When I was a teenager I volunteered at a nature center, where I often took care of the animals. I spent a lot of time thinking about the morality of hawks. I loved the hawks and thought killing animals was wrong but if the hawks didn’t kill, they’d die (and their young would die, if they had nestlings). Clearly it wasn’t right to approve of the action of hawks just because I like hawks better than mice (their main food). What was right? I learned the term “amoral” – morals just didn’t apply to the issue.
Eventually I came to the conclusion that it was important for me to see the whole issue – suffering of prey, suffering of predator, ecosystem effects of alternatives. See it and not try to deny any part of it. See it, but not intervene. This issue did not have my name on it, and I didn’t have to pick it up, in fact shouldn’t pick it up.
I could intervene, of course, and sometimes I do. I rescued a bumblebee stuck in torn web just this summer! But that is just what I wanted to do and nothing is gained in the long run.
I also think it is important to do good (whatever good might be) and so I do rescue or euthanize injured animals on the road, I do give money to beggars, I do make charitable donations, I try to be polite and even kind, and I try to be of service to the extent compatible with my extremely unsocial personality (e.g. on iNaturalist). But I don’t think interfering in predator/prey interactions is appropriate. At least for me.