“Causing death is what zoos do. It is not all that they do, but it is a big part of what happens at zoos, even if this is usually hidden from the public. Zoos are institutions that not only purposely kill animals, they are also places that in holding certain animals captive, shorten their lives. Some animals, such as elephants and orca whales, cannot thrive in captivity and holding them in zoos and aquaria causes them to die prematurely. Death is a natural part of life, and perhaps we would do well to have a less fearful, more accepting attitude about death. But those who purposefully bring about premature death run the risk of perpetuating the notion that some lives are disposable. It is that very idea that we can use and dispose of other animals as we please that has led to the problems that have zoos and others thinking about conservation in the first place. When institutions of captivity promote the idea that some animals are disposable by killing “genetically useless specimens” like young Marius and the lions, they may very well be undermining the tenuous conservation claims that are meant to justify their existence.”
Read the rest of Disposable Captives at the Oxford University Press blog.
Causing death is what zoos do. It is not all that they do, but it is a big part of what happens at zoos, even if this is usually hidden from the public. Zoos are institutions that not only purposely kill animals, they are also places that in holding certain animals captive, shorten their lives. Some animals, such as elephants and orca whales, cannot thrive in captivity and holding them in zoos and aquaria causes them to die prematurely.
Death is a natural part of life, and perhaps we would do well to have a less fearful, more accepting attitude about death. But those who purposefully bring about premature death run the risk of perpetuating the notion that some lives are disposable. It is that very idea that we can use and dispose of other animals as we please that has led to the problems that have zoos and others thinking about conservation in the first place. When institutions of captivity promote the idea that some animals are disposable by killing “genetically useless specimens” like young Marius and the lions, they may very well be undermining the tenuous conservation claims that are meant to justify their existence.
– See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2014/04/disposable-captives-zoo-animals-philosophy/#sthash.MEsllNty.dpuf
Causing death is what zoos do. It is not all that they do, but it is a big part of what happens at zoos, even if this is usually hidden from the public. Zoos are institutions that not only purposely kill animals, they are also places that in holding certain animals captive, shorten their lives. Some animals, such as elephants and orca whales, cannot thrive in captivity and holding them in zoos and aquaria causes them to die prematurely.
Death is a natural part of life, and perhaps we would do well to have a less fearful, more accepting attitude about death. But those who purposefully bring about premature death run the risk of perpetuating the notion that some lives are disposable. It is that very idea that we can use and dispose of other animals as we please that has led to the problems that have zoos and others thinking about conservation in the first place. When institutions of captivity promote the idea that some animals are disposable by killing “genetically useless specimens” like young Marius and the lions, they may very well be undermining the tenuous conservation claims that are meant to justify their existence.
– See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2014/04/disposable-captives-zoo-animals-philosophy/#sthash.MEsllNty.dpuf
Causing death is what zoos do. It is not all that they do, but it is a big part of what happens at zoos, even if this is usually hidden from the public. Zoos are institutions that not only purposely kill animals, they are also places that in holding certain animals captive, shorten their lives. Some animals, such as elephants and orca whales, cannot thrive in captivity and holding them in zoos and aquaria causes them to die prematurely.
Death is a natural part of life, and perhaps we would do well to have a less fearful, more accepting attitude about death. But those who purposefully bring about premature death run the risk of perpetuating the notion that some lives are disposable. It is that very idea that we can use and dispose of other animals as we please that has led to the problems that have zoos and others thinking about conservation in the first place. When institutions of captivity promote the idea that some animals are disposable by killing “genetically useless specimens” like young Marius and the lions, they may very well be undermining the tenuous conservation claims that are meant to justify their existence.
– See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2014/04/disposable-captives-zoo-animals-philosophy/#sthash.MEsllNty.dpuf
Feminist Philosophers 
As an unapologetic omnivore I don’t see the problem here.
I don’t think it follows from zoos trying to maintain genetic diversity in their populations that they cannot claim to be doing conservation work — in fact, I think the opposite is true. If at least some of these animals are being held in reserve to preserve the species/possibly be reintroduced, then maintaining genetic diversity and viability is vitally important — even if it sounds like eugenics (and just because it sounds like eugenics, doesn’t mean it is). Even if these particular animals are not intended to preserve the species, it seems inhumane (and stupid) to allow captive populations to become inbred and develop serious health complications as a result. While I was definitely upset to learn about both sets of killings at the Copenhagen Zoo, I don’t think this first flush of sadness and anger is sufficient to show that these killings were wrong.
