The Ethics of Animal Racing

[cacian]

How long can we go on justifying animal racing such dog or horse racing?
I feel it is not within the animal instinct to race each other and in such a tight forceful manner. It is obvious the animals are exhausted and tortured and yet people pursue racing as part of a daily life .
At this day and age I feel we must show a lot more respect and understanding towards animals and so must give up racing all together.

[E.A Rumfield]

We still kill each other on a large scale. I'd say short answer: until we die off. Do you have a pet? Do you like going to the zoo? Horse racing isn't the only bad thing we do to animals.

[jlcox]

While I don't find animal racing-or any contest that inherently results in the torture of animals-agreeable, it is better that it be overseen in an arena with some sort of structure and safeguards. The contests would still exist without these publicly condoned-and likely tortuous for the animals-arenas (see illegal dog and chicken fighting rings). The alternative would result in horribly tortured and mutilated animals the likes of which are never seen in the current system.

[E.A Rumfield]

I see these as the steps humanity has to take for a peaceful existence... realize that us humans are all the same regardless of race or background and that war etc is pointless and our only hope is to work together, then recognize that everything on Earth deserves as much as we do, somebody once said every animal species should be treated as its own nation, then if there is other life out there the same thing.

[jlcox]

We still kill each other on a large scale. I'd say short answer: until we die off. Do you have a pet? Do you like going to the zoo? Horse racing isn't the only bad thing we do to animals.

Horse racing is nothing like the zoo and shouldn't even be paralleled with the life an animal gets to live with a good owner: race horses are forced to take steroids and are pushed to greater limits than the most dedicated pro athletes-and when they're no longer useful, they are killed on the spot. Horses have been killed on the track in front of everyone because of a badly damaged knee. While zoos aren't ideal, they are usually in no way tortuous, and I won't even deign to explain why having a pet is waaaay different.


I see these as the steps humanity has to take for a peaceful existence... realize that us humans are all the same regardless of race or background and that war etc is pointless and our only hope is to work together, then recognize that everything on Earth deserves as much as we do, somebody once said every animal species should be treated as its own nation, then if there is other life out there the same thing.

I wish I held as much confidence in people...while the thought is a great notion, there will always be greed, jealousy, xenophobia, self-entitlement and other negative human perceptions that will prevent any such utopia from ever existing.

[E.A Rumfield]

So lets lock you in a cage and see how you feel. A zoo is like an animal person. A tiger or gorilla or panda or a wolf or bear is not the same thing as a lap dog it is not living its life locked in a cage. Put yourself in the animals position and you will realize having a pet is not much different. What if some being much smarter than you decided you looked cute and your life was now to be lived in their unending presence. And while I too wish I held as much confidence in people we will always have bigger problems then the Triple Crown. Like the stunning fact that some people own their own jets and some people can't even feed their families.

[jlcox]

Like the stunning fact that some people own their own jets and some people can't even feed their families.

Such is the nature of humanity.

But I never said that zoo life was ideal-in fact I intentionally stated that in my last post-but it is much better than the life of an animal groomed for sport. And if my only options were to be tortured, die, be imprisoned, be a race enthusiast's slave, or live in the harsh, insanely dangerous environment that let's say a male lion (who is constantly embattled by other males looking to take over) or a gazelle (who is constantly hunted by the lion), or be the pet of a being whose I.Q. is many times greater than my own, but will guarantee a comfortable life, then I'd choose to be a pet.

[billl]

Dogs don't realize they are "cute" (and some simply aren't, of course). But when they are fortunate enough to be the pet of a responsible owner, they understand that they are part of a group, and they are (whether they realize it or not) fortunate enough to have a "pack leader" who regularly feeds them, respects their role (as guard, alarm, companion, or whatever the breed or particular dog might be best suited to) and who generally enables them to live happily until they die of natural causes (barring accidents).

There are wild animals, of course, who can go anywhere and one might want to hyperventilate about how a pet no longer has the dignified existence of surviving in a raw state of nature--but if you are wearing clothing and sitting in a home in a neighborhood with a police force you'd probably be a hypocrite. If a dog barks when there's a knock at the door, it's earning its keep. Some don't bark at the door as much as others, of course--but if they lick their owner's nose, I think it's fair to say they are earning their keep as well, and I can assure you they would rather be nowhere else.

