Zoos Affecting Animal Rights
by angelinefournier on September 10, 2016 - 5:33pm
In this article, the author outlines the major ethical issue of zoos. This is a major issue because zoos go against many elements of moral reasoning. In his article the author’s position is mixed because she believes that there are good zoos and bad zoos. As she states in the text, animals in zoos should not learn to be entertaining for the public. The role of zoos is to help research and animal conservation. The author believes that animals in zoos should not be kept in cages and entertaining for the public. The role of zoos is to inform the visitors but also to protect those animals that can not live in their natural habitat. Animals in zoos should live as if they were in the wild, not pet animals. Obviously there are two views of this ethical issue. The first point of view is that zoos should not exist at all. Zoos go against principles of moral reasoning such as respect of animal’s autonomy, animal’s should not be used as a mean to an end, and do no harm. These are all principles that applied to humans but that also applies to animals. Animals should not be kept in captivity because they are not free, they also should not be used as a mean to an end for example, to make money and attract tourists. Wild animals should not be kept in zoos only to be trained to learn something because this goes against their natural purpose which can make them harm. By keeping animals in zoos we also make them harm because we make them loose their autonomy so they can not go back in the wild because they would not survive. If we look at the other point of view, zoos should exist because they can protect the animals that were already hurt and it can also help the conservation of endangered species. With zoos we can respect moral claims such as always act for the greater good. It is acting for the greater good when protecting endangered species and saving injured animals. These animals would not survive without a human intervention and this is why we need to have zoos. When I look at both sides of the debate I do not hesitate on my opinion which is that zoos should not exist. I believe that wild animals deserve to be free. Those animals do not deserve to be kept in cages. The principle do no harm is one of the most important principles in this situation because it can be taken on both sides of the debate. Those in favor of zoos could say that it would make harm to the injured animals if they were not saved because they would probably die. Those against zoos could say that zoos harm animals because they do not have the freedom to do what they would normally do in the wild. Also, when animals have to learn tricks to entertain the public, this is harm to them because they do not want to do it but they are forced to. I strongly believe that animals should not be kept in captivity in zoos because they are not in their natural habitat and it goes against their freedom. Wild animals without freedom are not wild animals because they can not do what they would normally do. Animals without injuries have no reason to be in zoos. The case of injured animals is different. I still believe that we should let them in the wild but try to help them with their injuries. How could we help them without keeping them in captivity?
Soosayraj, Loretta A. "What are zoos for?" Sunday Mail, Kuala Lampur, 2005, http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.champlaincollege.qc.ca/pqrl/docview/3...