The lions, for instance, were killed for what seem very good reasons: the zoo needed a new male lion to introduce more genetic diversity (and therefore increase the viability of the line at that zoo). The current dominant female and male would have killed him, and he would have killed the two young cubs already present. In addition, had the zoo not introduced a new male, it’s likely that the older male would have bred with his daughters. While it’s certainly sad that new homes couldn’t be found for these four lions, I don’t think we should rush to blame the zoo for trying to avoid their violent deaths (or, the violent death of the new lion).
Similar circumstances were involved in the zoo’s decision to kill Marius, the young male giraffe. Giraffes naturally live in herds with one bull and several females, although it’s possible to house several males together if there are no females. Young females should be moved to prevent in-breeding, and when young males reach maturity they will fight with the dominant male unless they are moved. The Copenhagen zoo had a herd of giraffe with a bull and several females already, and so Marius had to be moved. However, no other zoos had room for him. Additionally, the article I found claimed that until recently it was quite dangerous to giraffes to either sterilize them or introduce contraceptives, since both procedures required sedation and giraffes are likely to break their necks while falling under sedation. Again, it’s sad (and I think the zoo made a very questionable decision when they decided to cut Marius up publicly and feed him to the lions), but it doesn’t follow that what they did was wrong.
As far as the welfare of zoo animals, I think the first thing to say is that natural doesn’t necessarily mean better, even for non-human animals. Most animals in the wild are basically constantly under threat of being brutally murdered. If they aren’t murdered, they’ll starve, get stuck in mud, die of thirst or exhaustion, etc. And these aren’t just the conditions under which they die, they’re the conditions under which they live. In most zoos today, in America, Canada, and Western Europe at least (I simply have never been to zoos elsewhere, so I don’t know), animals live in quite roomy enclosures, get fed suitable diets, and are provided with at least some type of diversion. I’ve been to several exhibits where the animals simply aren’t out, because they’ve decided to stay in the private area of their enclosure. While these animals are certainly missing out on the benefits of a wild and free existence, they’re also missing out on the considerable costs, and so I don’t think it’s clearly wrong to keep animals in well-equipped, well-funded zoos.
I also did some research on the claim that elephants in zoos live drastically shorter lives than those in the wild, since that was seriously concerning. However, I found at least one article that disputes those claims, on the basis that they are the result of using a faulty statistical method.
Here is the article on elephant longevity: http://www.elephanttaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/WieseandWillis_LongevityandLifeExpectancy_ZooBiology2004.pdf
Here is the article where I got the information on Marius: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/09/why-copenhagen-zoo-killed-marius-giraffe
And here is the article where I got the information on the lions: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/29/copenhagen-zoo-culling-giraffe-lions-inbreeding
Since most of us accept–in action if not in words–that it’s morally permissible to confine and kill billions of animals annually for reasons as trivial as palate pleasure, then surely it’s permissible to kill zoo animals to maintain genetic diversity. I don’t understand the controversy here.
Zoos are allowing more interaction with the public through webcams and “name the baby animal” competitions. It is natural that a more involved public would also comment on other zoo decisions. There were other zoos that offered to take the giraffe and probably other zoos could have taken in the lions. They did not have to introduce another male lion before finding homes for the existing cubs. If they were so lacking in space they could have allowed companion species to move in together like the recently reopened Paris Zoo and grabbed that space for the lion cubs. Also zoos collect a lot of money through donations. It is hard to believe that they can collect money for some things but could not collect the money to send the giraffe and the lions elsewhere or even to reintroduce them to the wild. It is also hard to believe that they do not coordinate breeding plans with other zoos far in advance to avoid inbreeding problems.
@Anonymous (the first one);
Your comment implies that only vegetarians could or should care about the needless killing of animals. I don’t see, however, how does that follow. Can you explain?
Hi Daniel,
If we acknowledge that we can meet our nutritional needs on veganism, then killing animals for food is “needless” and serves only to sate our palate pleasure. Most omnivores, when pressed, will acknowledge this fact, yet they continue to eat animals because they like the taste, pure and simple. I’m baffled as to how omnivores could have a consistent and meaningful moral objection to needless zoo-animal suffering when their market demand for meat causes suffering that is just as trivial and needless. What goes into our mouths matters a lot more than what comes out of them.
