have,” DeGrazia said. “Even if they’re not human, we’re talking about individuals who matter a great deal, who are in distress.”

There are certainly times, I think, when we might regard it as our duty to rescue animals in the wild, even from “natural” disasters. For instance, suppose you saw a fawn about to be consumed by a forest fire and could rescue it without any significant risk to yourself. Wouldn’t it be wrong not to do so?

What seems clear is that this is something that could only be decided on a case-by-case basis, weighing the likely consequences of intervening vs. not intervening. But I don’t think a simple policy of “letting nature take its course” is always the right one, anymore than it is when it comes to human beings.