본문 바로가기
  • Home
Basic Search

The Argument in Defense of Zoos: A Critical Reconsideration

김성한 1

1숙명여자대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

Compared to animals used in laboratories for tests and animals reared for food, zoo animals appear to lead a better life and are better regarded. Zoo animals are treated well because they are rare specimens, and a concerted effort is made by zookeepers in ensuring their continued well-being for zoo visitors. Indeed, zookeepers do not treat the animals in the same way scientists might treat laboratory animals or farmers might treat animals reared for food. Zookeepers do not think of slaughtering an animal for human consumption, nor do they indiscriminately use the animals for experiments. Instead, zookeepers are dedicated to caring for the animals to the best of their abilities. As animals in zoos unlike laboratory animals or those reared for food are able to lead peaceful and long lives there appears to be little moral or ethical objections to keeping animals in zoos. However, there are some individuals who strongly object to the existence of zoos. Anti-zoo campaigners, such as T. Regan, are opposed to zoos because they claim zoos violate the autonomy of the animals. This argument is unconvincing vis-à-vis those who claim zoos have much to contribute to society in that: (1)they enable scientists and private individuals alike to observe animals at a close range, (2)they aid scientific research in animal behavior and biology, (3)they ensure the conservation of endangered animal species, (4)they provide the public with a means of viewing the different creatures they would not otherwise see. Due to the existence of disparate views for and against zoos, this paper seeks to critically review and analyze the pros and cons of zoos.

Statistics

  • 5,461 Viewed
  • 2,281 Downloaded

Tools

Issue List

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

Basic Search Advanced Search