MonfortS26December 21, 2016 at 04:3211475 views59 comments
Is there any ethical argument in defense of locking wild animals up for entertainment and monetary gain? I truly cannot see any positive side to it, it just seems wrong.
Comments (59)
Barry EtheridgeDecember 21, 2016 at 14:04#399970 likes
Can I find a justification for a practice that zoos themselves long ago eschewed? Unsurprisingly, no!
Terrapin StationDecember 21, 2016 at 14:30#400070 likes
"I like going to zoos" seems like one good justification of it to me.
Possible justifications are not limited to that, of course, and some of the justifications where folks hope to persuade people with views such as yours are very well-known and easy to find, but "I like going to zoos" is enough I'd say.
It won't be long before some species exist only in zoos. Take the orangutangs living in the Indonesian forest which is rapidly being cut down and broken up into fragments in which the great Asian ape can not survive. The forests are being cut down for timber, paper production, and huge palm oil plantations.
Rhinoceroses are another example. The number of giraffes is dropping rapidly. Pandas...
Having a piddling genetic pool of species in zoos is the next thing to not having them at all, of course. Zoos do not make up for wrecking the rain forests.
We could, of course, live without so much paper, timber, and palm oil. Is the demise of orangoutangs worth healthier arteries in humans (if that is even the tradeoff for not sucking up hydrogenated vegetable oils the way we used to)?
The problem with zoos has to do with how some of them intentionally or unintentionally mistreat animals, there are good zoos and real sucky zoos. As others have noted, they serve a purpose. I always liked going the zoo as a kid.
A lot of zoos are shifting focus to conservation. I suppose most people figure animals are happy at zoos, granted not as happy as in the wild, but the happiness brought by zoos outweighs that.
Or some people may figure that those animals wouldn't exist without the zoo so therefore it's fine and the animals should be grateful haha.
Hasn't Peter Singer written about animals and how their utility and whatnot needs to be taken into account?
We need to invest in and develop zoos as we will have to rely on them to keep many species in existence certainly during the next generation. The scientific and technical knowledge surrounding this endeavour needs to be developed now while the species in question can still be found in the wild.
The millennium seed bank is in my country, which is taking seriously the preservation of as many species of plants as is possible. Unfortunately animals can't be preserved so easily.
Reply to Emptyheady
What properties do humans have that give them those rights?
Would you be ok with being used as property/utility by beings with more of said properties?
The exact same reasoning was used to justify racial discrimination, segregation, and extermination.
Moral agency is not limited within a race nor gender.
We might have to discuss some metaethics at a deeper level, but if we agree that humans are capable of acting morally and animals not without equivocating, then we can take it from there. If you disagree, then we should look where exactly we differ and how humans are morally different from animals.
Your claims are controversial. Morally and legally speaking, animals do not have rights the way humans do. This is pretty much a consensus everywhere in the world.
Your claims are controversial. Morally and legally speaking, animals do not have rights the way humans do. This is pretty much a consensus everywhere in the world.
Yeah, no, this is completely wrong. Animals have rights, recognized across the (developed) world. Animal abuse is a thing because animals have rights.
Non-human animals might not be able to vote but they can certainly suffer.
Yeah, no, this is completely wrong. Animals have rights, recognized across the (developed) world. Animal abuse is a thing because animals have rights.
Come now... such a rash and lazy reasoning. The fact that you can abuse animals does not entail that animals have rights. You can also abuse buildings, plants (e.g. trees) and cars -- you can even get legally punished by doing so, but none of this entail "rights" like human rights.
Note that this is an otiose point. This specific point is regarding its controversy. It adds nothing to the crux of this discussion, but I found it interesting to mention nonetheless. I took some classes in law. The fact that animals have no rights was uncontroversially true (legally). The moral case is easily made as well.
Non-human animals might not be able to vote but they can certain suffer.
Suffering is not the basis of my moral philosophy. Besides, laws are more about rights than suffering anyway.
edit: note that you conveniently ignored my main point. :-}
"We might have to discuss some metaethics at a deeper level, but if we agree that humans are capable of acting morally and animals not without equivocating, then we can take it from there. If you disagree, then we should look where exactly we differ and how humans are morally different from animals."
Moral agency is not limited within a race nor gender.
A species is a race on a larger scale though.
Why do you think animals can't act morally?
Because they can't do philosophy and think about morality that way?
They can still do kind things for each other. Like picking nits out of hair. They can still do cruel things. Like needlessly play with mice.
Likewise, humans are also capable of cruelty and kindness.
What makes us moral agents and them not?
Consiousness?
Rationality?
If there were a species which is better capable of moral agency than us, would you consider them to have more rights than you?
Or do you consider moral agency to be a binary property?
Come now... such a rash and lazy reasoning. The fact that you can abuse animals does not entail that animals have rights. You can also abuse buildings, plants (e.g. trees) and cars -- you can even get legally punished by doing so, but none of this entail "rights" like human rights.
Note that this is an otiose point. This specific point is regarding its controversy. It adds nothing to the crux of this discussion, but I found it interesting to mention nonetheless. I took some classes in law. The fact that animals have no rights was uncontroversially true (legally). The moral case is easily made as well.
You can't abuse something that doesn't have the right to not be abused. There's no "lazy" thinking going on here.
Suffering is not the basis of my moral philosophy. Besides, laws are more about rights than suffering anyway.
