ABSTRACT
In light of the extent of wild animal suffering (WAS), some philosophers, myself included, have adopted the view that we should cautiously assist wild animals on a large scale. Recently, our view has come under criticism. According to one objection, even cautious intervention is unjustified because fallibility is allegedly intractable. In contrast, a second objection states that we should abandon caution and intentionally destroy habitats in order to prevent wild animals from reproducing. In this chapter, I argue that intentional habitat destruction is wrong because negative duties are more stringent than positive duties. However, I also argue that the possible benefits of ecological damage, combined with the excusability of unintended, unforeseeable harm, suggest that fallibility should not paralyze us.
