The historical debt argument
Some people say: "We have a historical debt to domesticated animals, because we're the ones who domesticated and exploited them. We don't have that debt to wild animals. So domesticated animals should come first."
Sometimes this argument is used to say it's wrong to help wild animals, or that we have no duties to them at all.
Problems with the argument
First, owing a debt to some doesn't mean we have no duties to others. We can have reasons to help both groups.
Second, even as a way of setting priorities, the historical debt has problems. Putting domesticated animals first would make sense if they were always worse off than wild ones. But they aren't necessarily. Many wild animals live and die in extreme suffering.
"The debt matters in itself"
Someone defending the argument could say: "It's not about who's worse off; the debt itself creates an obligation." But for someone who is suffering, what matters is the help they get, not the history of who owes it. Faced with two animals suffering equally, why would one deserve more help just because of its species' past?
In short
- Owing a debt to domesticated animals doesn't erase our duties to wild ones.
- Domesticated animals aren't always worse off.
- Priority should depend on who needs help most.