I disagree. The capacity to suffer qualifies something as morally important. Things have rights in virtue of the fact that they can feel, or are related to things that can feel.
We might have to discuss some metaethics at a deeper level, but if we agree that humans are capable of acting morally and animals not without equivocating, then we can take it from there. If you disagree, then we should look where exactly we differ and how humans are morally different from animals.
Not being a moral agent doesn't mean one isn't morally important. We can't expect infants to act rationally or morally and yet we treat them with respect. And yet many non-human animals have a greater capacity of rationality than human infants.
Lol. Species have a very specific biological and taxonomical definition, which is rooted in reproduction. People from different races can reproduce, i.e. can make cute babies. There is a point where two (sexual) organisms can no longer sexually reproduce with each other, which have by that very definition become different species.
Lack of moral responsibility, moral awareness, moral reasoning and (moral) language. Or at the very least -- as I am very familiar with De Waal's work -- they are monumentally inferior regarding those things compared to humans. So in other words, lack of moral agency. Have you read my link? I didn't pull those words out of my arse.
You can't abuse something that doesn't have the right to not be abused
And they have that right because they can be abused, and they can be abused because they have that right, otherwise it would not be abuse, so they must have rights and their rights is not to be abused.
Like a dog chasing its own tail. I am a bit tired at this moment, is this circular reasoning or just an tautology...
I disagree. The capacity to suffer qualifies something as morally important. Things have rights in virtue of the fact that they can feel, or are related to things that can feel.
Not being a moral agent doesn't mean one isn't morally important. We can't expect infants to act rationally or morally and yet we treat them with respect. And yet many non-human animals have a greater capacity of rationality than human infants.
I take humans as a species. What I am not saying is that you lose that moral right as soon as you are, let's say unconscious. If a man rapes an unconscious woman, it is still morally wrong (imo) because she did not lose her moral agency by temporarily being cognitively incapable of acting. An infant is a human in development, so a human being nonetheless.
As long as you are a human being, you remain to have moral agency and therefore human rights. That is because humans have a special property of moral responsibility -- call them moral agents or moral actors if you'd like.
To put it differently, they have the right features to take part in the moral and social dynamic.
As long as you are a human being, you remain to have moral agency and therefore human rights. That is because humans have a special property of moral responsibility -- call them moral agents or moral actors if you'd like.
And it is exactly this line of reasoning that I reject. You don't have to have moral agency in order to qualify for rights.
If, in a rights-based ethical framework, moral agency were held to be a necessary condition for having rights, it would seem to follow that it is morally acceptable to mistreat babies and probably also many toddlers.
Okay this is the last time you play this trick before I call it quits. Yes, it is circular reasoning the way you phrased/reasoned it initially. Now you just rephrased it and pretend I did not notice it.
Lol. Species have a very specific biological and taxonomical definition, which is rooted in reproduction. People from different races can reproduce, i.e. can make cute babies. There is a point where two (sexual) organisms can no longer sexually reproduce with each other, which have by that very definition become different species.
Don't waste time with this ignorant hollow twaddle mate. 'Species is a race on a larger scale though' Jesus Christ...
That defines the precise difference in scale and that definition of species had nothing to do with rights.
Why do you have to be such a rude twat?
Okay this is the last time you play this trick before I call it quits. Yes, it is circular reasoning the way you phrased/reasoned it initially. Now you just rephrased it and pretend I did not notice it.
Calm down, stop acting like I'm contradicting myself, and start actually presenting arguments.
Humans can suffer. Check.
Non-human animals can suffer. Check.
We treat others humans with respect because they can feel, just like we ourselves can. We also expect them to act accordingly because they are rational agents. Check.
We treat non-human animals with respect because they can feel, just like we ourselves can, but we do not expect them to act morally because they are not moral agents. Check.
The capacity to be a rational moral agent is not what is needed to be seen as morally important. That is what you need to respond to.
That is fine. Like I said our moral philosophies differ. The keyword here is "suffering." I care more about (individual) rights than suffering.
And so you can just assert whatever the hell you want, but as soon as I say something you call me out on it?
Caring about individual rights instead of suffering is absurd. We care about individual rights in virtue of how doing so causally affects the welfare of those we deem worthy of having rights.
If we care too much about non-human suffering, then our right to sell and buy fried, grilled, roasted or sauteed animal might be taken away by moral agents.
Al right, let's take a step back for a moment. It seems that I have hit a nerve with some animal lovers and that has led to some irrational, shoddy and lazy responses. With the latest replies, it seems that we are going off-track and heading towards a messy mud fight.
OP posits the following questions: “How can we justify zoos? (…) Is there any ethical argument in defense of locking wild animals up for entertainment and monetary gain?” This is a reasonable question and I responded: “Easy. Animals have no rights and can therefore be used as property/utility by moral agents (i.e. humans).”
Now, there are two ways to approach this issue. The first one is a legal one, which is extremely easily to do, because we already have zoos, so apparently it is legally permissible and justified to do so. In jurisprudence, animals do not have rights like humans do. This is an objective fact in a descriptive way. I can only anticipate on a response filled with red herrings and equivocations… 3…2…1... and here we go…
But what OP is looking for is the normative side of the moral debate. So the other approach is a moral philosophical justification, a normative one. Should animals have rights like human rights? I do not think so. I provided one, namely one related to moral agency (or sometimes referred as moral responsibility).
