Instigator / Con
0
1510
rating
4
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#3771
On balance, Zoos ought to be banned.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1470
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Description
Ban definition: to prohibit especially by legal means.
Zoo definition: A park or an institution in which living animals are kept and usually exhibited to the public.
Rules:
1. No intentional/unnecessary forfeits.
Round 1
Con
#1
RESOLUTION: On balance, zoos ought to be banned.
POSITION: Con
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadmap:
-
- Preface
- Interpretation of the burden of proof
- Syllogism
- economic footprint of zoos
- Behavioural restriction
- longevity
- conservation
- domestication
- Crystallization
-
Preface
Thank you for accepting this debate, Lair. I have the sense that you will do pretty well on this site—I look forward to seeing your future development.
BoP [burden of proof]: Pro is arguing in favor of the proposition: “On balance, zoos ought to be banned.” And therefore, while also refuting Con's arguments, they ought to provide illustrative evidence in support of this assertion. Con needs to do the opposite of this. It is on Pro to show all zoos are inherently inappropriate places for wild animals to live—it is on Con to show not all zoos are inappropriate places for animals to live.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A1. syllogism
P1: mistreating animals is bad.
P2: Zoos mistreat their animals.
C1: all zoos should be banned.
-
P1: harming humans is bad.
P2: Leaded fuel is harmful to humans.
C1: all fuel should be banned.
We will probably all agree that leaded fuel is (1) bad for humans and (2) should be removed from fuel — just because the lead within the fuel is bad does not mean the fuel itself is bad if used appropriately and safely. In the same way, even if mistreatment of animals within zoos is widespread, it is not reason for zoos to close down. Instead, I will argue that humans should add regulations and laws to zoos to limit the amount of suffering of animals within. Just as the lead is not the fuel itself, but within the fuel, the animals are not the zoo itself but within the zoo.
A2. the economic footprint of zoos
- The direct outlays by U.S. Association of zoos and Aquariums members for operations and construction of $4.9 billion in 2018 contributed a total of $14.5 billion to U.S. GDP
- This direct spending generated $4.5 billion in new personal earnings to the benefit of workers residing in the U.S. and supported 119,570 full-time, year-round equivalent jobs across all sectors of the U. S. economy
- The before-and-after-visit visitor spending, estimated to total $2.9 billion, added an additional $8.0 billion to GDP, generated $2.5 billion in new personal earnings and supported 78,673 full-time, year-round equivalent jobs nationwide; and,
- The total contribution of AZA members to the U.S. economy in 2018, based on direct outlays totaling $7.8 billion, was $22.5 billion, generating personal earnings totaling $7.0 billion and supporting 198,243 full-time, year-round equivalent jobs. {1}
Zoos create close to 100,000 jobs within the United States alone. On top of this, they add over 22 billion dollars to the US GDP annually. The economic activity of zoos uplifts the lives of close to 100, 000 people, offering them an income working within them. This is not to include all the visitors and children who become inspired through visitation of the animals.
A3. Behavioural restriction
In zoos, animals are sometimes unable to perform certain behaviors, such as seasonal migration or long-distance travel. However, it is demonstrated that certain natural behaviors can still be performed in small spaces. A 2014 study, for example, discovered that Asian elephants in zoos covered comparable or greater walking distances than sedentary wild populations. [2]
-
Migration in the wild can also be caused by a lack of food or other unfavorable environmental conditions. [3] A proper zoo enclosure, on the other hand, never runs out of food or water, and in the event of inclement weather or temperatures, animals are provided with (indoor) shelter.
