- Position1 of 2›
- Yes, zoos are bad
Ultimately, zoos would have to go to great architectural and environmental lengths to provide the animals with sufficient living space. Zoos cannot give an animal the environment it needs due to monetary and geographical circumstance.
The argument
Often, zoos located in poor areas are underfunded, therefore they cannot provide proper living conditions for the animals. Without adequate living conditions, the animal's overall health suffers. If a zoo does not have the ability to properly care for wild animals, they should not be operating. For example, nearly 500 animals died over the span of four years at a Cumbrian zoo. Most of the deaths were caused by hypothermia or emaciation. Multiple zoos in Indonesia do not provide a proper enclosure for their animals, such as the sun bear. The bears do not have clean water, shade, and have to rely on zoo visitors for food.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Many zoos go to great lengths to mimic an animal's natural environment to ensure the animal gets the proper care it needs. They ensure the animal had enough food, water, and shelter to remain healthy. Only under-funded zoos are harming animals, therefore not all zoos are bad or should be closed.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The premise concerns underfunded zoos specifically, which the counter-argument on record takes to be the whole of the case: if inadequate conditions follow from a lack of resources, the finding is about poorly resourced institutions rather than about zoos as such. [Rejecting P2] Two examples cannot establish a general claim about an institution operating in almost every country. The counter points to accredited zoos that invest heavily in enclosure design, veterinary care and species-appropriate environments, and the existence of inspection and accreditation regimes indicates that the failures cited are treated as breaches of a standard rather than as the standard. [Rejecting P3] The conditional in this premise is one most defenders of zoos would accept. That an institution unable to care for its animals should not operate is an argument for enforcement and closure of specific facilities, not for the conclusion that zoos are bad. [Rejecting C] The argument also does not engage the grounds the rival positions rest on — conservation breeding, reintroduction programmes and research — so even a successful welfare critique of some zoos leaves the balance the question asks about unstruck.