Only Thorongil has given a simple but solid response, namely: “To which one can reply, as I would, that they do.” So whatever normative claims I make, one can simply reject it in disagreement. There is not much I can say beyond “Ok.” I do not claim that my normative claim is superior or less arbitrary. I just simply answer OP’s questions.
If you think rights is given on the basis of suffering, or dick size, fine by all means make your case, as I can make mine. Most people eat meat, have pets as property or have utilised animals in some way (directly or indirectly). If you think we should not do that, then it is you that has a controversial moral position – I am the least controversial so far.
That post argues that any member of the species homo sapiens has moral agency, moral responsibility and rights.
Such an assertion is fundamental and one either accepts it or not according to whether it is consistent with one's intuitions - whether it 'feels' right. Pro-lifers accept it, for instance. Apparently you accept it. I don't, because it seems bizarre to me, given that it implies that a single-cell fertilised ovum and a brain-dead body kept alive on a ventilator both have moral responsibility. Since moral responsibility is a rubbery term that can be made to mean almost anything one wants it to mean, one can neither prove the truth or falsity of such an assertion. It just seems weird, and feels wrong, to me, so I don't accept it.
This criticism is fair, but ultimately quite weak -- or better stated, all alternatives are more counter-intuitive, vague, ambiguous ("rubbery term"). Moral agency/responsibility seems to me to be the least controversial position. Chomsky even called it a "truism." I won't go that far, but I would claim it is intuitively accepted among the populous.
But if you have got something better to offer, I'd love to hear it.
Reply to Emptyheady I don't think it is intuitively accepted amongst the populace, as to accept it implies ascribing rights to a fertilised ovum, and hence being opposed to abortion at any term. According to that interesting survey posted by Barry (here), in all Western countries except the USA, the vast majority of people have no problem with early-term abortion and, even in the God-fearing USA, just over half have no problem with it.
As to what alternative I have to offer, I just go with Jeremy Bentham's 'Can they suffer?'. This is completely consistent with my intuitions and just feels absolutely right. I understand that for some others, things like Freedom are more important, but for me 'Can they suffer' is the most important moral principle.
I don't think it is intuitively accepted amongst the populace, as to accept it implies ascribing rights to a fertilised ovum, and hence being opposed to abortion at any term. According to that interesting survey posted by Barry (here), in all Western countries except the USA, the vast majority of people have no problem with early-term abortion and, even in the God-fearing USA, just over half have no problem with it.
I do not see how this is relevant. But anyway, most people are mostly pro-life, going by what you cited.
As to what alternative I have to offer, I just go with Jeremy Bentham's 'Can they suffer?'. This is completely consistent with my intuitions and just feels absolutely right. I understand that for some others, things like Freedom are more important, but for me 'Can they suffer' is the most important moral principle.
"suffering" is extremely ambiguous, and I have yet to meet a consistent utilitarian, as I continually notices equivocations. I was a negative utilitarian for a period of time, but I had to give it up as I could not defend it without contradicting myself -- or coming up with ad hoc justifications.
Reply to Emptyheady How is suffering ambiguous but moral agency isn't? I haven't really seen any sort of evidence showing that humans have this mystical thing called moral agency that other animals do not.
Reply to MonfortS26 Let me elaborate a bit why I have some issues with utilitarianism or most forms of consequentialism.
Ask you yourself the following moral question: "when is it morally justified to rape an innocent child?"
A consequentialist would answer: 'well that depends on the consequences.' A utilitarian could state that it depends whether it maximises the sum of aggregate happiness. This means that group rape could make raping morally more justifiable, and the larger the group, the better it would be. Sadism would be morally justified to indulge.
Putting "suffering" at the centre of your normative moral view is troubling.
Let's say Bob murders Sarah. Is it morally justified? Well, that depends. How much did she suffer with the murder? Some murders can be done with pretty much no suffering at all. Let's say that when Sarah was alive, she was constantly suffering from an terminal illness. If your moral goal is to minimise suffering -- and there is no cure, nor medicine -- one ought to murder her to end the suffering.
Now, you can solve these issues -- as I have tried myself -- but only by stretching the definition of "suffering" to your own convenience, pretty much to the point of ad hoc justifications and inconsistencies.
Now, this is just the top of the iceberg of issues I have with these lines of reasoning. Having read more about neuroscience, psychology and evolutionary biology, has made me simply drop it.
Anyway, this is just a brief reply to give you an idea and to get the ball rolling.
I would love to see how one of you can persuade me back.
Reply to MonfortS26 I subscribe to Virtue Ethics with a personal tweak inspired by Zimbardo.
As a conservative, I do not believe in a universal principle or maxim that we ought to follow. Morality is extremely complex. I believe it is a practice based on tradition.
"[i]Conservatives reject revolutionary Jacobinism’s espousal of political rationalism, which attempts to reconstruct society from abstract principles or general blueprint, without reference to tradition. Conservatives view society not as a machine but as a highly complex organism, and hold therefore that “without the aid of experience, reason cannot prescribe political ideals that can be realised in practice” (Beiser 1992: 283).
(...)
Conservatism therefore rests on what may be termed particularist scepticism concerning abstract rational principles. Conservatives regard the radical’s rationalism as “metaphysical” in ignoring particular social, economic and historical conditions:
I cannot [praise or blame] human actions…on a simple view of the object, as it stands stripped of every relation, in all the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction; (Burke, WS III: 58)
circumstances give every political principle its colour. (Cobban 1960: 75)[/i]"
edit: by the way, this is also how I dropped right-wing libertarianism. However much I tend to agree with libertarians, fundamentally, I find it simply untenable.
