Personal tools

Debate: Zoos

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 05:44, 5 July 2008 (edit)
Matthew.graham26 (Talk | contribs)
(Argument #3)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 05:49, 5 July 2008 (edit)
Matthew.graham26 (Talk | contribs)
(Argument #4)
Next diff →
Line 93: Line 93:
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-===Argument #4===+===Are zoos beneficial?===
|- |-
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|

Revision as of 05:49, 5 July 2008

Should we ban the keeping of animals in zoos?

Editing tasks you can do:

  • This article needs some sub-debate section re-formatted and the con side of the pro/con resources section developed with roughly 5 article against this motion.


Background and Context of Debate:

The claim that animals have ‘rights’ was first put forward by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s and has been the subject of heated and emotional debates ever since. There are many contexts in which the question of ‘animal rights’ comes up. Should we farm animals? If so by what techniques? Should we eat animals? Should we hunt and fish them? Is it morally acceptable to use animals as sources of entertainment in the context of zoos, circuses, horse racing etc.? Often the same organisations that campaign on environmental issues (e.g. Greenpeace) are also concerned for the welfare of animals: both sets of concerns derive from a commitment to the value of Nature and the Earth. The question of animal rights might well come up in a debate on biodiversity, and is one with so many political and social implications that it is also worth having in its own right. This debate is about the ethical principles at issue; the separate debates on biodiversity, vegetarianism, zoos, blood sports, and animal experimentation deal with more of the concrete details.

Nature: Are zoos unnatural, and subsequently immoral?


  • If nature was appropriately preserved, we would not need zoos. Michael Fox, Sierra, November-December 1990 - "Zoos are becoming facsimiles - or perhaps caricatures - of how animals once were in their natural habitat. If the right policies toward nature were pursued, we would need no zoos at all."[1]
  • Zoos exist simply to amuse the paying public. Call it what it is. Zoos exist to entertain and amuse the paying customer. They are about serving humans, not serving animals. The debate should focus on whether this is justified, not on whether zoos are "designed to help animals".


  • Zoos help protect animals from predators. Animals kept in zoos would have once been in the wild where Survivial of the Fittest takes the lead.

Bad zookeepers: Are abusive zoopers a good reason to ban zoos?


  • Whatever the good intentions of zoo-keepers, animals in zoos suffer. They are inevitably confined in unnaturally small spaces, and are kept from the public by cages and bars. They suffer psychological distress, often displayed by abnormal or self-destructive behaviour. Aquatic animals do not have enough water, birds are prevented from flying away by having their wings clipped and being kept in aviaries.


  • Bad zookeeping can be regulated and weeded out. There have in the past been many bad zoos and cruel zookeepers. It is imperative that these are reformed and weeded out. Good zoos in which animals are well fed and well looked after in spacious surroundings are becoming the norm and should be encouraged. Zoos can exist without cruelty to animals, however, and so the fact that there are animal welfare problems with some zoos does not meant that all zoos should be shut down.

Endangered: Are zoos a poor means to protecting endangered species?


  • Most of the animals that you see in zoos aren't endangered. While some argue that zoos are a means to protecting endangered species, the reality is that very few animals in zoos are actually endangered. In other words, this is really not the reason why zoos exist and so should not be put forward as a justification for them.
  • Zoos are not capable of sustaining all endangered species. According to the World Conservation Union which keeps records of endangered species, there are 5428 threatened animals on a recent 'red list'. Yet the ICUN says that even if the world's zoos pooled their resources, they could only expect to sustain about 2000 species in captivity.


  • Zoos help protect endangered species. Zoos are a good place to house endangered species, help them breed, and help move toward their reintroduction back into their natural habitat.
  • Zoos help breed endangered animals. If natural or human factors have made a species' own habitat a threatening environment then human intervention can preserve that species where it would certainly go extinct if there were no intervention.

Do people go to zoos for entertainment? Is this okay?


Adults and children visiting zoos will be given the subliminal message that it is OK to use animals for our own ends, however it impinges on their freedom or quality of life; thus zoos will encourage poor treatment of animals more generally. People do not go to zoos for educational reasons they simply go to be entertained and diverted by weird and wonderful creatures seen as objects of beauty or entertainment. As a form of education the zoo is deficient: the only way to understand an animal properly is to see it in its natural environment – the zoo gives a totally artificial and misleading view of the animal by isolating it from its ecosystem.


Zoos nowadays are not marketed as places of entertainment - they are places of education. Most modern zoos have their main emphasis on conservation and education - the reason that so many schools take children to zoos is to teach them about nature, the environment, endangered species, and conservation. Far from encouraging bad treatment of animals, zoos provide a direct experience of other species that will increase ecological awareness.

Are zoos beneficial?


There are two problems with the claim that zoos are beneficial because they help to conserve endangered species. First, they do not have a very high success rate – many species are going extinct each week despite the good intentions of some zoos. This is partly because a very small captive community of a species is more prone to inter-breeding and birth defects. Secondly, captive breeding to try to stave off extinction need not take place in the context of a zoo, where the public come to look at captive animals and (often) see them perform tricks. Captive breeding programmes should be undertaken in large nature reserves, not within the confines of a zoo.


One of the main functions of zoos is to breed endangered animals in captivity. If natural or human factors have made a species' own habitat a threatening environment then human intervention can preserve that species where it would certainly go extinct if there were no intervention. There are certainly problems with trying to conserve endangered species in this way but it is right that we should at least try to conserve them. And as long as animals are treated well in zoos there is no reason why conservation, education, and cruelty-free entertainment should not all be combined in a zoo. There is also, of course, a valid role for breeding in different environments such as large nature reserves.

Argument #5


As above, research into animals (when it respects their rights and is not cruel or harmful) may be valuable, but it does not need to happen in the context of confinement and human entertainment. Also, the only way really to understand other species is to study them in their natural habitat and see how they interact socially and with other species of flora and fauna.


As above we should take a 'both-and' approach rather than an 'either-or' approach. Animals can and should be studied in the wild but they can be studied more closely, more rigorously, and over a more sustained period of time in captivity. Both sorts of study are valuable and, as in point 4, there is no reason why this should not be done in the context of a cruelty-free zoo as well as in other contexts.

Pro/con resources



This article needs more pro and con resources to draw from. See how to do this here.



  • This House Would Not go to the Zoo
  • This House Condemns Zoos
  • This House Believes that Animals Belong in their Natural Habitat
  • This House Believes that Animals are 'Born Free' and Should Stay That Way

This debate in legislation, policy, and elsewhere

Related pages on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:


Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits