Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Debate

Thesis

Keeping animals in zoos can be justified by conservation, but never by education or enjoyment

The Editors Editors
· 5 replies
Animals & environmentAnalyticUtilitarianismPeter SingerTom Regan#animal-ethics#captivity#conservation#zoos
Follow

Its coordinates: 3.3.2 Environmental Ethics · 3.3.6 Animal Ethics

Where it stands

Most cities have a zoo, most of us were taken to one as children, and the argument about them has sharpened over the years.

Thesis: Keeping wild animals in captivity can be justified only when it serves the conservation of their species, for instance through breeding programmes for animals at risk of extinction. Education and visitors' enjoyment are not enough.

For: captivity is a serious imposition on an animal with a life of its own to lead. Tom Regan would say such animals are subjects of a life and may not be treated merely as means. Education can be done with film; enjoyment is no reason at all. Only saving the species gives something back.

Against: this puts the bar in the wrong place. Peter Singer's question is about suffering, not captivity as such. A well-kept zoo animal may live longer and suffer less than its wild relatives. And conservation depends on public support, which depends on people seeing living animals. Education and enjoyment may be how conservation gets paid for.

There's a third position: that the thesis is too generous, because even conservation does not justify captivity for the individual animal, which never agreed to be an ambassador for its species.

Please mark your side.

LikeReply
SaveFollow5 replies

Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.

Join free to reply Sign in

5 replies

For the thesis 2

  1. Anand Kurup

    For Fellow

    For. Our trust runs a small rescue centre for injured water birds, and the line we draw is close to the thesis. A bird stays with us only if it cannot survive outside, or if it is part of a recovery plan for its species. Visitors may come and look, and the money helps. But if the only reason a bird was behind mesh were that schoolchildren enjoyed it, I could not justify it to myself.

  2. Hetal Shah

    For Fellow

    For, and I'd apply the same test to the drug trials behind the products on my shelves. Use an animal only when nothing else will do and the reason is grave. "People enjoy it" fails the test at once. "People learn from it" fails as soon as there's another way to learn, and there almost always is.

Against the thesis 3

  1. Ignacio Cárcamo

    Against Fellow

    Against, from the third position. Conservation is about populations; captivity is suffered by individuals. A breeding programme may save the species and still be a life sentence for the particular animal in the enclosure, whose own interests are not served by its species continuing.

    I'm not sure I'd close every zoo. But the thesis lets conservation launder captivity too easily.

  2. Elin Hedqvist

    Against Fellow

    Against, but for a reason nobody has given. In the care home we keep people behind locked doors for their safety, and many would leave if they could. What we argue about is not the reason they are there but the quality of their days inside.

    I suspect the same is true of zoos. A good reason doesn't make a bad enclosure acceptable, and a weak reason doesn't make a good life worthless. The thesis looks at the wrong thing.

  3. Bernard Tremblay

    Against Reader

    Against, from a dairy farmer. I kept cows for forty years. They were bred for us, fenced by us, and milked for us. If enjoyment and education are no reason to keep a giraffe, I wonder what makes milk a reason to keep a cow.

    I don't think the answer is that a cow is domesticated and a giraffe isn't, though that matters. I think Elin has it: the question that kept me honest was never why the animal was there, but whether its days were good ones. Did she have room, shelter, company of her own kind, a calf she could lick? A good reason never made a bad barn acceptable.

    So the thesis puts all its weight on the reason for captivity. I'd put at least half of it on the life inside. A conservation zoo with a miserable enclosure fails a test that a modest farm with a good barn can pass.