Nowadays we can see films of the lives of animals in their natural habitat, so the zoo has little reason to capture and lock up animals in cages just to show them to people. The zoo is, however, justified as an institution for education, research, and preservation.
Nowadays we can see films of the lives of animals in their natural habitat
One naturalist - photographer recommended we stop taking pictures of wild animals, too, especially where the presence of photographers becomes a further degradation of the environment. Flying to somewhere in Africa, Central America, Nepal, Siberia, wherever, to drive around, camp, photograph, and so on isn't helping wild animals. There is already a huge supply of nature pictures, he noted. Just being there, driving around, camping, and all that is one more small assault on already fragile environments and ecologies.
Yes, I can't see any ambiguity either. Nor any problem with consistency. Certainly I don't recall encountering problems with consistency in my day-to-day ethical decision-making.
Reply to MonfortS26 I believe that humans are social beings with (often conflicting) interests and that we can all be better off if we 'get along' so-to-say. I believe that morality plays a role in the social dynamic (i.e. civilisation) and that its workings are extremely complicated.
Tradition plays a key role here.
I exampled tradition as to why I reject that sort of thinking I was referring to. I then explained why I rejected the moral (and political) reasoning from principles and maxims which is based on pure reason or rationalism, and not experience (i.e. tradition). Conservatives typically value tradition, because it is accumulated wisdom via many practices and experiences throughout many generations that we might not fully understand and/or are capable of to articulate. Combining this with the idea of human nature that has been evolved according to the theory of evolution and you end up how I approach my politics and ethics.
As Pinker said in his book The Blank Slate (2002):
“Traditions such as religion, the family, social customs, sexual mores, and political institutions are a distillation of time-tested techniques that let us work around the shortcomings of human nature. They are as applicable to humans today as they were when they developed, even if no one today can explain their rationale. However imperfect society may be, we should measure it against the cruelty and deprivation of the actual past, not the harmony and affluence of an imagined future. We are fortunate enough to live in a society that more or less works, and our first priority should be not to screw it up, because human nature always leaves us teetering on the brink of barbarism. And since no one is smart enough to predict the behaviour of a single human being, let alone millions of them interacting in a society, we should distrust any formula for changing society from the top down, because it is likely to have unintended consequences that are worse than the problems it was designed to fix”
I would love to see how one of you can persuade me back.
I can't see any need to persuade you back. Virtue ethics is an excellent moral framework that will produce similar ethical conclusions in the vast majority of situations one is likely to encounter, so I doubt that society will be any the better or worse for you or I choosing to switch between a utilitarian and a virtue ethics framework.
The example of group rape reminds me of Bernard Williams' silly thought experiment about the explorer and the indians (there was a good essay about this by Paul on the old site). Firstly it misunderstands how a utilitarian would likely analyse such a situation, and draws the wrong inference about what they would conclude, and secondly, the situation suggested is so far removed from anything I'm ever likely to encounter as to be irrelevant to practical ethics.
I wouldn't say I was a committed utilitarian, in the sense of being convinced that every decision I ever make should be made on utilitarian principles. I always leave the door open for other influences, be they deontological, virtue-based or something else. But so far I don't think I've encountered a moral dilemma for which one of the other frameworks that seem reasonable to me (which excludes things like divine-command and honour-based systems, as well as anything to do with Ayn Rand) clearly recommended a different decision from the one I came to via utilitarianism. Nor do I expect that to happen in the remainder of my life.
Sure I've had dilemmas, but I've found that in such cases the other systems were as unclear as utilitarianism about what the best action was.
VagabondSpectreDecember 24, 2016 at 08:02#408410 likes
Zoos aren't just for the public display of animals, and so if we're talking about the study and conservation function of zoos then a "greater good" defense can be raised based on the fact that this study and conservation is better for animal species in the long run.
Focusing only on zoos whose sole or main purpose is the public display of animals, yes indeed there is at lest some degree of moral onus upon us to ensure that the animals we keep for our own entertainment are not suffering unduly because of it (at least according to my own moral 'beliefs'). On the one hand we could easily offer an animal a more stimulating or happy existence in captivity, if done right (barring certain animals like whales, whose needs are beyond us), but on the other hand if all we do is exploit captive animals and give nothing back to them then surely we're committing a moral sin at least as far as the animal is concerned.
In the best case zoos for entertainment can be a happy alliance between often willing captive animals where the zoo gets an income stream and the animal gets a fat, happy, and generally conflict free existence.
In the worst case zoos can be horrendous places of suffering where people pay for the novelty of seeing something new, even if it's sick or dying. To whatever extent we extend moral considerations of these kinds toward animals is the degree to which such zoos are morally culpable for transgressing. I can't exactly define the extent to which we owe animals moral considerations, but what I can tell you is that as we gain the technology and capability to survive and thrive free of cruelty to animals, whatever moral onus there is on us to do so only increases.
Flying to somewhere in Africa, Central America, Nepal, Siberia, wherever, to drive around, camp, photograph, and so on isn't helping wild animals.
We should not selectively look at the flying, driving, and camping when the published films produce acquaintance, knowledge and empathy towards wild animals. If we'd only see Jaws, and other films that exploit our ignorance or selectively show wild animals as monsters, then the situation would be worse for the animals, and there would be little interest to fund organisations who work for animals' rights, preservation and so on. Urban populations would have no clue of the relation between their consumption and the fate of wild animals.
