Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
by humans in a morally acceptable way. A lion, a bear, a chimpanzee, or an antelope
cannot.
Or, at least not in a zoo. The previous argument obviously does not apply to re-
serves in which humans may watch wild animals from their cars or on foot. How
about drive-through theme parks that usually allow wild animals much of what they
need and also satisfy the educational objectives of zoos? Or the very rare zoos that
manage to create rich natural enclosures that duplicate the natural surroundings for
the animals? Size matters. And if a pack of chimps is kept in a fenced park that is
large enough, such a life does not involve deprivation.
3
But the argument against such progressive enclosures is not that they create
deprivation (as do the inferior zoos), but that they rely on the wrong form of pater-
nalism. The animals kept in such parks can survive without them being initially cap-
tured in the wild and reintroduced into these new surroundings. This last claim is ob-
viously amenable to change: species become endangered and may become extinct
without human intervention. If reintroducing such animals into a safer environment
becomes mandatory, drive-through parks are the lesser of two evils. Such parks would
include only those endangered animals. Allowing visitors to watch them as a form of
education or amusement and thus obtaining partial funding for these enterprises is
morally permissible, since the paternalism on which these institutions are predicated is
of the right kind.
One way through which educational needs can be met without compromising the
moral claims of nonhuman animals is through exhibits of embalmed animals. My
model here is the wonderful and detailed exhibit maintained by the Chicago-based
Field Museum. A liberationist would have to insist that the animals used in such a
way were not hunted down first. But given this proviso, such exhibits involve no suf-
fering and enable study of the animals. Cultural analyses of zoos often note how they
are institutionally placed between the circus and the museum. 4 Presenting dead rather
than living animals surely makes for an entirely different institution and experience
than the one offered by zoos. Yet natural history museums can meet the need to
know or educate (which zoos claim they are advancing) without the cruelty that zoos
create.
To conclude: zoos present a tough case for moderate liberationists. If paternalism
with regard to nonhuman animals is sometimes permissible, zoos appear to be worthy
examples of such paternalism, since they often present themselves as a new kind of
Ark, there to preserve and salvage endangered animals. I argued that such a position
is to be rejected: an overwhelming majority of actual zoo exhibits involve deprivation
that is experienced as such. A significant portion of them induce deprivation without
it being experienced as such, yet it is still morally wrong. Zoos are predicated on the
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search