-
A4. Longevity
A study of 50 mammal species found that 84% of them actually lived longer in zoos than they would in the wild on average. [4]
A5. Conservation
"Our evaluation showed that zoos contribute to a diverse array of in situ and ex situ conservation efforts, and serve as important partners in the recovery of threatened species in the U.S. Zoo conservation activities." [5]Conservation programs all over the world fight to protect species from going extinct, but many conservation programs are underfunded and underrepresented. Conservation programs can struggle to fight bigger issues like habitat loss and illness. It often takes a lot of funding and a long time period to rebuild degraded habitats, both of which are scarce in conservation efforts. The current state of conservation programs cannot rely solely on in situ (on-site conservation) plans alone. Ex situ (off-site conservation) may therefore provide a suitable alternative. Off-site conservation relies on zoos, national parks, or other care facilities to support the rehabilitation of the animals and their populations. Zoos benefit conservation by providing suitable habitats and care for endangered animals. When properly regulated, they present a safe, clean environment for the animals to increase their populations.
Zoos' existence is crucial to animal conservation. If zoos cease to exist, so do many habits and species we may have come to adore.
A6. Domestication
Most animals within zoos cannot be reintroduced back into the wild due to the fact that most animals in zoos were born there—if pro had his way and zoos were banned, such animals would have to either be left to die or euthanized among the hundreds of thousands.
Crystallization
- The vast majority of zoo animals are born into captivity, they are not traded with money.
- Zoos offer invaluable help to animal conservation efforts.
- Zoos offer hundreds of thousands if not millions of people jobs around to world, adding billions to their economy.
- Most zoo animals cannot exist in the wild, if zoos were banned hundreds of thousands of animals would be left to die.
- zoos can help inspire children and adults alike.
Pro
#2
My argument is that holding sentient intelligent being in captivity is inherently immoral. Whether animals in zoos are happy or suffering psychologically is hard to measure since they can't communicate, consent and we can't read their minds. We should err on the side of caution and not even risk that chance.
Most of the upsides of zoos the topic creator mentioned exist moreso to make humans feel more comfortable about animals being in zoos. The welfare of animals is a secondary byproduct. First and foremost, people have made decisions on behalf of animals (without giving them a choice) and then rationalize it after the fact. Even if zoos were made to be "less bad", they wouldn't be good.
Another concern is breeding. Who are we to tell other sentient life who they must, can or cannot breed with, or control how many times they breed. We may be helping to maintain these populations, but would you like it if you were instructed on who you could or couldn't breed with? (For the sake of controlling the human population)
Imagine if another species were the dominant species, and they decided to keep a portion of us human in zoos? They could tout the benefits of zoos as much as they want, but would we be convinced?
Imagine if you were in an artificial environment and you were extremely limited to where you could travel to.
Imagine if you could never move, meet different communities of people and start a family in your own choosing; What happens if your family/friends die, but you don't have the option to move to a different place.
Imagine if you were forced to deal people constantly visiting you without your permission, disturbing or irritating you.
Imagine if you were overwhelmed by all the sounds and stimuli but having no escape.
Imagine potentially being fatally shot if you wanted to escape this life or you violated a rule. (Or just because some dumb intruder entered your cage)
Imagine if you could never move, meet different communities of people and start a family in your own choosing; What happens if your family/friends die, but you don't have the option to move to a different place.
Imagine if you were forced to deal people constantly visiting you without your permission, disturbing or irritating you.
Imagine if you were overwhelmed by all the sounds and stimuli but having no escape.
Imagine potentially being fatally shot if you wanted to escape this life or you violated a rule. (Or just because some dumb intruder entered your cage)
Imagine if you were in the same repetitive environment your entire life and were extremely bored; Phrasing this in a way that people might understand: What if you had 1 menial job your entire life, found it really unfulfilling and were never allowed to change jobs?
A1. Syllogism. Humans should add regulations and laws to zoos to limit the amount of suffering of animals within (zoos),
My stance is not just that zoos contain harmful activities, but that the concept is inherently wrong. There may be ways to improve the animals' quality of life and mitigate the harm within that framework, but that doesn't fix the framework itself.