Ask you yourself the following moral question: "when is it morally justified to rape an innocent child?"
A consequentialist would answer: 'well that depends on the consequences.' A utilitarian could state that it depends whether it maximises the sum of aggregate happiness. This means that group rape could make raping morally more justifiable, and the larger the group, the better it would be. Sadism would be morally justified to indulge.
Putting "suffering" at the centre of your normative moral view is troubling.
Actually, that's a problem with putting happiness at the centre. Putting suffering at the centre solves that because then the babies experience of suffering trumps the sadists' experience of pleasure.
Also, what is all this bs about how uncontroversial your view is? Why on earth do you care? How can you care? Popularity is the very least thing one should be concerned about when evaluating any view.
Reply to Ovaloid Okay, this is the last time I respond to you if you do not engage properly in a discussion, which includes reading my entire post and at least attempting to understand it.
Did you bother to read the rest? Didn't I mention negative utilitarianism by Popper before (somewhere)?
Popper thinks he solved the issues of utilitarianism by turning it negative, namely solely focussing it on suffering -- I highly dispute that already in the rest of my post. You stumble upon the exact same issues that Kant mentioned regarding 'not using people as merely means to an end'.
Take the doctor's dilemma scenario with organ harvesting.
Go open a book about ethics for the love of god...
I wouldn't say I was a committed utilitarian, in the sense of being convinced that every decision I ever make should be made on utilitarian principles. I always leave the door open for other influences, be they deontological, virtue-based or something else.
Yeah, you sound really consistent... :-}
intrapersonaDecember 29, 2016 at 02:44#420360 likes
What properties do humans have that give them those rights?
Would you be ok with being used as property/utility by beings with more of said properties?
If a more intelligent/rational being encapsulated me in a zoo, would it be worse than we imprisoning lower creatures you mean? Isn't that what the earth is already? The aliens are watching over as maaaaaan.
intrapersonaDecember 29, 2016 at 02:44#420370 likes
If you want to say it is wrong to subject other creatures (even of lower intelligence) to imprisonment then you might as well have to disagree with how nature/evolution designed most of it's animals to eat each other. Subjecting creatures to your will which they don't agree with, whether it be imprisonment or murder, is committing the same act of immorality.
Let's face it, this place is horrendously vicious... would you sign up for a game where all animals are just fucking stupid and go around trying to eat each other all day? Fuck That! Fuck Nature! and rationality doesn't always force that viciousness out of the world either, in fact it enhances it sometimes (hitler).
intrapersonaDecember 29, 2016 at 02:46#420380 likes
Did anyone mention that Decartes used to torture animals because he didn't believe they had "consciousness"?
If animals do have rights, when can we start locking up animals in prison for killing other animals or making other animals suffer?
As far as I can tell... rationality = morals. Also there is no objective morality, I guess that is way nature is so fucking ruthless. But if you know better (have rationality and morality) then we chould exclude ourselves from natures evil reign. Two wrongs don't make a right and...
... at the end of all of this, we humans will point to nature with blame and lock it up for all eternity for it's shameful actions of millions of years. >:O
hunterkf5732December 29, 2016 at 11:11#421190 likes
Comments (59)
Possible justifications are not limited to that, of course, and some of the justifications where folks hope to persuade people with views such as yours are very well-known and easy to find, but "I like going to zoos" is enough I'd say.
Rhinoceroses are another example. The number of giraffes is dropping rapidly. Pandas...
Having a piddling genetic pool of species in zoos is the next thing to not having them at all, of course. Zoos do not make up for wrecking the rain forests.
We could, of course, live without so much paper, timber, and palm oil. Is the demise of orangoutangs worth healthier arteries in humans (if that is even the tradeoff for not sucking up hydrogenated vegetable oils the way we used to)?
Or some people may figure that those animals wouldn't exist without the zoo so therefore it's fine and the animals should be grateful haha.
Hasn't Peter Singer written about animals and how their utility and whatnot needs to be taken into account?
The millennium seed bank is in my country, which is taking seriously the preservation of as many species of plants as is possible. Unfortunately animals can't be preserved so easily.
What properties do humans have that give them those rights?
Would you be ok with being used as property/utility by beings with more of said properties?
To which one can reply, as I would, that they do. :-}
The exact same reasoning was used to justify racial discrimination, segregation, and extermination.
Capable of being moral agents.
Quoting Ovaloid
I have moral agency.
Quoting Thorongil
Ok
Quoting darthbarracuda
Moral agency is not limited within a race nor gender.
We might have to discuss some metaethics at a deeper level, but if we agree that humans are capable of acting morally and animals not without equivocating, then we can take it from there. If you disagree, then we should look where exactly we differ and how humans are morally different from animals.
Your claims are controversial. Morally and legally speaking, animals do not have rights the way humans do. This is pretty much a consensus everywhere in the world.
Yeah, no, this is completely wrong. Animals have rights, recognized across the (developed) world. Animal abuse is a thing because animals have rights.
Non-human animals might not be able to vote but they can certainly suffer.
Come now... such a rash and lazy reasoning. The fact that you can abuse animals does not entail that animals have rights. You can also abuse buildings, plants (e.g. trees) and cars -- you can even get legally punished by doing so, but none of this entail "rights" like human rights.
