Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

Name: Mike Trumpfheller

Class: Phil470
3rd Paper

Jamieson’s ‘Against Zoos’ – a reality check


OR
What reality is preserved through Zoos?

“Zoos teach us a false sense of our place in the natural order.”


(Jamieson 2008: 103).

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

“command of nuclear weapons”. Closing his introduction he asks: “Yet we still

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

place in the natural order.” (Jamieson 2008: 103)

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

reflecting about us with the benefit of hindsight. On the on hand Jamieson

1of8 Mike Trumpfheller, Environmental Ethics, 3rd paper; 7/12/2013.


questions the benefits that we pull out of the imprisonment of wild animals 1 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

analysis when pointing out what it says about us retrospectively? 2 By clarifying

what reality is actually preserved through zoos he ultimately fails to reconnect to

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

but falls short to discuss the moral implications for us.

Amusement

Jamieson discusses the benefit of capturing wild animals in respect of

amusement by the reason people visit a zoo is simply to be entertained. From

the zoo’s management perspective he also states this as an important financial

aspect. So his conclusion is morally and convincing:

“But although providing amusement for people is viewed by the

general public as a very important function of zoos, it is hard to see

how providing such amusement could possibly justify keeping wild

animals in captivity.” (Jamieson 2008: 98).

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.

2of8 Mike Trumpfheller, Environmental Ethics, 3rd paper; 7/12/2013.


introduction Jamieson illustrates a connection between the benefit of arenas to

the leader of the Roman Empire and modern powerful leaders.

“Nowadays the power of our leaders is amply

demonstrated by their command of nuclear

weapons.”(Jamieson 2008: 98)

The author’s parallel between the meanings of arenas in the past and the present

meaning of zoos in modern societies misses an important feature. His argument

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

important role in relation to the self-perception of common people. As my

Latin/Greece teachers used to tell us in class, the ‘games’ been also for the

emperor to soothing the ‘plebs’. The games functioned as a social, mutual

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

diversity of self-image. Jamieson’s comparison assumes that the self-image did

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

3of8 Mike Trumpfheller, Environmental Ethics, 3rd paper; 7/12/2013.


slaughter of animals. Au contraire, it is rather hard to find public killing of animals,

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.

Science Research and Preserving Species

“In assessing the significance of research as a reason for

having zoos, it is important to remember that very few zoos

do any research at all. Whatever benefits result from zoo

research could just as well be obtained by having a few

zoos instead of the hundreds which now exist.” (Jamieson

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

author additionally shows that zoos per se cannot be considered as a reliable

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

to examine animals on a broader scale. He supports his claim by referring to a

study by Katherine Rails, Kristin Brugger and Jonathan Ballou (1979) which

4of8 Mike Trumpfheller, Environmental Ethics, 3rd paper; 7/12/2013.


“argues that lack of genetic diversity among captive animals is a serious problem

for zoo breeding programs. (Jamieson 2008: 101)”

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

is almost like committed ecocide.

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

It is hard to argue against Jamieson’s argument that education is not sufficient to

justify the imprisonment of wild animals when says:

“One reason why some zoos have not done a better

job in educating people is that many of them make no

real effort at education. In the case of others the

problem is an apathetic and unappreciative public.”

(Jamieson 2008: 99).5

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).

5of8 Mike Trumpfheller, Environmental Ethics, 3rd paper; 7/12/2013.


My point here is that Jamieson’s point of view again focuses too much on the

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).

6of8 Mike Trumpfheller, Environmental Ethics, 3rd paper; 7/12/2013.


moral integrity? The ‘cost – benefit’ discussion is misleading and takes us away

from further moral reflection about who we ought to be, checking our moral

reality. It is my understanding, that consistency in our moral behavior and moral

decisions protects us from corruptibility and even helps us to sustain our integrity.

Jamieson’s fails to show this facet.

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

preserved through Zoos needs to reconnect to us. Reconnecting is indispensable

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

therefore ethical ground we need to see who we become. Otherwise we loose

morality out of sight, cruelty stays unnoticed and our self respect vanishes.

Mike Trumpfheller
Berkeley, 11/20/2009

7of8 Mike Trumpfheller, Environmental Ethics, 3rd paper; 7/12/2013.


Reference

Jamieson D., Against Zoos In Pojman L.P. & Pojman P. (ed), Environmental
Ethics, New York: Wadsworth Publishing, Inc., 2008.

Bosveld J. At long last, the government acknowledges the species is threatened.


Top 100 Stories of 2008 #55: Polar Bears (Finally) Make the Endangered
Species List. January 2009 issue, published online December 12, 2008
[http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/055]

8of8 Mike Trumpfheller, Environmental Ethics, 3rd paper; 7/12/2013.

Potrebbero piacerti anche