[cacian]

We still kill each other on a large scale. I'd say short answer: until we die off. Do you have a pet? Do you like going to the zoo? Horse racing isn't the only bad thing we do to animals.
No I do not have a pet. I feel a dog pet is reliant on its owners and so when time comes to go on holiday for example one gives up their pets. I do not think I could do that. Yet we have no choice. It is hard to reconcile the two. A dying dog is also painful and so I do not think I can go through that either. It is bad enough people dying that you know.


While I don't find animal racing-or any contest that inherently results in the torture of animals-agreeable, it is better that it be overseen in an arena with some sort of structure and safeguards. The contests would still exist without these publicly condoned-and likely tortuous for the animals-arenas (see illegal dog and chicken fighting rings). The alternative would result in horribly tortured and mutilated animals the likes of which are never seen in the current system.

Yes I completely agree. You do make a very valid point.
I think people in general have no idea how to behave and so taking it out on animals such as dogs and chicken is truly atrocious. This really shows how backward and decadent the human mind is.
I think there comes a point when these shambolic activities need to put to rest. Some people and cultures need to be kept on a leach just like a dog and told to behave. An animal is better then a human. Humans have got much to learn from them let alone from each other.

Just imagine what an animal could say if it could talk. Oh dear.

[cacian]

Horse racing is nothing like the zoo and shouldn't even be paralleled with the life an animal gets to live with a good owner: race horses are forced to take steroids and are pushed to greater limits than the most dedicated pro athletes-and when they're no longer useful, they are killed on the spot. Horses have been killed on the track in front of everyone because of a badly damaged knee. While zoos aren't ideal, they are usually in no way tortuous, and I won't even deign to explain why having a pet is waaaay different.
The steroid bit is truly a disgrace. I feel that anything to do with animlas treatment outside their natural habitat is appauling.
Zoos are no better. Why keep an animal on display in a shop window for others to look at? This actually reminds of Amsterdam prostitutes on shop windows. There is a parallel there.
It is absolulely disgusting. What a way to go. One needs to set examples for others and zoos I am afraid are just as bad .
I still cannot get over sharks and dolphins in swimming pool. It is a disgrace. Monumental one.

I wish I held as much confidence in people...while the thought is a great notion, there will always be greed, jealousy, xenophobia, self-entitlement and other negative human perceptions that will prevent any such utopia from ever existing.

Humans are detrimental to themselves and others including animals.

[Volya]

Animal racing, fighting, and other sports which involve animals are inhumane. However, horses taking part in the Grand National (as an example) do actually enjoy the racing. This is shown because even when their rider falls off, the horses often keep running because they are part of the herd. When a horse breaks its leg, knee, or any bone really, it is actually more humane to put it down. Obviously however, it would be better if we did not have such dangerous races at all.

Zoos are also inhumane. Lions, tigers, polar bears, they would all prefer being out where they are born to be; in the wilderness. Especially animals like lions and gazelles, out in the wild they can roam free over huge areas of land, whereas in a zoo they are confined to mere metres of space.

I would say that keeping pets like dogs and cats is actually a good thing since a modern domsticated animal would struggle to survive in the wild. Also, if you are a good, responsible petowner, if you buy a dog or a cat it means it will not be bought by somebody who may mistreat it. The one part of owning pets I dislike is that in some areas you can just go to a pet store and buy a pet. I don't think that should be allowed as it means anybody can just get a dog or a cat without even being checked to see if they are responsible. Only dog breeders and cat breeders should be allowed to sell animals, as they will make sure that the buyer is responsible enough to care for an animal.

[jlcox]

The steroid bit is truly a disgrace. I feel that anything to do with animlas treatment outside their natural habitat is appauling.
Zoos are no better. Why keep an animal on display in a shop window for others to look at? This actually reminds of Amsterdam prostitutes on shop windows. There is a parallel there.
It is absolulely disgusting. What a way to go. One needs to set examples for others and zoos I am afraid are just as bad .
I still cannot get over sharks and dolphins in swimming pool. It is a disgrace. Monumental one.


Zoo life is absolutely a horrible existence-no better than prison. However, it is not nearly as bad as being a racehorse (think prison vs. slavery). A racehorse is whipped and otherwise tortured, then often killed when they can no longer perform at a high level. While a zoo animal may be uncomfortable, they are not abused and are kept alive and healthy until they're ready to die of natural causes, or even freed in some cases. Also, zoos sometimes protect endangered species from total annihilation and allow them to replenish their numbers or even nurse individuals back to health until they are strong or numerous enough to return to the wild.