Note that this is an otiose point. This specific point is regarding its controversy. It adds nothing to the crux of this discussion, but I found it interesting to mention nonetheless. I took some classes in law. The fact that animals have no rights was uncontroversially true (legally). The moral case is easily made as well.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Suffering is not the basis of my moral philosophy. Besides, laws are more about rights than suffering anyway.
edit: note that you conveniently ignored my main point. :-}
"We might have to discuss some metaethics at a deeper level, but if we agree that humans are capable of acting morally and animals not without equivocating, then we can take it from there. If you disagree, then we should look where exactly we differ and how humans are morally different from animals."
A species is a race on a larger scale though.
Why do you think animals can't act morally?
Because they can't do philosophy and think about morality that way?
They can still do kind things for each other. Like picking nits out of hair. They can still do cruel things. Like needlessly play with mice.
Likewise, humans are also capable of cruelty and kindness.
What makes us moral agents and them not?
Consiousness?
Rationality?
Or do you consider moral agency to be a binary property?
You can't abuse something that doesn't have the right to not be abused. There's no "lazy" thinking going on here.
Quoting Emptyheady
I disagree. The capacity to suffer qualifies something as morally important. Things have rights in virtue of the fact that they can feel, or are related to things that can feel.
Quoting Emptyheady
Not being a moral agent doesn't mean one isn't morally important. We can't expect infants to act rationally or morally and yet we treat them with respect. And yet many non-human animals have a greater capacity of rationality than human infants.
Lol. Species have a very specific biological and taxonomical definition, which is rooted in reproduction. People from different races can reproduce, i.e. can make cute babies. There is a point where two (sexual) organisms can no longer sexually reproduce with each other, which have by that very definition become different species.
Quoting Ovaloid
Lack of moral responsibility, moral awareness, moral reasoning and (moral) language. Or at the very least -- as I am very familiar with De Waal's work -- they are monumentally inferior regarding those things compared to humans. So in other words, lack of moral agency. Have you read my link? I didn't pull those words out of my arse.
Yes.
e.g. God or gods (or angels).
I am not religious but let's say I am wrong and theism is right, it gives you an idea.
And they have that right because they can be abused, and they can be abused because they have that right, otherwise it would not be abuse, so they must have rights and their rights is not to be abused.
Like a dog chasing its own tail. I am a bit tired at this moment, is this circular reasoning or just an tautology...
Quoting darthbarracuda
That is fine. Our moral philosophies differ.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I take humans as a species. What I am not saying is that you lose that moral right as soon as you are, let's say unconscious. If a man rapes an unconscious woman, it is still morally wrong (imo) because she did not lose her moral agency by temporarily being cognitively incapable of acting. An infant is a human in development, so a human being nonetheless.
As long as you are a human being, you remain to have moral agency and therefore human rights. That is because humans have a special property of moral responsibility -- call them moral agents or moral actors if you'd like.
To put it differently, they have the right features to take part in the moral and social dynamic.
No, it's not circular reasoning.
Animals have the right not to be abused because they can suffer. The same reason why humans have the right not to be abused.
Quoting Emptyheady
And it is exactly this line of reasoning that I reject. You don't have to have moral agency in order to qualify for rights.
Okay this is the last time you play this trick before I call it quits. Yes, it is circular reasoning the way you phrased/reasoned it initially. Now you just rephrased it and pretend I did not notice it.
Quoting darthbarracuda
That is fine. Like I said our moral philosophies differ. The keyword here is "suffering." I care more about (individual) rights than suffering.
That defines the precise difference in scale and that definition of species had nothing to do with rights.
Why do you have to be such a rude twat?
Calm down, stop acting like I'm contradicting myself, and start actually presenting arguments.
Humans can suffer. Check.
Non-human animals can suffer. Check.
We treat others humans with respect because they can feel, just like we ourselves can. We also expect them to act accordingly because they are rational agents. Check.
We treat non-human animals with respect because they can feel, just like we ourselves can, but we do not expect them to act morally because they are not moral agents. Check.
The capacity to be a rational moral agent is not what is needed to be seen as morally important. That is what you need to respond to.
Quoting Emptyheady
And so you can just assert whatever the hell you want, but as soon as I say something you call me out on it?
Caring about individual rights instead of suffering is absurd. We care about individual rights in virtue of how doing so causally affects the welfare of those we deem worthy of having rights.
One that can very easily be knocked down by proof of a counterexample.
¯\_(?)_/¯
Al right, let's take a step back for a moment. It seems that I have hit a nerve with some animal lovers and that has led to some irrational, shoddy and lazy responses. With the latest replies, it seems that we are going off-track and heading towards a messy mud fight.
OP posits the following questions: “How can we justify zoos? (…) Is there any ethical argument in defense of locking wild animals up for entertainment and monetary gain?” This is a reasonable question and I responded: “Easy. Animals have no rights and can therefore be used as property/utility by moral agents (i.e. humans).”
Now, there are two ways to approach this issue. The first one is a legal one, which is extremely easily to do, because we already have zoos, so apparently it is legally permissible and justified to do so. In jurisprudence, animals do not have rights like humans do. This is an objective fact in a descriptive way. I can only anticipate on a response filled with red herrings and equivocations… 3…2…1... and here we go…
But what OP is looking for is the normative side of the moral debate. So the other approach is a moral philosophical justification, a normative one. Should animals have rights like human rights? I do not think so. I provided one, namely one related to moral agency (or sometimes referred as moral responsibility).
