Introduction
In the recent past, there have been growing calls for mankind to do more to protect endangered species. While the response has been underwhelming, there are some individuals and institutions that have taken action. Organizations that operate zoos are among those that have adopted measured intended to secure the endangered species. While the efforts of these organizations are commendable, it is worth noting that they have sparked controversy and an ethical debate. The debate is over the question of whether the organizations actually protect the endangered species or are simply exploiting them for profit. After a review of both sides in this debate and an application of ethical theories, it is evident that the organizations are indeed playing a critical role in protecting the species. This paper offers a discussion on the various ethical perspectives that are relevant to the debate on the protection of endangered species. The paper begins with a defense of the position that the entities that operate zoos are actually protecting the species before presenting the opposing argument that the activities of these organizations amount to a violation of the rights of the endangered species
Ethical Argument
In the introduction above, the argument that zoos are involved in the protection of endangered species has been presented. To understand the strength and validity of this argument, it is helpful to examine some of the significant functions that the zoos perform. Insulating endangered species against poaching is one of these functions (Ganzert, 2016). While out in the wild, the endangered species are exposed to the threat that poachers pose. Recently, there were reports that dozens of elephants and rhinos were killed by poachers in Botswana (Bale, 2018). The killing of these endangered animals occurred despite the fact that the authorities in Botswana had taken measures to protect the animals. While it is unfortunate, the killing underscores the critical role that zoos play. Most zoos employ security measures that make it nearly impossible for poachers and other unscrupulous individuals to harm the animals.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The role that zoos play goes beyond protecting endangered species against poachers. Promoting tourism and awareness about the need to protect the species is another function that the zoos serve (Wentz, 2015). As they visit the zoos, individuals learn about the threats that the species face. Consequently, they are likely to call for action to protect the species. It is true that in exchange for admitting visitors into the zoos, the operators of these facilities usually charge a fee. This fee raises the criticism that the zoos exploit the species for profit. However, one should understand that this criticism is unfair and overly simplistic. The fee that the zoos charge is usually used to fund initiatives designed to safeguard the endangered species (“How do Zoos Help”, n.d). For example, some zoos work with researchers and scientists to develop mechanisms of increasing the population of the endangered species and ultimately release them back into the wild. Therefore, whereas they may benefit financially from protecting endangered species, it is nearly impossible to ignore the critical role that the zoos play in serving as a safe haven for the species.
Explanation and Defense
The arguments above have provided support to the position that zoos help to secure endangered species. To strengthen the position further, it is necessary to explore it through an ethical perspective. Utilitarian ethics offers the best account of the arguments provided in the discussion above. Essentially, utilitarian ethics adopts a consequentialist approach to ethical questions. Basically, this perspective holds that when faced with an ethical dilemma, examine the impacts of each course of action. They should then opt for the course of action that yields the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people while minimizing harm (Driver, 2009). Utilitarian ethics has an interesting and long history. Its development began in the 18th century when such philosophers as Jeremy Bentham offered their thoughts regarding how man should live (Driver, 2009). Apart from Bentham, John Stuart Mill is recognized as another philosopher who made significant contributions to the theory of utilitarian ethics. Mill contended that when evaluating outcomes of actions, focus should be given to the pleasure and pain that the actions yield. Individuals should then select the course of action that delivers maximum pleasure (Driver, 2009). Utilitarian ethics guides moral reasoning by providing individuals with a practical method for answering complex moral questions.
It has been noted that utilitarian ethics offers the best support for the argument presented in an earlier discussion. The main reason why this theory supports the argument is that it highlights the positive impacts that zoos have on endangered species. As already noted, the zoos protect the species against poachers and other dangers. If the protection that the zoos offer is withdrawn, the endangered species would be wiped out. The death of the dozens of elephants in Botswana can be blamed on the country’s failure to establish enough zoos to house the animals. Botswana’s example serves as evidence that zoos are needed for the security of endangered species. Moreover, the funds that the zoos raise through the species are used to finance research. Another benefit that the zoos present is that they offer the members of the public a safe environment for interacting with the endangered species. The main negative effect of the zoos is that they severely restrict the movement and the freedom of the species. As stated above, utilitarian ethics advises that individuals should select the option which delivers the greatest benefit. Since the benefits that zoos present outweigh the negative outcomes, utilitarian ethics dictates that zoos should be supported in their quest to protect endangered species.