[Helga]

What about the bulls in Spain running on the streets every year and the people who put themselves in danger in this 'game'. Or Matadors now that is disgusting. I am no expert in this but what I know is enough to make me think it should be illegal.

When it comes to Zoo's, I do agree that it is the wrong place for these animals, absolutely. But most of the animals in Zoo's today are of a generation of caged animals, they probably wouldn't make it out there anymore than my dogs would.

Because of us many animals are extinct and/or in danger, so in that sense many zoo's are trying to help them, like the Panda so they do good too. I think in general the animals are treated well there but of course there are rotten apples everywhere just like there are with pet owners.

Again I don't think animals should be in cages but at least they try and do good too and correct the wrongs made before(and still) by the rotten apples among the humans.

[Alexander III]

When I was young I wanted to become a professional jockey as I had talent and fondness for riding and racing. But then I grew too tall and too big for me to ever attempt a serious career as a jockey. I also love watching, and as most are inlined, gambling on races. Personally, in my experience those who ride professionally are people who love the beasts and treat them lovingly and perfectly. Also those horses which are used for racing are more valuable than a luxurious car, so it is in everyones interests to keep them healthy; those horses have better medical insurance than the human proletariat.

Horse racing is one of the oldest sports humanity has, it is a tradition worth preserving; regardless the fact that machines have replaced horses in our lifetimes.

[E.A Rumfield]

Such is the nature of humanity.

But I never said that zoo life was ideal-in fact I intentionally stated that in my last post-but it is much better than the life of an animal groomed for sport. And if my only options were to be tortured, die, be imprisoned, be a race enthusiast's slave, or live in the harsh, insanely dangerous environment that let's say a male lion (who is constantly embattled by other males looking to take over) or a gazelle (who is constantly hunted by the lion), or be the pet of a being whose I.Q. is many times greater than my own, but will guarantee a comfortable life, then I'd choose to be a pet.



And that is your problem. The lion was made to hunt the gazelle, anything less is a travesty. Benjamin Franklin once said those who choose safety over freedom deserve neither. Think about that.


When I was young I wanted to become a professional jockey as I had talent and fondness for riding and racing. But then I grew too tall and too big for me to ever attempt a serious career as a jockey. I also love watching, and as most are inlined, gambling on races. Personally, in my experience those who ride professionally are people who love the beasts and treat them lovingly and perfectly. Also those horses which are used for racing are more valuable than a luxurious car, so it is in everyones interests to keep them healthy; those horses have better medical insurance than the human proletariat.

Horse racing is one of the oldest sports humanity has, it is a tradition worth preserving; regardless the fact that machines have replaced horses in our lifetimes.

I think it is pretty well known by now that the people involved in horse racing are generally scumbags. Example trainers giving the horses steroids. They care about the horse as long as they win money. Human athletes are treated equally as poorly in the long run only they should know better.

[OrphanPip]

Zoos are not bad per se, there is a lot of effort going on to modernize zoos and make them something far different from the menageries they were in the past. They now play a key role in conservation, wildlife biology research, and public education about issues of conservation. And before we get ahead of ourselves with romantic ideas about life in the wild, most animals live shorter, more stressful, and more painful lives in the world. I think the spectre of the indignity of a caged existence is a bit of an anthropomorphic projection.

I do agree that horse racing can at times be just as bad as coq fights, bear baiting, and dog fights.

As to pets, well I worked in the veterinary field for years, and have given a lot of my personal time to the SPCA, and I think pets are a good thing for the most part. There is ample evidence that both people and dogs do well when they are together. We must remember that the dog has undergone over 10,000 years of domestication and they are in many ways adapted to life with humans. I do object to the commercialized production of house pets; the world would be a better place without pet shops. My rabbit was a rescue abandoned after Easter, and my cat was acquired from a hobby breeder who was unable to sell him because of a flaw (kinked tail).

[E.A Rumfield]

These are not romantic ideas the animals were made to live in the wild not be gawked at and I would argue that 10 years living in the wild is more of a complete life than 30 years captive. Key word captive. You cannot argue that because existence in the wild is rougher that it is not the natural and only way these animals know how to exist. If you ever saw the documentary movie you would know about the performance dolphin and the world renowned trainer that claims it committed suicide. Conservation what a bunch of self important BS. It is our fault wildlife needs to be preserved. In the 1800's we swept across America like the Black Plague. Teddy Roosevelt, what a fraud, half-*** hunter fake solider, conserving the wild life he so happily hunts. Public education, even though Steve Irwin didn't realize it he helped contribute to the downfall of wildlife by messing around where he didn't belong just like Einstein contributed to destruction. We just can't keep our goddamn hands out of the cookie jar and we think we are helping but we only make it worse.

