Join our zoo community

Another article on the Copenhagen giraffe (but one that is really worth reading).

Discussion in 'General Zoo Discussion' started by sooty mangabey, 9 Jan 2017.

  1. CGSwans

    CGSwans Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    12 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    3,288
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Interesting. I would argue that the universal human rights that make killing a child ethically unthinkable are not necessarily based on intrinsic qualities of the humans themselves, but rather on the need to have universal principles of law and justice, to enable big societies to function in the absence of the kinship bonds that human social groups evolved to be based upon.

    In short, killing a child is abhorrent because it needs to be; once you argue that certain people do not have an automatic right to live safe from violence you have a much more Hobbesian world. At the extreme end you are preparing the intellectual ground for slavery and genocide.

    It might be that a similar functional ethics prevents zoos from breeding and feeding, on the basis that it undermines public trust in the institution, but whereas not having human rights has been tested at length, with horrific results, I'm not sure the same is true for breed and feed practices.

    On a second point, your argument can be turned on its head. If chimpanzees have the same value as young children, based on their intellectual capacity, and children have rights, then do not chimpanzees also deserve the same rights? I'm not instinctively opposed to great ape personhood, but it opens a Pandora's box of ethical issues for zoos. Recognise ape personhood and zoos become at best protective custody institutions; I'm not sure that breeding animals at all becomes ethical under these assumptions.

    I agree on the hypocrisy of anthropomorphism, and to be fair the article demonstrates that Copenhagen's management do too. 'Marius' was only ever supposed to be known as 'the giraffe'.

    You've probably caught me out on poor language, but I'm not sure it undermines my point at all. Yes, a giraffe life has features that suggest it has greater intrinsic value than a jellyfish, but the distance between a giraffe and a jellyfish is exponentially greater than the difference between a giraffe and a cow. I'm not a biologist but is there actually evidence to suggest giraffes are capable of higher functions than cattle or pigs? If not I'm not sure it's relevant.

    It's not an obligation so much as a justification. You don't have to treat them the same, but you *can*.

    The political onus may be on breed and feed advocates to make their case, but I think the ethical onus is actually on the opponents to explain why giraffes are intrinsically more valuable. It's not because cattle are bred for human purposes and giraffe aren't; Marius ultimately *was* born for human purposes, as are all animals born in captivity.

    Absolutely. The duty to prevent cruelty is the most fundamental that a zoo has. It's unfortunate that doing this is incompatible with giving lions what would be the best enrichment possible, but it is what it is.
     
  2. Coelacanth18

    Coelacanth18 Well-Known Member Premium Member 5+ year member

    Joined:
    23 Feb 2015
    Posts:
    3,707
    Location:
    California
    No. The keepers at Danish zoos are experts in animal husbandry and so they are qualified to make decisions about animal husbandry. I understand and accept the argument that ethicists are qualified to make ethics decisions, but I don't think the decision about population control falls outside the realm of keeper expertise. Additionally, this wasn't an issue of a relevant ethics board lecturing Holst on how he should have handled the situation better; it was an issue of a galvanized public pressuring the zoo to conform to their view about animal ethics instead of go forward based on their professional opinion. I accept that there are legitimate ethicists who may have professional opinions about what Copenhagen did, but the general public and many of those who attacked the zoo are not experts on ethics or animal husbandry, and shouldn't be making decisions about either. Finally, as the article indicated, the pressure and attacks came mostly from people outside Denmark; the Danish government and people were largely supportive of the zoo's decision. Even if one were to argue that Holst should have caved to public pressure from Danes (and I would disagree with that), why would one argue that he should have gone against Danish opinion and caved to the public opinion of foreigners?
     
  3. FunkyGibbon

    FunkyGibbon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    11 Jan 2015
    Posts:
    2,937
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Yes, it probably was a little over the top, but I thought it was a nice turn of phrase, and I stand behind the intent of using it.

    I think it was clearly a publicity stunt and, given that it was done in such a way that it considerably increased the pressure on Copenhagen, I think it was extremely reprehensible. The proper thing to have done would have been to make the offer in private.
     
    Coelacanth18 likes this.