Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
the animal. This, in turn, legitimated practices in which the animal will be used
(though not exploited). I claimed that wild animals can easily live outside the interac-
tion with humans, whereas domestic animals will most probably die. Yet this claim is
probably false as a categorical claim about species as such (small numbers of domest-
icated animals may well survive in feral populations, perhaps in specially formed re-
serves). When considering individual animals (rather than species), it is plausible that
the capacity of zoos to keep animals safe and within reach of medical intervention
saves many
individual
lives of animals, thus promoting their welfare, and is accord-
ingly justified in their case. A decision to banish zoos will also lead to problems
with the animals that are already kept and were born in them. For those numerous
individual animals, a decision to release them in the wild would be dangerous or
fatal. Abrogating zoos is detrimental to the welfare of these individual animals. In
conclusion, if we accept some version of the idea that elevating welfare excuses a re-
stricting of freedom, we have to concede that in many individual cases, keeping wild
animals in zoos is a justified practice.
The reply to this is that a negative evaluation of a practice does not stand or fall
on individual success stories. Objectionable practices—e.g., prostitution or child
labor—can sometimes give rise to examples of individual victims who have surpris-
ingly gained something through such practices, yet this does not modify the moral
status of the practice as such. If one grants that zoos are involved in the prima facie
wrong of depriving an animal of its freedom, the fact that some individual animals
might benefit from zoos is no more of a justification of zoos than implausibly de-
fending the practices above by pointing out exceptional cases. Moreover, banishing
zoos cannot mean that the animals who are already in zoos and who cannot be re-
leased will be killed. Alternatives to this are not hard to imagine.
Companion and farm animals are also deprived of their freedom. Why does curtail-
ing freedom seem harsher in the case of zoos? The reply relates to alternatives: while
too many companion animals are abused, and although most zoos are morally superi-
or to modern factory-farming, domestic animals
can
be brought into a life of interac-
tion with humans that is also morally acceptable. When such animals are kept in spa-
cious quarters, when they lead comfortable, safe, and long lives, when they are not
isolated, they can be maintained in paternalistic, give-and-take relations with humans
that improve their overall welfare. Billions of such qualitatively good lives will not
be lived if these animal-related practices are abolished. Dogs, cats, horses, cows,
sheep, and hens all appear to require some space for grazing and/or exercise, but giv-
en such space their lives with humans appear to be good ones (caged birds or rep-
tiles kept as domestic animals are on the same moral footing as zoo animals). The
same cannot be said for most wild animals held in zoos. A laying hen can be kept