Hypothetically. If you were to take a human who is institutionalized for their entire life, and make their room similar to what most people's homes look like. If you were to give them a laptop, PS5, cell phone, and 3 gourmet meals a day from a 5-star chef. Would this make their quality of life substantially better than being in a gulag? Yes. But they'd still be imprisoned.
A2. Economic. Zoos (contribute billions of dollars to the GDP) and create close to 100,000 jobs within the United States alone.
Zoos are not unique in their ability to create jobs. All industries create jobs, regardless of their utility or morality. And When jobs are lost, they are not gone forever. Just like when the printing press was obsolete, it's not like those people never worked again in their lives or the money consumers spent never entered the economy again. Workers use their skills to move to other jobs or they retrain.
The economic argument is a win-more argument. If zoos are ethical, economy is a bonus. But if zoos are unethical, financial incentive doesn't change this. In fact, its murky if companies have a financial interest to downplay the immorality of something because it profits them.
A3. Behavioral Restriction.A4. Longevity -- A study of 50 mammal species found that 84% of them actually lived longer in zoos than they would in the wild on average
The fact about elephants walking longer distances seems cherrypicked; doesn't match the scale of how zoos affect many animals as a whole.
Longevity isn't the only factor in quality of life. Freedom, happiness and fulfillment are too. It's possible to live a long but sad life.
Would you live in an institution to increase your chance of survival? Provided it's well-maintained, you'd be very secure. You'd get food, medical care and they have no risk of dying in a car crash. You'd still be imprisoned.
A5. Conservation
I'd argue that humans do conservation for their own benefit, either for their own amusement/knoweldge or to regulate ecosystems in a way that's favorable to them. There are cases where an action is both beneficial to humans and ethical to animals. But this is not always the case.
How much of the animals in zoos are actually endangered species? Zoos will happily cherrypick the actions they do that are seen as positive for animals, but does this justify zoos as a whole? If conservation is the reason why zoos are moral, when what about non-threatened species in zoo?
A6. Domestication. Most animals within zoos cannot be reintroduced back into the wild due to the fact that most animals in zoos were born there.
Fair point, but a ban doesn't have to be instant. It could start with a partial ban and there could be a transition period.
Round 2
Con
#3
RESOLUTION: On balance, zoos ought to be banned.
POSITION: Con
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadmap:
- Preamble
- Uncertainty principle
- C1A syllogism
- C1B syllogism
- most zoo animals lack sentience
- pros consistency issue
- Crystallization
Preamble
A very strong first round! You appear to have effectively dissected all of my first round of arguments. You've brought the argument down to a philosophical discussion on the sentience of zoo animals. Although not directly stated—your argument is pleading the usage of the uncertainty principle, which we will necessarily have to go into and investigate its practical usage in regards to zoo animals. If the uncertainty principle were to be rendered ineffective, so would all of Pros contentions against my arguments in round one fall as well.
==
1. Uncertainty principle
Pros argument appears to be solely reliant on one premise and goes something along these lines:
1. zoo animals are sentient and this is known
2. zoo animals are sentient and this is not known
3. zoo animals are not sentient and this is known
4. zoo animals are not sentient and this is not known
-
C1A. syllogism
P1: harming sentient beings is wrong.
P2: zoo animals are sentient.
C1. zoos ought to be banned.
-
C1B. syllogism
P1: Using none sentient things is not wrong.
P2: Not all zoo animals are sentient.
C1: zoos are not ought to be banned.
Not all animals within zoos are sentient—most in fact are not sentient whatsoever—very few species have passed the mirror test demonstrating any sort of self awareness. [1] At best all con can argue for is the removal of animals from zoos such as:
- Elephants
- The great apes
- Dolphins
- Orcas
C2. Most zoo animals lack sentience
To paraphrase from my friend Ehyeh: Self-awareness is required to be a subjective observer of the world. Every conscious knowledge or experience of something necessitates an understanding of yourself as the experiencer of that thing. How can you think "I think therefore I am" if you don't have an "I" or a conscious self? To put it simply, you cannot.
