Morally correct to help wild animals from non-human intervention?

**Kjertesvein** · January 12, 2010, 08:30 AM

Ever since I was born I had the feeling nature should take it's course if nature and only nature is involved. That is the moral thing to do.

I look on the animal channel and also other sensible channels: I see these "wild life rescue teams" or "people with a soft heart for animals", helping animals which suffer from other animals or nature itself. They observe it, but then the wierdest thing happends - They go to the wild animal and help it. Give it food, patch it up and sum it up by cuddling & bo-bo-talking to it like it's their own baby before either letting it go or worse, captivity.

Example A: You can't feed wild deer, because they get dependent on you.You on the other hand is not dependent on them, nor directly their nature, which will in the end turn out bad when you are not around.

Example B: On the other hand, you see this wild animal, normally a bird which has crashed on your window. Your human buildt window. Now I see no problem about helping that little fellow up, and throwing him up in the air, added with some piano music in the backround.(

)

So, do you help out suffering wild animals, related to non-human error?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you first say no, try to have a look at these spoilers and answer the same question again.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Personally I say...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

As a question nr 2, to expand the horizon of the wild life Vs. the size of our human intervention:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

~Wille

**Helm** · January 12, 2010, 08:33 AM

If I see a bird with a broken wing I'll stick in a box and drive it over to the RSPCA animal hospital. It's not a question of morals I just don't feel good about leaving something like that.

**Groundtotem** · January 12, 2010, 08:41 AM

I voted for it depends.

If an animal has been injured by humans or something made by humans then we should step in and help that animal. If an animal has been attacked by for an example a lion an managed to get away with injuries then we should let nature has it way as it has had it for millions of years.

**Kjertesvein** · January 12, 2010, 08:41 AM

@helm
So you don't care about nature as a whole? Surviving of the fittest? Jungle law?

Originally Posted by Groundtotem

I voted for it depends.

If an animal has been injured by humans or something made by humans then we should step in and help that animal. If an animal has been attacked by for an example a lion an managed to get away with injuries then we should let nature has it way as it has had it for millions of years.

Confused? What you are describing is a 'no', counting by the OP.

**Groundtotem** · January 12, 2010, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Sivilombudsmannen

So you don't care about nature as a whole? Surviving of the fittest? Jungle law?

Well of course we should help the nature but we should not forget that nature is nature, and thus animals die. But of course we should do everything we can to protect wild life and endangered species.

Edit:

After thinking on it a bit more i should have voted yes.

We should help injured animals when we can!

**Helm** · January 12, 2010, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Sivilombudsmannen

So you don't care about nature as a whole? Surviving of the fittest? Jungle law?

As long as it doesn't involve me directly. If I see something limping around in pain I'll go into altruism mode and try and rescue it, which is what people tend to do when they see beached dolphins or whatever.

**~~Arch-hereticK~~** · January 12, 2010, 08:58 AM

No matter how much we help now we'll never make up for what is being done to wildlife elsewhere, all we can do is our best.

**Tacitursa** · January 12, 2010, 09:10 AM

So you don't care about nature as a whole? Surviving of the fittest? Jungle law?

We have millions of animals locked up worldwide in bad unnatural conditions for the sole purpose of killing and eating them..

Thats survival of the fittest right there, We humans live by it. I think people are hypocrits when it comes to animals, at least non-vegan people. Maybe selfish is a better word than hypocrit.

I dont think many people help animals because they actually wanna help, I just think they do it to feel good at least thats how i see it for meat eaters like myself. I dont see how you could say help a chicken with a broken leg cause you feel bad for it then go home and eat a chicken curry for dinner.

If an animal doesnt make us feel better , taste good or entertain us in anyway do we actually give a

?

**Lord Rahl** · January 15, 2010, 02:29 AM

It depends and what it depends on is varied and ambiguous.

Overall, I'd say that it would do good for people to 'help' animals if they're hurt once and awhile, although that could lead to people getting hurt, infected, etc., but intervening on a injured animal, I think, is a good thing, as it will help the human 'get/give back to nature' in some way. I'm no tree hugger at all, but I think I appreciate nature enough to think that others need to.