Objection and Response
The argument that zoos protect endangered species is one side of the debate. That the zoos violate the rights of the animals by stripping them of the freedom to roam in the wild unhindered is the other side of the debate. There are those who feel that by confining the zoos to small spaces, zoos act in grave breach of the rights of the animals. Another argument that these individuals raise is that the since the zoos use the animals for the entertainment of visitors, they essentially violate the dignity of the animals and fail to treat them respectfully (“Animals in Zoos”, n.d). When one examines these arguments, they are able to understand that they possess merit.
As is the case with the argument in support of zoos, a better understanding of the objections given above can be gained when they are viewed through an ethical lens. Deontological ethics is the main ethical theory that applies to the objection. Basically, deontological ethics holds that instead of focusing on the consequences of an action, individuals should strive to fulfill their obligations (Taennsjoe, 2013). This means that rather than seeking to understand whether their actions cause harm or deliver benefit, individuals should primarily be concerned with honoring their duties. Immanuel Kant is recognized as among the minds that helped to develop deontological ethics. One of the issues that he offered his thoughts on is the obligation of mankind to respect the rights of animals. While he was not explicit in his calls for mankind to treat animals with respect, Kant’s thoughts have been expanded to include an obligation to safeguard animal welfare by respecting their rights (Potter, 2005). As noted in the discussion above, those opposed to zoos feel that these facilities fail to honor the obligation to respect the rights of animals. Their concerns about the abuses that happen in zoos are what make deontological ethics appropriate for understanding the arguments that they raise.
There is no doubt that the objections raised by opponents of the operations of zoos are valid. However, it is also clear that these objections are not strong enough to deal sufficient damage to the position that the zoos protect the animals. Suppose that the zoos were to yield to pressure from the opponents and release the endangered species into the wild. It is true that while in the wild, the animals will no longer be used for human amusement. It is also true that they will be able to roam free. However, one needs to understand that out in the wild, poachers lurk. The animals will surely be killed and their numbers will dwindle further. While holding the animals in zoos is not the ideal solution, it is the best and most practical approach to safeguarding endangered species. Therefore, the argument that zoos help to protect endangered animals remains valid.
Conclusion
The debate regarding the impact that zoos have on the safety and wellbeing of endangered species continues to rage on. On the one hand, there are those who support the zoos and contend that their effort keeps the species safe. On the other hand are people who are convinced that the zoos exploit animals by robbing them of freedom and using them for human entertainment. Both camps raise valid arguments. The arguments presented by the supporters of the zoos are best captured in utilitarian ethics. Deontological ethics offers the best account of the objections. While the validity of the arguments raised by the two camps is not in question, what is clear is that those who support zoos make a stronger case. Therefore, zoos should be supported in their mission of securing endangered species.
References
Animals in zoos. (n.d). BBC. Retrieved September 7, 2018 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/entertainment_1.shtml
Bale, R. (2018). 87 elephants killed by poachers in Africa’s ‘last safe haven’. National Geographic. Retrieved September 7, 2018 from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/09/wildlife-watch-news-botswana-elephants-poaching/
Driver, J. (2009). The history of utilitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved September 7, 2018 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/#JohStuMil
Ganzert, R. (2016). Zoos are not prisons. The improve the lives of animals. Time. Retrieved September 7, 2018 from http://time.com/4364671/zoos-improve-lives-of-animals/
How do zoos help endangered animals? (n.d). Scientific American. Retrieved September 7, 2018 From https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-zoos-help-endangered-animals/
Potter, N. T. (2005). Kant on duties to animals . University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Retrieved September 7, 2018 from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=philosfacpub
Taennsjoe, T. (2013). Understanding ethics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Wentz, R. K. (2015). Zoos raise awareness of endangered species by making their animals
Disappear. Science Times. Retrieved September 7, 2018 from http://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/6415/20150516/zoos-raise-awareness-of-endangered-species-by-making-their-animals-disappear.htm