[OrphanPip]

These are not romantic ideas the animals were made to live in the wild not be gawked at and I would argue that 10 years living in the wild is more of a complete life than 30 years captive. Key word captive. You cannot argue that because existence in the wild is rougher that it is not the natural and only way these animals know how to exist. If you ever saw the documentary movie you would know about the performance dolphin and the world renowned trainer that claims it committed suicide. Conservation what a bunch of self important BS. It is our fault wildlife needs to be preserved. In the 1800's we swept across America like the Black Plague. Teddy Roosevelt, what a fraud, half-*** hunter fake solider, conserving the wild life he so happily hunts. Public education, even though Steve Irwin didn't realize it he helped contribute to the downfall of wildlife by messing around where he didn't belong just like Einstein contributed to destruction. We just can't keep our goddamn hands out of the cookie jar and we think we are helping but we only make it worse.

I didn't say anything about what is "natural," I could care less about what is natural. What is natural is not necessarily better. I fail to see anything constructive in your post that is much worth responding to. Of course humans are mostly responsible for the need for conservation, however that doesn't negate the value of conservation.

[cacian]

I didn't say anything about what is "natural," I could care less about what is natural. What is natural is not necessarily better. I fail to see anything constructive in your post that is much worth responding to. Of course humans are mostly responsible for the need for conservation, however that doesn't negate the value of conservation.

What is not natural is for horses to race each other and in these forced conditions. The horses have no choice but to race.
I would like to see that imposed on humans and in these same conditions. I would like to see them fall and hurt themselves in the same way the horse does and then we can talk what is natural and what is not.
It is an absolute disgrace to watch that on TV without feeling sick in the stomach.
Natural is the best way always. It is us humans that think it is not always. That is only because when nature is at its best we feel the need to challenge it because we think we are better then it or we feel threatened by it.

[OrphanPip]

What is not natural is for horses to race each other and in these forced conditions. The horses have no choice but to race.
I would like to see that imposed on humans and in these same conditions. I would like to see them fall and hurt themselves in the same way the horse does and then we can talk what is natural and what is not.
It is an absolute disgrace to watch that on TV without feeling sick in the stomach.
Natural is the best way always. It is us humans that think it is not always. That is only because when nature is at its best we feel the need to challenge it because we think we are better then it or we feel threatened by it.

What is natural is not what is best. Besides the inherently illogical separation of human action from "nature," what is natural is full of horrible things. The inherent weakness of your argument is that one could easily argue that it is natural for humans to derive pleasure from training animals for contests, thus it must be good for humans to race horses because it complies to our "nature."

Maybe you should read up on the naturalistic fallacy. Of course, it's you Cacian, so I expect you'll tailor any definition of nature to arbitrary conform to your positions.

[jlcox]

And that is your problem. The lion was made to hunt the gazelle, anything less is a travesty. Benjamin Franklin once said those who choose safety over freedom deserve neither. Think about that.




How much freedom does a lion or a gazelle truly have in this world? Just because you are allowed to have a reservation (much like Native American reservations) doesn't make you free. If a lion roams harmlessly into a human city, they'd be lucky to be tranquilized and placed somewhere they don't necessarily want to be. That is NOT freedom; if I'm a gazelle who cannot live where or how i want because I'm constantly looking over my shoulder, I am NOT free. No more free that a runaway slave who is dogged by his masters-freedom means freedom from everything, including constant fear.

My point is that in a world where freedom is impossible, I'd choose the best option. TRUE freedom is impossible for most animals, with rare exceptions. And you're wrong about what they were made for. lions were not made to hunt gazelles: they were made to survive, and they just happened to find gazelle meat as a source of survival, so they developed tools to obtain that meat. Who are you to say that an individual lion wouldn't prefer to be given that meat? Can you read a lion's mind? You assume that is what they want to do because that is what they've had to do for generations-just like humans, before we developed tools to acquire meat without hunting.

