The zoo industry is a huge industry and nothing makes a better family escapade then a trip to the zoo. The family atmosphere and wondrous animals are awe inspiring for the young children experiencing the exotic zoo. But are these establishments friends or foe to the animals they harbor inside. When we examine philosophically the position of the animals that reside in zoo’s, questions like, do we have the right to take away their freedom? Can animals be classified as persons? We find that the whole concept of the zoo is unethical. To prove that zoos are unethical we look at zoo’s and these questions from the perspective of a consequentialist and a categorical point of view. Animals are very different than humans and come in all shapes and sizes.
…show more content…
The definition of a zoo is, according to Merriam Webster dictionary a zoo is “a place where many kinds of animals are kept so that people can see them.” Using this definition we can now analyze the nature of zoos from a consequentialist perspective, more specifically that of a utilitarian. A utilitarian is someone who believes that the right thing is always the thing that will cause the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of individuals. In 1975 the Australian philosopher Peter Singer argued that when we look at zoos, we must not only consider the needs of humans, but that of the animals as well. The needs and interests of animals must be looked after and most animals in zoos are not being given their basic needs. Is the ten seconds of slight interest from your average zoo goer worth the depression, pain and mental anguish that these animals undertake more often than not. When talking about zoos, Peter also says that its is not enough to give them their basic needs, we have to respect their preferences, what the animals want is important too.( Singer, P. 1993) I agree with this stance, I believe that humans have a knack for thinking they are more important than anything and everyone else and in reality we don’t question our actions. If we were to make a moral scale and put on one end all the good that zoo’s cause such as education and inspiration and then put all the harm they do on the other end of the scale like the suffering they cause animals; the bad would outweigh the good making zoos unethical to a
The definition of a zoo is, according to Merriam Webster dictionary a zoo is “a place where many kinds of animals are kept so that people can see them.” Using this definition we can now analyze the nature of zoos from a consequentialist perspective, more specifically that of a utilitarian. A utilitarian is someone who believes that the right thing is always the thing that will cause the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of individuals. In 1975 the Australian philosopher Peter Singer argued that when we look at zoos, we must not only consider the needs of humans, but that of the animals as well. The needs and interests of animals must be looked after and most animals in zoos are not being given their basic needs. Is the ten seconds of slight interest from your average zoo goer worth the depression, pain and mental anguish that these animals undertake more often than not. When talking about zoos, Peter also says that its is not enough to give them their basic needs, we have to respect their preferences, what the animals want is important too.( Singer, P. 1993) I agree with this stance, I believe that humans have a knack for thinking they are more important than anything and everyone else and in reality we don’t question our actions. If we were to make a moral scale and put on one end all the good that zoo’s cause such as education and inspiration and then put all the harm they do on the other end of the scale like the suffering they cause animals; the bad would outweigh the good making zoos unethical to a