“I’m baffled as to how omnivores could have a consistent and meaningful moral objection to needless zoo-animal suffering when their market demand for meat causes suffering that is just as trivial and needless.”
This is a common sentiment I’ve noticed among folks who are vegan for ethical reasons. I guess I’m baffled as to why so many people are baffled by this. There are lots of ways omnivores could draw the distinction you’re baffled by. They could point out that in many communities, meat is clearly the best available source of protein for someone on a working-class or lower-class budget. They could claim that suffering isn’t the only relevant moral consideration, and that other moral considerations allow them to draw the distinction you’re baffled by. They could claim that there are sources of meat where there is little suffering involved. And on and on. I’m not necessarily defending any of these roads, but rather pointing out that there’s not much to be baffled by here.
In response to Anonymous2, the blog post under discussion does not question to reasons these animals were killed but the attitude which allows zoos, and humanity in general, to set genetic goals for animal populations and make life-or-death decisions about animals as if they are worth nothing more than their genes.
Your claim that animals live in poorer conditions in the wild than in captivity, which supposedly justifies captivity, betrays the same attitude of limited, messianic utilitarianism Dr Gruen elucidates. I suggest you examine your assumption that it is ‘better’ for animals to live physically comfortable lives in captivity than to suffer the dangers of life on the loose. Better how? Why do zoos (or you) have the authority to make that call? Does this argument extend to human beings, i.e. is kidnapping small children from developing countries and raising them in rich countries morally justifiable or indeed imperative–and if not, why not?
Lastly, the goal of eugenics is the improvement of the ‘quality’ of the human race through controlled selective breeding. Killing individual animals because their genes are deemed useless or detrimental to the species doesn’t just sound like eugenics; it is eugenics. Zoos *are* in the business of animal eugenics. You can defend that if you wish, but you can’t deny it.
I am saddened by the simplistic views expressed in the comments to this post. Animal captivity, breeding and conservation are weighty topics that merit deep reflection from humanity as a whole, urgently. If even the audience of a philosophy blog such as this one is largely unwilling to give them any serious thought, I’m afraid our relationship with animals may be doomed.
Matt Drabek — Perhaps its helpful to distinguish between psychological and moral bafflement. To be baffled in the first sense at someone’s believing both P and Q is to find oneself unable to conceive of a satisfactory explanation of how it is possible for someone to believe both P and Q. To be baffled in the second sense at the alleged mutual compatibility of P and Q is to find oneself unable to conceive of a satisfactory explanation of how it is possible for both P and Q to be true. Are you mentioning these three arguments to show that psychological bafflement on the part of your vegan friends is unwarranted, or that their moral bafflement is unwarranted? If it’s the first, then I think your post is misdirected. Surely these vegans already know that people believe all sorts of crazy things. I think their bafflement is moral rather than psychological.
But then I think that you’ve cast their bafflement in a bad light only insofar as the arguments you mention are plausible ones. It’s far from clear to me that they are, and indeed, you yourself don’t endorse them. (In particular, re: the second argument — no doubt things other than suffering matter, but: (a) anonymous is already taking account of some of these by labelling the suffering “needless”; (b) I don’t immediately see which of these other factors helps us distinguish between the two forms of animal-killing at issue here — doesn’t seem like it’s killing vs. letting die or intented vs. merely foreseen consequences, there’s no promise-breaking on either side, and so on; and (c) even if some of these other factors could help us draw a line between the two cases, not just any old line will do; a non-vegetarian would have explain how zoo-killing could be *impermissible* on the assumption that slaughterhouse-killing is *permissible*. That seems substantially harder than just showing that, say, the former is *worse* than the latter, morally speaking.)
That’s a good distinction to draw and a fair point. I bet you’re right that the bafflement is moral. My own bafflement, which has been somewhat alleviated now (!), was psychological!
[And part of why I stayed neutral on the issue itself is because I’m not sure where I stand on these issues, so I wanted to cede to some extent to people who have thought more about this. My own interests tend to concern social philosophy in the human realm, and one big reason is that I think personhood, in the sense that most humans have it, gives us much greater capacity for suffering than any non-human animal has. In short, I think humans tend to be morally more important than non-humans because their suffering is much more intense. And when I do think about these issues, I tend to focus on things like labor conditions in slaughterhouses, ways that analogies like the ones in the original article (and notions like “speciesism”) may serve to marginalize or dehumanize people, the plight of communities that rely on meat, and so on.]