Most people I know don't know anything about nature anyway. Their 'nature' is their pets" dogs, cats, parrots, turtles, etc. I've lived in Alaska where nature can literally be right in your backyard. And I don't mean 'nature' as in stray dogs. I mean bald eagles, brown/black bears, moose, foxes, etc. If you live in a place where nature is prevalent, then you get to appreciate it and understand it better. In Alaska people hit moose pretty regularly with their vehicles pretty regularly. When this happens the vehicle is usually totaled and often the moose is severely injured. But people up there appreciate nature enough to deal with it better than more populace/suburban/urban places. If a moose has been hit by a car and has legs broken, it will be shot, either by a civilian or a policeman. Let me give an example of how Alaskans respect nature.

My parents actually know the woman who took that video. She heard a terrible noise (the moose getting killed by the bear) and then saw the bear and moose in her driveway (and then got the camera). Now, she, or anyone else, didn't intervene because, first, you don't try to stop a brown bear (for those who don't understand why I'm calling it a brown bear instead of a grizzly, they're the same thing, but they are much bigger in Alaska because they live on a diet of salmon [and moose]), because that just isn't a good idea, but also because Alaskans appreciate and respect nature enough to let it do its own thing (most of the time). If this happened in suburbia somewhere, which it wouldn't obviously, I could see some idiots trying to scare the bear off and save the moose because they wouldn't appreciate and respect nature enough.

I guess my point is that most people don't actually experience real nature, so if they want to help out a bird or something then I don't have a problem with it. In suburbia or a city it hardly matters anyway. There are plenty of critters around to spare.

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · January 15, 2010, 04:41 AM

Yes, in rare occaisions it is morally correct to help wild animals from "non-human intervention". Take the Dartford Warbler, one of Britain's rarest birds;

This picture shows why these birds have recently required help from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (the United Kingdom's biggest political pressure group). They're insectivors. In 1962/63 Britain had an extremely severe winter, making it extremely difficult for them to find insects to eat, and the entire national population of these birds fell to 10 pairs. They are also extremely vulnerable to cold weather because they have a low volume to high surface area mass, meaning they loose heat extremely quickly, and have to find even more food to stay alive.

Thus the RSPCB has been providing meal worm to the Dartford Warbler. Their plight is not particularly unique; it's possible that the Blue Tit population will drop by about 80% this winter, but they have the numbers to quickly reestablish themselves, whereas the Dartford Warbler does not.

**Habelo** · January 15, 2010, 12:57 PM

It depends on what it is. Is it a boar, then kill it and eat it.

**conon394** · January 15, 2010, 01:12 PM

at least non-vegan people

Hypocrites as well how many thousands of animals die when fields all over the world are tiled, disk-ed, and or sprayed.... whats the impact of agriculture on the environment...less animal products how much more synthetic fiber will have to be produced at what cost, etc etc...

**Adrian** · January 16, 2010, 08:38 AM

We are nature we decide what is right and if I want to help an animal

nature humanity rules here.

**Tacitursa** · January 16, 2010, 09:32 AM

Hypocrites as well how many thousands of animals die when fields all over the world are tiled, disk-ed, and or sprayed.... whats the impact of agriculture on the environment...less animal products how much more synthetic fiber will have to be produced at what cost, etc etc...

Well thats a bit drastic what are vegans suppose to do? Not eat? I dont think too many animals die from agriculture at least not in england, most of our countryside is flat green fields and we have area's of natural beauty and green belts all across the country that are not allowed to be touched.

**conon394** · January 16, 2010, 10:17 AM

Well thats a bit drastic what are vegans suppose to do? Not eat? I dont think too many animals die from agriculture at least not in england, most of our countryside is flat green fields and we have area's of natural beauty and green belts all across the country that are not allowed to be touched.

No I just find all too often vegans and vegetarians pontificate without much though about agriculture. Anyway lots of burrowing mammals get killed all the time when farm fields are worked -even working a good sized compost pile I typically dig up both mice and mole burrows and thus accidentally doom lots of little mammals to death.