Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Class: Phil470
3rd Paper
Introduction
As the title indicates Jamieson speaks out against zoos. In his introduction he
defines zoos as “public parks which display animals, primarily for the purposes of
recreation or education” (Jamieson 2008: 97). On the other hand he derives zoos
historically from the Roman Empire and their games as a tool for leaders to
display power. At the present time so he states leaders display power by their
have zoos. Why?” (Jamieson 2008: 98) In the following chapters Jamieson
examines this question and delivers a benefit analysis of four justifications for
zoos. These justifications so he asses actually lead only to a “false sense of our
I agree with the author’s article and main statement, that the maintenance of
zoos, zoos generally are not necessary. But from my point of view his article
misses important conclusions which he could have drawn from his arguments by
examining the justifications but on the other hand his analysis ignores the cost
besides the benefits. So I grant that achieving benefits on the expense of animals
is a subject of discussion in his article but the author falls short in his benefit
the actual moral agent, us. Accordingly the purpose of this paper is to show that
Jamieson might display the useless imprisonment of animals on the one hand
Amusement
I agree with Jamieson but on the other hand I expected some more historical
reflections since his introduction included the arenas of the Roman Empire. In his
1
“For the most part they are prevented from gathering their own food, developing their own social orders and generally
behaving in ways that are natural to them. These activities all require significantly more liberty than most animals are
permitted in zoos. If we are justified in keeping animals in zoos, it must be because there are some important benefits
that can be obtained only by doing so.” (Jamieson 2008 page 101)
2
I will work with the assumption that the concept of a zoo reflects not only our ability to built a
consistent environment for animals but also to built our self-image in reference who we are and
what our place is in this world.
The author’s parallel between the meanings of arenas in the past and the present
works with the aspect that modern powerful leaders aim to display their power
only but it lacks of the aspect of the common people. Arenas had indeed an
Latin/Greece teachers used to tell us in class, the ‘games’ been also for the
beneficial link between powerful leaders and powerless ‘plebs’ which at least
from my point of view is definitely not a part of the modern concept of zoos. No
question, the games had most certainly a recreational aspect for the regular
Roman too, but Jamieson’s parallel assumes that the perception of human kind,
the way we think about us, did not change the last couple thousand years.
Humans changed not only their patterns of recreation/amusement. Since the last
approximately 2000 years human kind undertook great efforts to develop a great
not change in the last two thousand years. I believe it can be considered as
common knowledge for instance, that these arenas been bloody and cruel and
ended deadly for all the animals. Modern zoos are not made to display the
not to mention the slaughter in zoos. I hope it became now clearer that the facet
of entertaining benefit watching captured wild animals has more to reflect on than
Jamieson is showing.
Looking at the benefit of amusement from this ankle (at least no more Roman
killing of animals), one could now assume that zoos display a rather positive
development of humans and our behavior. As the next chapters will show we
might became indeed less blood thirsty but not necessary better humans.
2008: 103)
Jamieson clearly has a point questioning the claim that zoos would contribute to
research since zoos hardly take advantage of the institution. Further more the
source since zoos are not able to host a herd of certain species. In fact, zoos do
very little breeding as he asses (Jamieson 2008: 102) which is essential in order
study by Katherine Rails, Kristin Brugger and Jonathan Ballou (1979) which
Again I can only agree with Jamieson that we must not use zoos for research
purposes if research is taking this opportunity not seriously or not even close to
because of absent capacity. Still the author misses to point out that research
which preserves species would be obsolete in the first place if our use of nature
would avoid the decimation of whole species. The most current example the
polar bear should be mentioned here 3. The lost of the species of polar bear says
from my point of view that we humans as a species extinct another specie, which
One could argue now that “people must be interested” 4, should be more
educated about the situation. The next chapter will address this last point.
Education
3
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/055
4
“It is sometimes said that people must be interested – (…)”(page99).
5
Also: “There is little evidence that zoos are very successful in educating people about animals. Stephen
Kellert's paper (…), indicates that zoo-goers are much less knowledgeable about animals than backpackers,
hunters, fishermen and others who claim an interest in animals (…).” (page 97).
benefit of education and the common ignorance. Obviously neither the consumer
nor the zoo management is willing to engage and both see no need to take the
opportunity to follow a higher call here. But what does the zoo really display?
Does the zoo display animals for educational purpose: capture for knowledge?
This discussion would end up as we saw in the question if good ends justify evil
ways in which the proof of a good end would stay vague, since zoo have no other
assignment than just to imprison until death. The actual question I like to raise in
this context is, even if we would assume that we would gain some knowledge,
would we still be morally sane? We focus within this cost-benefit outlook so much
on the justification but we stay blind when we actually ought to reflect about us.
Who are we, what does it say about us, when we capture wild animals for
‘knowledge’? Who are we if we keep this reality for entertainment and education
alive and at the same time extinct a whole list of species? Jamieson is not
addressing this point. Jamieson is talking about the costs which the animals have
to pay6, the questionable benefits and even mentions that we might be morally
better off without zoos7. But his approach display zoos basically only as a system
of cost and benefit, that unfortunately to say does not exhibit the real costs. On a
cynical level of this discussion I agree with him but on the other hand I could also
say that I learned from this article that our acts are disconnected from our moral
reality and our moral being. What if the real costs for humans might be the lost of
6
“When chimpanzees are taken from the wild the usual procedure is to shoot the mother and kidnap the child. The rule
of thumb among trappers is that ten chimpanzees die for every one that is delivered alive to the United States or
Europe. On arrival many of these animals are confined under abysmal conditions.” (Jamieson 2008: 102).
7
“Morality and perhaps our very survival require that we learn to live as one species among many rather than as one
species over many. To do this, we must forget what we learn at zoos. Because what zoos teach us is false and
dangerous, both humans and animals will be better off when they are abolished.” (Jamieson 2008: 103).
from further moral reflection about who we ought to be, checking our moral
decisions protects us from corruptibility and even helps us to sustain our integrity.
Conclusion
As I tried to show in this paper Jamieson’s article examines the costs versus the
benefits in order to question the moral basis for zoos and ultimately fails to
reconnect to the actual moral agent, us. The useless imprisonment of animals on
the one hand and the ignorance of common people and scientific personal has
significance when we reflect on what this reality tells for us. I tried to show that
his reality check has moral implications for us. The question what reality is
not only in regard to get a clear picture of the burden animals have to bare but
also in order to redirect these insights as a reality check for us. In order to
change the reality of our habits we need to be clear about our habits. In the
context of this paper this means: in order to ban zoos on a more enlightened and
morality out of sight, cruelty stays unnoticed and our self respect vanishes.
Mike Trumpfheller
Berkeley, 11/20/2009
Jamieson D., Against Zoos In Pojman L.P. & Pojman P. (ed), Environmental
Ethics, New York: Wadsworth Publishing, Inc., 2008.