Abstract

Many philosophers and Effective Altruist researchers have argued that the overall welfare of wild fish is negative. Since there are more fish than any other kind of wild vertebrate on earth (even when taken together), the view that suffering is predominate among wild fish is a key part of their larger suggestion that the overall welfare of wild vertebrates is negative, a view I’ll call ‘wildlife pessimism.’ Correspondingly, undermining the wildlife pessimist’s view might largely be accomplished simply by taking a closer look at their arguments concerning fish. Focusing on fish alone will allow for a greater depth of empirical analysis than has hitherto been possible in the wildlife welfare debate, which usually features attempts to discuss all wild animals at once. As I will show, wildlife optimism is at least as likely as wildlife pessimism. That is, it seems just as plausible that wild fish have a welfare level that is neutral or positive overall.