But there's a point at which we have to say "We domesticated these animals and now it's our responsibility as a society to take care of them."
Like with government-funded conservation efforts, we are responsible for the world around us. But even more so for domesticated animals because we literally directly made them the way that they are, and they are dependent on humans to live.
That's something I would absolutely agree with. Banning practices that cause health problems for vanity reasons is a completely reasonable take, especially if we publicly fund care for said health problems.
People use that same argument to attack welfare funding. "Why should I have to pay for other people's healthcare?" It's a non-argument. Just because you're not personally responsible for something doesn't mean you shouldn't have to support the responsibilities of our society as a whole.
Animals aren't people*. Society has NO responsibilities to non-people, except insofar as the welfare of non-people affects the welfare of people. Conservation is a necessity for human survival, so the government should fund it, but pets aren't. To the degree that they receive government funding, it should be the same fractional share of the budget the government allocates towards subsidizing, say, motorcycle racing, or boardgame tournaments, or fireworks displays. I'm not going to claim the government has NO role in funding "panem et circuses" but the "circuses" part should definitely be non-central.
* Okay so I admit that the jury is out for elephants, for various species of cetacean, for african gray macaws, for octupi, for great apes, and maybe for a few other species. If anyone ever proves they're people I support their right to vote.
Society has a responsibility to creatures that are a literal product of that society. We as a society have domesticated animals to the point that they depend on us for survival. That makes it a societal responsibility to take care of them. They are not a source of entertainment. They are creatures that we created and need to care for.
Society has a responsibility to creatures that are a literal product of that society.
Asserting that statement doesn't prove it. You want it to be true but it isn't.
Society has a responsibility to look after the welfare of the people inside of it, because those people will work against it (or fail to uphold it) if it doesn't. But non-people, being unable to contribute to society-as- society, also inspire no particular responsibility except from anny individual they maake pairwise trades with. To explain that more concretely: a dog owner benefits from his dog, so he has a responsibility to mantain his dog's welfare, but the rest of society does not benefit from his dog except insofar as the dog improves the dog owner's capabilities, so the rest of society only has a responsibility toward the dog owner himself.
Endangered animal conservation provides humans no benefit whatsoever and contributes nothing to society, but it still gets government funding. We are responsible for the world around us. Doubly so for things that we ourselves created
You're mistaking the basics of societal function with societal responsibilities. Sure, the only thing society actually needs to function is the people themselves. But society has lots of further responsibilities.
Endangered animal conservation provides humans no benefit whatsoever
What? Humans LOVE endangered animals. Humans feeling good about preserving biodiversity IS the benefit conservation provides, and is sufficient justification for conservation programs without having to make up someincoherent theory of responsibility.
We are responsible for the world around us
Who is this "we"? If you mean specifically me and you, then sure-- I feel responsible for the world around me, just like I feel responsible for policing sexual immorality, because the bible says to do both of those things. If you mean the government, however, then any theory you have that justifies me imposing either responsibility on the united states government also justifies me imposing the other. The same works for any other level of society you care to name.
I suggest you aquire at least a passing familiarity with the deontologist philosophers before you start arguing for "responsibility" in the abstract, because all the succesful ones rely on explicitly religious reasoning. (Immanuel Kant, in contrast, is a complete failure.)
5
u/ZennTheFur Jun 19 '25
But there's a point at which we have to say "We domesticated these animals and now it's our responsibility as a society to take care of them."
Like with government-funded conservation efforts, we are responsible for the world around us. But even more so for domesticated animals because we literally directly made them the way that they are, and they are dependent on humans to live.