Précis of *Wild Animal Ethics*

Abstract

This article argues for a deontological and interventionist approach to the problem of wild animal suffering, defending the claim that humans have a collective duty to research and provide large-scale humanitarian assistance to wild animals. It critiques the positive view of nature, arguing that wild animal lives are typically terrible due to the prevalence of the r-strategy, where most offspring die during infancy from painful causes. The article contends that duties of beneficence are not contingent upon special relationships and that, within certain constraints, there is considerable room for obligatory beneficence towards wild animals, including coercive interventions for incompetent animals and non-coercive interventions like disease vaccination. It discusses the issue of ecological damage, arguing against intentionally destroying habitats to prevent future net negative animals from being born and for taking a less risk-averse approach. The article explores the use of gene editing, particularly CRISPR, to assist wild animals, focusing on the potential of genetic painkillers to reduce suffering in r-strategist infants. It also discusses animal rights advocacy, emphasizing the importance of addressing wild animal suffering alongside traditional animal rights causes and the need to build support for familiar, less ambitious interventions before advocating for more radical ones. – AI-generated abstract.