And as to your Benjamin Franklin quote, he was fighting an enemy no more capable than him. Lions cannot protect their own freedom against us any more than we can protect our freedoms against some super intelligent race that we cannot defeat

[Paulclem]

These are not romantic ideas the animals were made to live in the wild not be gawked at and I would argue that 10 years living in the wild is more of a complete life than 30 years captive. Key word captive. You cannot argue that because existence in the wild is rougher that it is not the natural and only way these animals know how to exist. If you ever saw the documentary movie you would know about the performance dolphin and the world renowned trainer that claims it committed suicide. Conservation what a bunch of self important BS. It is our fault wildlife needs to be preserved. In the 1800's we swept across America like the Black Plague. Teddy Roosevelt, what a fraud, half-*** hunter fake solider, conserving the wild life he so happily hunts. Public education, even though Steve Irwin didn't realize it he helped contribute to the downfall of wildlife by messing around where he didn't belong just like Einstein contributed to destruction. We just can't keep our goddamn hands out of the cookie jar and we think we are helping but we only make it worse.

Nature is red in tooth and claw. I'm not sure how you can say that animals are better off in the wild when they are subject to untreated diseases and accidents and are fighting for survival. Most modern zoos are a compromise of space and safety. I'm not saying all animals should be in zoos either - it would be impossible - but as Orphan has said, they are not necessarily bad. Nowadays they are balancing the commercial needs with conservation and care.

As for horses, they are exploited by the whole betting fraternity. I really dislike betting for the social harm it does to many people, but a regulated system is much better than an undeground one. The system is public and visible. Like many things it's a compromise. In such cases it's difficult to create an absolute solution, and a compromise is the best we can hope for at the moment.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't see how you can equate putting a wild animal in a zoo with having a pet dog, as long as its a good owner. Our dogs are treated like royalty--it's almost sickening. Big back yard, plenty of pillows and furniture from them to sleep on, tons of toys, and daily walks. Yeah, poor things.

[Dodo25]

Interesting discussion so far!

First of all, I fully agree that horse racing is unnecessary cruelty, merely for our enjoyment, and that we should make it illegal. (I don't buy the objection that this would lead to significantly more underground animal fighting activities.)

Then I also want to point out that we can say the very same thing about eating animal products for food. It's unnecessary given that there are healthy alternatives, and it's cruel to the animals. There's suffering even on the nicest farms. It's much easier and more humane to not breed the animals in the first place, than to worry about how we can "humanely kill" them, or transport them to their final destinations.

Regarding zoos and the wild, I actually fully agree with the points raised by OrphanPip and Paulclem. Nature is a terrible place to live in. The vast majority of animals in nature die a cruel death shortly after birth. That's because the prevalent reproductive strategy is r-selection, which focueses on having huge amounts of offspring. For a population to remain constant, only one child per parent will make it to reproduction, all the others die early and presumably painfully.

Life in the wild is bad. Does that mean zoos are okay? I wouldn't say so. If the animals suffer from the confinement, that's still bad, regardless of what their conspecifics in the wild are going through. We still try to help fellow citizens that are living a bad life (e.g. because they are homeless or very poor), even though these people might have a better life than the average Homo sapiens living in the wild. (Many hunter gatherer societies have mortality rates much higher than those in the most violent modern cities, for instance, but that doesn't mean that the violence in those cities is okay.) However, if the animals don't suffer from confinement and live happy lives in the zoos, then that seems fine, why would we object to that?

Maybe at some point, when technology grows enough, we can help animals in the wild. In the meantime, let's just stop adding additional animal suffering on our part. Ah, regarding conservation, why should that be our goal? It's less important to conserve species than it is to provide help for *individual animals*. A species can neither feel pain nor pleasure, only individual members of a species can. Unfortunately, I find that the natural sciences are ideologically biased because few people really think about these ethical issues rationally and systematically.

[E.A Rumfield]

What is natural is best it is what has worked on this planet for 4 billion years. Are you telling me that by destroying the ecosystem, making it nearly impossible for anything to thrive and putting what we haven't killed off into zoos to show our children all the wonderful things that the Earth used to support that we are actually doing the world a favor? Some logic.


Nature is red in tooth and claw. I'm not sure how you can say that animals are better off in the wild when they are subject to untreated diseases and accidents and are fighting for survival. Most modern zoos are a compromise of space and safety. I'm not saying all animals should be in zoos either - it would be impossible - but as Orphan has said, they are not necessarily bad. Nowadays they are balancing the commercial needs with conservation and care.

