Can I find a justification for a practice that zoos themselves long ago eschewed? Unsurprisingly, no!

"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.

Easy. Animals have no rights and can therefore be used as property/utility by moral agents (i.e. humans).

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?

Animals have no rights — Emptyheady

To which one can reply, as I would, that they do. :-}

Easy. Animals have no rights and can therefore be used as property/utility by moral agents (i.e. humans). — Emptyheady

The exact same reasoning was used to justify racial discrimination, segregation, and extermination.

What properties do humans have that give them those rights? — Ovaloid

Capable of being moral agents.

Would you be ok with being used as property/utility by beings with more of said properties? — Ovaloid

I have moral agency.

To which one can reply, as I would, that they do. — Thorongil

Ok

The exact same reasoning was used to justify racial discrimination, segregation, and extermination. — 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.

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. — Emptyheady

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. — darthbarracuda

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. — 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."

Moral agency is not limited within a race nor gender. — Emptyheady

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. — Emptyheady

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

A species is a race on a larger scale though.

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.

Why do you think animals can't act morally? — 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.

If there were a species which is better capable of moral agency than us, would you consider them to have more rights than you? — Ovaloid

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.

You can't abuse something that doesn't have the right to not be abused — darthbarracuda

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. — darthbarracuda

That is fine. Our moral philosophies differ.

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. — 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.

Like a dog chasing its own tail. I am a bit tired at this moment, is this circular reasoning or just an tautology... — Emptyheady

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.

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. — 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.

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.

No, it's not circular reasoning. — darthbarracuda

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.

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. — darthbarracuda

That is fine. Like I said our moral philosophies differ. The keyword here is "suffering." I care more about (individual) rights than suffering.

I already addressed this. I hope you respond to that.

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... — Emptyheady

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. — Emptyheady

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. — 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.

Provide a link and - if it's not the entire post - a paragraph number, and I'd be happy to do so.

Humans are a part of nature and therefore zoos are natural, which is just my roundabout way of saying we all live in a fucking zoo.

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.

There is a move to give the rights of a person to primates.

This old chestnut again? It really is very simple. There is no such thing as an inalienable right be it human or animal.