As moral agents that understand the impacts of letting species go extinct due to human activity ruining native habitats and transplanting invasive species, we need to weigh the odds of reducing their freedom for the sake of conserving the population. Think how the California Condor was revived after being declared extinct in the wild in the late 1980s.
What ends up happening with zoos however is that capitalism sinks it’s claws in and influences these zoos to prefer profit over the well being of the animals, even going so far as to ignore scientist/veterinarian advice in favor of their trainers.
So long as it remains profitable to restrict the freedoms of animals (and humans), it will happen. At least until we do something about capitalism
If you think it’s wrong to keep a cat inside then you shouldn’t have a cat. They’re an invasive species in most of the world and it’s unethical to put them outside regardless of what justifications you come up with
How many animals live longer in a zoo compared to the wilderness? Is that a valid reason for keeping them enclosed?
I’m not pro letting cats outside (in urban areas, anyway), but your argument is a bit lacking. Maybe mention that the hazards are things like cars and people actively trying to kill cats, because otherwise it’ll seem like you’re just against animals being animals (I.e dying because other predators)
Your rebuttal is worse. We shouldn’t let cats wander outside for the same reasons we shouldn’t let zoo animals wander outside the zoo. They are not wild animals and they are not native to the environments we keep them in. It is bad for them and it is bad for the rest of the ecology. If someone thinks cats should be treated like wild animals they have no business keeping a cat in their home at all.
No, it isn’t. Domestic cats do not belong outside. The exposure to numerous hazards literally cuts their average life expectancy by half.
Lots of animals live longer in captivity. That doesn’t mean it’s right to restrict their freedom.
As moral agents that understand the impacts of letting species go extinct due to human activity ruining native habitats and transplanting invasive species, we need to weigh the odds of reducing their freedom for the sake of conserving the population. Think how the California Condor was revived after being declared extinct in the wild in the late 1980s.
What ends up happening with zoos however is that capitalism sinks it’s claws in and influences these zoos to prefer profit over the well being of the animals, even going so far as to ignore scientist/veterinarian advice in favor of their trainers.
So long as it remains profitable to restrict the freedoms of animals (and humans), it will happen. At least until we do something about capitalism
If you think it’s wrong to keep a cat inside then you shouldn’t have a cat. They’re an invasive species in most of the world and it’s unethical to put them outside regardless of what justifications you come up with
How many animals live longer in a zoo compared to the wilderness? Is that a valid reason for keeping them enclosed?
I’m not pro letting cats outside (in urban areas, anyway), but your argument is a bit lacking. Maybe mention that the hazards are things like cars and people actively trying to kill cats, because otherwise it’ll seem like you’re just against animals being animals (I.e dying because other predators)
Your rebuttal is worse. We shouldn’t let cats wander outside for the same reasons we shouldn’t let zoo animals wander outside the zoo. They are not wild animals and they are not native to the environments we keep them in. It is bad for them and it is bad for the rest of the ecology. If someone thinks cats should be treated like wild animals they have no business keeping a cat in their home at all.