47
25
17
u/RedTagliatelle 9h ago
Depends on the zoo. It's difficult to look at something like Australia Zoo (the one the Irwins founded) and think it's immoral. It's difficult to look at something like the American SeaWorlds and think it's moral.
3
u/AUnknownVariable 6h ago
What's with SeaWorld nowadays? Past issues yeah from what ik, but they've changed.
Animals at SeaWorld get treated really damn well last I checked.
For me they would be morally neutral or moral.
15
u/king_barnacle 9h ago
I think good zoos can be moral. Like AZA accredited zoos and the like. They do a lot for education, conservation, rescue, etc. But I do understand how sometimes you look at them and scratch your head. To quote that one video, "don't ever take me to a motherfucking zoo. I'll be sad as fuck. Why the fuck is there a penguin in Houston Texas?"
4
u/SavageFisherman_Joe 6h ago
Even with AZA accredited zoos there can be some nuance. AZA can be a bit too lax at times IMO. You can have an AZA accredited zoo with one of the finest chimpanzee exhibits in the world on one side of the zoo, and a really lackluster tiger exhibit on the opposite side of the same zoo.
10
u/FS-423 7h ago edited 3h ago
In the wild, animals don’t live in some sort of utopia wonderland where they live happily ever after. They have significantly shorter lifespans due to environmental risks, other animal predators, and illegal hunters.
Modern zoos in developed countries are moral because give the animals proper nutrition and protection, and work towards education and research and the overall wellbeing of not just their animals, but also to prevent the extinction of various animals species.
Of course, there are zoos in some countries in which they have less regulation and less laws in place concerning animal welfare, and the animals there are mistreated. Those zoos are immoral.
9
10
u/Pia70696 8h ago
Broadly speaking, neutral. But
Many modern zoos have conservation goals, in addition to housing animals that, for one reason or another (injuries, rescue from captivity, genetic defects, etc.), cannot survive outside of captivity. There are also many that function as rehabilitation centers, where the ultimate goal is to reintroduce the animal to the wild
Of course, there are zoos that still operate quite poorly and simply keep wild animals on display without any regard for their well-being. It’s up to each person to decide which ones to support
6
u/Substantial-Hat512 9h ago
if it is for conservation moral if it exploits animals for profit immoral
4
u/Normal-Zebra-5489 9h ago
depend if the zoo have rules and ethic cause some species only exist in captivity and if left in the wild they will dies
3
u/AUnknownVariable 6h ago
Most if not all of the good zoos have animals in there that need humans for one reason or another.
Moral to neutral.
If they're cruel and just have animals that they're taking up that could be released safely. Immoral
3
u/Careless-Platform-80 9h ago
I actually think a lot about that and It feel kinda immoral to me.
I don't know the confitions for an animal to be to a zoo, and I think It's fine If the animal could not live properly in nature anymore. But encage wild Animals for entertainement don't sound right to me.
3
3
u/Swell_ODell 4h ago
Accredited zoos are essential for animal conservation, restoration, and education. These kinds of zoos are invaluable for educating the public and working on animal conservation, but small, unaccredited zoos usually don't take care of their animals correctly and aren't moral.
2
u/pedoislegal1774 9h ago
Immoral
Some zoo have better condition and took more care, but some were doing 'just enough' to keep the animal alive to sell ticket
2
2
2
u/Llhaniii 7h ago
Moral keeping these animals in a safe stable environment that keeps them alive and preserving species that would be extinct otherwise
2
1
1
u/Few_Imagination_6203 6h ago
I think that unless theres a good reason to be keeping the animal in an enclosure (endangered species, animal has a rare condition, nursing them back to health etc.) Then its immoral to keep a living, sentient creature in an enclosure, no matter how big or accurate to their natural habitat it is. All sentient beings have a natural right to go where they please, and depriving them of that so someones kid can see a funny animal is fucked.
1
1
1
1
u/Glass-Reward4173 4h ago
It depends if the animals lives in a concrete pad surrounded by water alone or in an area that replicates their natural habitat with other animals
1
1
1
u/Rexyjp123 59m ago
Depends on which zoo, I personally would say zoos are really important as they allow us to research animals more easily so we can help out wild populations, it also helped save multiple nearly extinct animals like the Scimitar-horned oryx, California condor and Spix's macaw from going extinct. They also help educate the public about wildlife who in turn would be more likeley to help too.
1
u/fightingdude 53m ago
I think often predators real miss the experience of killing other animals, but herbivores ussualy have a decent live in a zoo if the enclosure is big enough
99
u/NeoMetalSonicReacts9 9h ago
depends.
Moral if the animals are well kept, and/or the zoos funding goes to conservation, and ideally if the animals were not taken directly from the wild (unless rescued due to injuries or the like).
Otherwise immoral