Killing of animals has often been cited as an act of cruelty that cannot in any way be justified. When Marius was put down by the Copenhagen zoo, there was a public outcry with many condemning the act as having been unjust and uncalled for. The idea that children watched the supposed dismemberment of the giraffe being performed was what greatly irritated most of the people. It was generally implied that the children watching the entire process were horrified by the site of it, contrary to what has been indicated by the zoo`s management. After intense criticism emanated, Bengt Holst the scientific zoo coordinator and director came out to justify the zoo`s action; whether or not the deed was justified is what this particular analysis seeks to establish.
Bengt Holst`s best argument regarding the killing of the giraffe emerges where he constantly reiterates that the reason for doing so was to prevent inbreeding. The scientist states that it was necessary to do what they did for the benefit of other giraffes at the zoo. According to him, the zoo does this in order to control the population of giraffes. He additionally, indicated that this was a learning opportunity for the children who were able to make a lot of observations. Conversely, his weakest argument pertains to his insinuation that there is no reason why children should be protected from real life. He further likens the act to a vaccination, whereby the animal has to feel pain from the jab of a needle in order for it to lead a normal life.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Holst is not a speciesist for using one of Peter Singer`s terms. This is due to the fact that he appears to have no bias against animals. He tries fervently to defend his arguments on why the zoo killed the giraffe in the best way possible. Alternatively, the killing and subsequent disposition of Marius was wrong since it was done despite intense online criticism, and also after some zoos made an offer to adopt the giraffe. The proposition that none of the aforementioned zoos would offer the best home for the giraffe has no significant basis.
The killing of Marius violates the purpose for the existence of a zoo. The latter exists in order to protect animals from danger of incidences such as extinction. Despite all the arguments offered to justify their claims, the act was unjustified owing to some reasons. One of the reasons why this is the case is due to the fact that before the occurrence of the incident, two zoos had already sought to adopt the healthy giraffe though their offers ended up being turned down. In addition to this, the dissection was performed in front of an audience consisting of small children and the pieces fed to the zoo`s Lions in the presence of the same audience. Alternatively the moral justification offered for the existence of modern zoos is to ensure that animals have a place where they can breed safely without any interference.
Generally, the killing of Marius is unjustified as clearly illustrated above. Holst, the zoo`s director comes out to defend the actions of the zoo indicating that there a justified cause for this. His strongest argument being the fact that it had to be done to prevent inbreeding, though he also indicates that children do not have to be shielded from reality as implied. The giraffe, like other animals has a right to continually live judging from the fact that it was healthy. Currently people are on the lookout to try and discern reasons why such things happen and also advocate for better initiatives to be adopted in order to preserve the lives of animals.