-
When you experience the sensation of walking, you not only feel the ground, but you also feel your foot at the same time as the ground. If you have no self, you naturally do not recognise components as being part of you — as such a thing implies a self. If you're then incapable of recognising yourself as existing, you cannot come to know the sensation of your foot on the ground either. Most animals are simply unaware of their own existence—they are entirely based on natural instincts with no conscious awareness, similar to a string of computer code.
-
C3. Pros consistency problem
There is little reason to believe most animals are sentient, except in anthropomorphism. If Pro still wishes to deny the existence of zoos as reasonable despite this fact, he ought to also argue for humans not to step on grass or eat vegetables if he wishes to maintain philosophical consistency. Just as these animals are incapable of insentience, so are plants.
Crystallization
- Pros entire argument relies on one premise: that we should not hurt sentient beings. I have fulfilled my burden of proof in demonstrating most zoo animals are indeed non-sentient. Pros entire argument relies on the uncertainty principle, which I have rendered irrelevant.
- At best Pros argument serves to require the removal of some animals from zoos, but not the removal of all zoos altogether.
- C1B syllogism effectively proves zoos are not ought to be banned.
Pro
#4
You're doing well too; thanks for this fun debate.
I feel like your arguments have an inconsistency. In Round 1, You made arguments how zoos can improve some aspects of well-being in animals, and raised a concern about the well-being of domesticated animals if zoos are gone. But in Round 2, you convey that the well-being of most animals doesn't matter because they may be as mindless as grass.
I don't want to delve too deep into epistemology, because that's a separate topic, but for debates, we typically assume there can be probable certainty, even if there's not 100% or 0% certainty. Plants don't have brains, animal cells or a central nervous system. While various animals are close in DNA and not too far apart evolutionary from sentient animals.
Sentience is not necessarily black and white. An animal can have some of the sentient traits that humans do, but not all of them. Just because an animal doesn't have some of the more advanced capabilities people do, doesn't mean they still can't feel pain.
The mirror test is one method of measuring cognitive abilities in one aspect, but it's not a litmus test for sentience as a whole. Moreover, what if an animal fails the mirror test because they don't understand how mirrors work rather than because they're unaware of their own existence?
Species that fail the mirror test include mammals. Apes (which are closely related to us). Asian Elephants. Pandas. Sea lions. Parrots. Among many others. Many animals are capable of communicating with other members of their species, having a personality, befriending other members of their species, and even having a bond with humans in some circumstances. They bleed and can express pain when hurt. Are none of these factors in sentience?
And let's talk about Dogs. They often fail the mirror test, ignoring the image in the mirror or may think it's another dog. If I need to present scientific sources on why dogs are sentient, I could. But I'm sure many of the people reading this who have interacted with them over many years are confident in this.
The topic creator has a very black and white view of sentience (that it hinges solely on the mirror test). Pinning an entire argument on one metric has severe implications. If their premises are true, then dogs would be no different cognitively than grass, and they would have no more rights than grass (Which I do not believe). Does this mean dog-fighting is ethical? Would this mean torturing dogs, giant pandas, apes, etc. would be morally acceptable since they have zero sentience? Where are the limits?
My opponent is in a catch 22 depending on which argument they stand by:
- If they stand by their round 1 argument that zoos are justified because they have some benefits to the well-being of animals, I extend my arguments that just animals having free choice is superior.
- If they stand by their round 2 argument that most animals are entirely non-sentient because they fall the mirror test (like grass), they would locked into an extreme position and would have to contend with the implications.
Round 3
Con
#5
RESOLUTION: On balance, zoos ought to be banned.
POSITION: Con
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadmap:
- Rebuttal I
- Rebuttal II
- Rebuttal III
- Rebuttal IV
- Crystallization
Preface
It seems Pro has completely dropped my argument about the lack of sentience of most animals and instead opted for an argument about intuition, emotion, and common sense.