I am basically making a connection between rights and (moral) responsibilities/agencies. If Chomsky and I every agree, it is by sheer accident.
Only Thorongil has given a simple but solid response, namely: “To which one can reply, as I would, that they do.” So whatever normative claims I make, one can simply reject it in disagreement. There is not much I can say beyond “Ok.” I do not claim that my normative claim is superior or less arbitrary. I just simply answer OP’s questions.
If you think rights is given on the basis of suffering, or dick size, fine by all means make your case, as I can make mine. Most people eat meat, have pets as property or have utilised animals in some way (directly or indirectly). If you think we should not do that, then it is you that has a controversial moral position – I am the least controversial so far.
http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/40176
Such an assertion is fundamental and one either accepts it or not according to whether it is consistent with one's intuitions - whether it 'feels' right. Pro-lifers accept it, for instance. Apparently you accept it. I don't, because it seems bizarre to me, given that it implies that a single-cell fertilised ovum and a brain-dead body kept alive on a ventilator both have moral responsibility. Since moral responsibility is a rubbery term that can be made to mean almost anything one wants it to mean, one can neither prove the truth or falsity of such an assertion. It just seems weird, and feels wrong, to me, so I don't accept it.
This criticism is fair, but ultimately quite weak -- or better stated, all alternatives are more counter-intuitive, vague, ambiguous ("rubbery term"). Moral agency/responsibility seems to me to be the least controversial position. Chomsky even called it a "truism." I won't go that far, but I would claim it is intuitively accepted among the populous.
But if you have got something better to offer, I'd love to hear it.
As to what alternative I have to offer, I just go with Jeremy Bentham's 'Can they suffer?'. This is completely consistent with my intuitions and just feels absolutely right. I understand that for some others, things like Freedom are more important, but for me 'Can they suffer' is the most important moral principle.
I do not see how this is relevant. But anyway, most people are mostly pro-life, going by what you cited.
Quoting andrewk
"suffering" is extremely ambiguous, and I have yet to meet a consistent utilitarian, as I continually notices equivocations. I was a negative utilitarian for a period of time, but I had to give it up as I could not defend it without contradicting myself -- or coming up with ad hoc justifications.
Ask you yourself the following moral question: "when is it morally justified to rape an innocent child?"
A consequentialist would answer: 'well that depends on the consequences.' A utilitarian could state that it depends whether it maximises the sum of aggregate happiness. This means that group rape could make raping morally more justifiable, and the larger the group, the better it would be. Sadism would be morally justified to indulge.
Putting "suffering" at the centre of your normative moral view is troubling.
Let's say Bob murders Sarah. Is it morally justified? Well, that depends. How much did she suffer with the murder? Some murders can be done with pretty much no suffering at all. Let's say that when Sarah was alive, she was constantly suffering from an terminal illness. If your moral goal is to minimise suffering -- and there is no cure, nor medicine -- one ought to murder her to end the suffering.
Now, you can solve these issues -- as I have tried myself -- but only by stretching the definition of "suffering" to your own convenience, pretty much to the point of ad hoc justifications and inconsistencies.
Now, this is just the top of the iceberg of issues I have with these lines of reasoning. Having read more about neuroscience, psychology and evolutionary biology, has made me simply drop it.
Anyway, this is just a brief reply to give you an idea and to get the ball rolling.
I would love to see how one of you can persuade me back.
As a conservative, I do not believe in a universal principle or maxim that we ought to follow. Morality is extremely complex. I believe it is a practice based on tradition.
SEP:
"[i]Conservatives reject revolutionary Jacobinism’s espousal of political rationalism, which attempts to reconstruct society from abstract principles or general blueprint, without reference to tradition. Conservatives view society not as a machine but as a highly complex organism, and hold therefore that “without the aid of experience, reason cannot prescribe political ideals that can be realised in practice” (Beiser 1992: 283).
(...)
Conservatism therefore rests on what may be termed particularist scepticism concerning abstract rational principles. Conservatives regard the radical’s rationalism as “metaphysical” in ignoring particular social, economic and historical conditions:
I cannot [praise or blame] human actions…on a simple view of the object, as it stands stripped of every relation, in all the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction; (Burke, WS III: 58)
circumstances give every political principle its colour. (Cobban 1960: 75)[/i]"
edit: by the way, this is also how I dropped right-wing libertarianism. However much I tend to agree with libertarians, fundamentally, I find it simply untenable.
One naturalist - photographer recommended we stop taking pictures of wild animals, too, especially where the presence of photographers becomes a further degradation of the environment. Flying to somewhere in Africa, Central America, Nepal, Siberia, wherever, to drive around, camp, photograph, and so on isn't helping wild animals. There is already a huge supply of nature pictures, he noted. Just being there, driving around, camping, and all that is one more small assault on already fragile environments and ecologies.
Tradition plays a key role here.
I exampled tradition as to why I reject that sort of thinking I was referring to. I then explained why I rejected the moral (and political) reasoning from principles and maxims which is based on pure reason or rationalism, and not experience (i.e. tradition). Conservatives typically value tradition, because it is accumulated wisdom via many practices and experiences throughout many generations that we might not fully understand and/or are capable of to articulate. Combining this with the idea of human nature that has been evolved according to the theory of evolution and you end up how I approach my politics and ethics.
