If all suffering counts, whatever its cause, then wild nature is a slaughter we ought to stop: the criterion goes too far.

Objects to

Pathocentrism holds that suffering is bad in itself, for whoever feels it: what counts is the pain, not who causes it.
Yet nature is full of suffering that no one causes: the rabbit eaten alive, the gazelle under the lioness, the billions of young that die of hunger or parasites. "Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature's every day performances," wrote .
If comparable suffering calls for comparable consideration, it seems we ought to intervene: protect the prey, feed the starving, perhaps do away with predators. Many find this conclusion absurd or dangerous.

Therefore So either pathocentrism accepts an extravagant conclusion, or suffering alone does not ground our duties: we must take into account who causes it, or the balance of living systems.

Possible resolutions of the objection

Your choice is recorded in your profile, like a questionnaire answer.