Rebuttal I
I don't want to delve too deep into epistemology, because that's a separate topic, but for debates, we typically assume there can be probable certainty, even if there's not 100% or 0% certainty. Plants don't have brains, animal cells or a central nervous system. While various animals are close in DNA and not too far apart evolutionary from sentient animals.
I consider this argument to be irrelevant based on my C2 argument, we're left rebuttalless on it. Probabilities become redundant in this conversation until you can reasonably refute the logic with my C2 argument - that argument rules out any counter arguments to probability until it has been dealt with.
Rebuttal II
Sentience is not necessarily black and white. An animal can have some of the sentient traits that humans do, but not all of them. Just because an animal doesn't have some of the more advanced capabilities people do, doesn't mean they still can't feel pain.
Self consciousness is either black and white- you either have self consciousness or you don't you either recognise you exist or you don't. Information processing is not black or white. My individual cells do complex maneuvers constantly- processing information constantly but my singular blood cells don't know they exist.
Rebuttal III
Species that fail the mirror test include mammals. Apes (which are closely related to us). Asian Elephants. Pandas. Sea lions. Parrots. Among many others. Many animals are capable of communicating with other members of their species, having a personality, befriending other members of their species, and even having a bond with humans in some circumstances. They bleed and can express pain when hurt. Are none of these factors in sentience?
AI also appears capable of every single one of these feats. If i load up GTA V now we will see that:
- GTA AI can communicate with me and other AI.
- AI seems to have a personality.
- AI seems to befriend me and other AI.
- It feels like they bond with me.
- AI seems to hurt when it bleeds on my screen.
Pro has committed the conjunction fallacy and the non-sequitur fallacy through this argument. The main thing that separates humans from animals is our capacity to conceptualise universals: only humans appear to have concepts such as god, democracy, rights, etc. This is why we don't see monkeys building complex societies, running around with spears, or praying.
Rebuttal IV
And let's talk about Dogs. They often fail the mirror test, ignoring the image in the mirror or may think it's another dog. If I need to present scientific sources on why dogs are sentient, I could. But I'm sure many of the people reading this who have interacted with them over many years are confident in this.
I'm not confident in dogs' being sentient at all. Certainly not through common sense nor the probabilistic fallacy. Anyone who is confident with the idea of dogs' being sentient is probably wrong to put so much faith in it. Anything a dog can do, an AI can do too.
The topic creator has a very black and white view of sentience (that it hinges solely on the mirror test). Pinning an entire argument on one metric has severe implications. If their premises are true, then dogs would be no different cognitively than grass, and they would have no more rights than grass (Which I do not believe). Does this mean dog-fighting is ethical? Would this mean torturing dogs, giant pandas, apes, etc. would be morally acceptable since they have zero sentience? Where are the limits?
My view doesn't hinge on the mirror test at all. My argument hinges on C2. Pro commits a red herring fallacy and an appeal to emotion. Unless and until he can demonstrate the flaws in my C2 argument, all of these emotional tangents will remain non sequiturs and red herrings from the real problem he must solve.
My opponent is in a catch 22 depending on which argument they stand by:
- If they stand by their round 1 argument that zoos are justified because they have some benefits to the well-being of animals, I extend my arguments that just animals having free choice is superior.
- If they stand by their round 2 argument that most animals are entirely non-sentient because they fall the mirror test (like grass), they would locked into an extreme position and would have to contend with the implications.
Crystallisation
- Pro claims I'm in a catch-22 when he is yet to fulfill his burden of proof through disproving my C2 argument. In this round, all he offered was a slew of logical fallacies ranging from red herrings to emotional appeals. While doing everything possible to strawman me, claiming the mirror test as my sole premise.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
You shouldn't of quit! i thought you could of won this debate. In fact, i think you did beat me. My last round was grasping at straws, i'm surprised if you didnt catch it.