As Pinker said in his book The Blank Slate (2002):
“Traditions such as religion, the family, social customs, sexual mores, and political institutions are a distillation of time-tested techniques that let us work around the shortcomings of human nature. They are as applicable to humans today as they were when they developed, even if no one today can explain their rationale. However imperfect society may be, we should measure it against the cruelty and deprivation of the actual past, not the harmony and affluence of an imagined future. We are fortunate enough to live in a society that more or less works, and our first priority should be not to screw it up, because human nature always leaves us teetering on the brink of barbarism. And since no one is smart enough to predict the behaviour of a single human being, let alone millions of them interacting in a society, we should distrust any formula for changing society from the top down, because it is likely to have unintended consequences that are worse than the problems it was designed to fix”
I can't see any need to persuade you back. Virtue ethics is an excellent moral framework that will produce similar ethical conclusions in the vast majority of situations one is likely to encounter, so I doubt that society will be any the better or worse for you or I choosing to switch between a utilitarian and a virtue ethics framework.
The example of group rape reminds me of Bernard Williams' silly thought experiment about the explorer and the indians (there was a good essay about this by Paul on the old site). Firstly it misunderstands how a utilitarian would likely analyse such a situation, and draws the wrong inference about what they would conclude, and secondly, the situation suggested is so far removed from anything I'm ever likely to encounter as to be irrelevant to practical ethics.
I wouldn't say I was a committed utilitarian, in the sense of being convinced that every decision I ever make should be made on utilitarian principles. I always leave the door open for other influences, be they deontological, virtue-based or something else. But so far I don't think I've encountered a moral dilemma for which one of the other frameworks that seem reasonable to me (which excludes things like divine-command and honour-based systems, as well as anything to do with Ayn Rand) clearly recommended a different decision from the one I came to via utilitarianism. Nor do I expect that to happen in the remainder of my life.
Sure I've had dilemmas, but I've found that in such cases the other systems were as unclear as utilitarianism about what the best action was.
Focusing only on zoos whose sole or main purpose is the public display of animals, yes indeed there is at lest some degree of moral onus upon us to ensure that the animals we keep for our own entertainment are not suffering unduly because of it (at least according to my own moral 'beliefs'). On the one hand we could easily offer an animal a more stimulating or happy existence in captivity, if done right (barring certain animals like whales, whose needs are beyond us), but on the other hand if all we do is exploit captive animals and give nothing back to them then surely we're committing a moral sin at least as far as the animal is concerned.
In the best case zoos for entertainment can be a happy alliance between often willing captive animals where the zoo gets an income stream and the animal gets a fat, happy, and generally conflict free existence.
In the worst case zoos can be horrendous places of suffering where people pay for the novelty of seeing something new, even if it's sick or dying. To whatever extent we extend moral considerations of these kinds toward animals is the degree to which such zoos are morally culpable for transgressing. I can't exactly define the extent to which we owe animals moral considerations, but what I can tell you is that as we gain the technology and capability to survive and thrive free of cruelty to animals, whatever moral onus there is on us to do so only increases.
We should not selectively look at the flying, driving, and camping when the published films produce acquaintance, knowledge and empathy towards wild animals. If we'd only see Jaws, and other films that exploit our ignorance or selectively show wild animals as monsters, then the situation would be worse for the animals, and there would be little interest to fund organisations who work for animals' rights, preservation and so on. Urban populations would have no clue of the relation between their consumption and the fate of wild animals.
Actually, that's a problem with putting happiness at the centre. Putting suffering at the centre solves that because then the babies experience of suffering trumps the sadists' experience of pleasure.
Also, what is all this bs about how uncontroversial your view is? Why on earth do you care? How can you care? Popularity is the very least thing one should be concerned about when evaluating any view.
Did you bother to read the rest? Didn't I mention negative utilitarianism by Popper before (somewhere)?
Popper thinks he solved the issues of utilitarianism by turning it negative, namely solely focussing it on suffering -- I highly dispute that already in the rest of my post. You stumble upon the exact same issues that Kant mentioned regarding 'not using people as merely means to an end'.
Take the doctor's dilemma scenario with organ harvesting.
Go open a book about ethics for the love of god...
Quoting andrewk
Yeah, you sound really consistent... :-}
Quoting Ovaloid
Quoting Ovaloid
If a more intelligent/rational being encapsulated me in a zoo, would it be worse than we imprisoning lower creatures you mean? Isn't that what the earth is already? The aliens are watching over as maaaaaan.
Let's face it, this place is horrendously vicious... would you sign up for a game where all animals are just fucking stupid and go around trying to eat each other all day? Fuck That! Fuck Nature! and rationality doesn't always force that viciousness out of the world either, in fact it enhances it sometimes (hitler).
Zoo?
Oh the irony of animal lovers/leftists. Most vehement advocates of animals "rights", own animals in captivity.
lol, true but domestication = no suffering because genetic brainwashing forces dogs at least in to enjoying the protection and affection.
Quoting Emptyheady
As far as I can tell... rationality = morals. Also there is no objective morality, I guess that is way nature is so fucking ruthless. But if you know better (have rationality and morality) then we chould exclude ourselves from natures evil reign. Two wrongs don't make a right and...
... at the end of all of this, we humans will point to nature with blame and lock it up for all eternity for it's shameful actions of millions of years. >:O
Would you say then that the rights of the animals held in these zoos don't enter into the discussion?