As for horses, they are exploited by the whole betting fraternity. I really dislike betting for the social harm it does to many people, but a regulated system is much better than an undeground one. The system is public and visible. Like many things it's a compromise. In such cases it's difficult to create an absolute solution, and a compromise is the best we can hope for at the moment.

How stupid. Who are we to say what is better. Tell me that. It is a stupid thing to say an animal is better off in a zoo or even just as well off, it does not belong there. How much freedom does a lion or a gazelle have in this world? As much as a man or a roach. We are all subject to things we cannot control, think of the butterfly effect. We can't leave things be. Nature will balance itself out always despite all our self importance we are a mere blip on the radar of even this planet thoroughly unimportant. As for pets, dogs and cats were not always so subservient, we breed them to be that way. People can be breed to and likely are and for the same reasons man choose to breed early dogs.


Interesting discussion so far!

First of all, I fully agree that horse racing is unnecessary cruelty, merely for our enjoyment, and that we should make it illegal. (I don't buy the objection that this would lead to significantly more underground animal fighting activities.)

Then I also want to point out that we can say the very same thing about eating animal products for food. It's unnecessary given that there are healthy alternatives, and it's cruel to the animals. There's suffering even on the nicest farms. It's much easier and more humane to not breed the animals in the first place, than to worry about how we can "humanely kill" them, or transport them to their final destinations.

Regarding zoos and the wild, I actually fully agree with the points raised by OrphanPip and Paulclem. Nature is a terrible place to live in. The vast majority of animals in nature die a cruel death shortly after birth. That's because the prevalent reproductive strategy is r-selection, which focueses on having huge amounts of offspring. For a population to remain constant, only one child per parent will make it to reproduction, all the others die early and presumably painfully.

Life in the wild is bad. Does that mean zoos are okay? I wouldn't say so. If the animals suffer from the confinement, that's still bad, regardless of what their conspecifics in the wild are going through. We still try to help fellow citizens that are living a bad life (e.g. because they are homeless or very poor), even though these people might have a better life than the average Homo sapiens living in the wild. (Many hunter gatherer societies have mortality rates much higher than those in the most violent modern cities, for instance, but that doesn't mean that the violence in those cities is okay.) However, if the animals don't suffer from confinement and live happy lives in the zoos, then that seems fine, why would we object to that?

Maybe at some point, when technology grows enough, we can help animals in the wild. In the meantime, let's just stop adding additional animal suffering on our part. Ah, regarding conservation, why should that be our goal? It's less important to conserve species than it is to provide help for *individual animals*. A species can neither feel pain nor pleasure, only individual members of a species can. Unfortunately, I find that the natural sciences are ideologically biased because few people really think about these ethical issues rationally and systematically.

Life in the wild is not BAD. BAD and GOOD are abstract concepts created by humans. It is exactly what it is. Who are we to change that. As if the life we made for ourselves is worth anything. If you never risked life how do you truly know what it is worth? We have created a population of soft asses who couldn't make it a day in the real world. A bunch of mindless drones taught to buy products and that is better. Nature is bad. That's like blaming the wolf for eating the sheep and calling it a murderer. The wolf cannot be separated from death. The wolf is DEATH.

Nature is beautiful. The natural world is beautiful. Animals are beautiful and free in their natural environments. I bet you'll tell me the human body is ugly and profane also?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Can't you ever have a conversation without being rude?

[BienvenuJDC]

I've read much of what is written. It seems that most of the comments here are based on what each person "thinks" happens and how they "think" the animals feel towards it. I'd suggest that if you feel strongly about things, research them objectively first. And by research objectively, I don't mean to find evidence that supports your original feelings. While I don't condone ANY kinds of animal fighting, I think that much of the other types of events involving animals is subject to the type of person who owns the animal.

[jlcox]

I don't see how you can equate putting a wild animal in a zoo with having a pet dog, as long as its a good owner. Our dogs are treated like royalty--it's almost sickening. Big back yard, plenty of pillows and furniture from them to sleep on, tons of toys, and daily walks. Yeah, poor things.

Great point

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I find horse racing a bit mean, but not the height of cruelty. Horses have a pretty great life after they retire, from what I understand. And who's to say they don't enjoy getting out there and running full out?

Dog fighting? Absolutely horrible. Any animal fighting, really. I'll they bullfighting into the mix, too, no matter how wonderfully Hemingway wrote about it. There isn't much I like to see more than the matador getting mauled by the bill.

[BienvenuJDC]

Of course the slaughter houses are a great place either...

[OrphanPip]

What is natural is best it is what has worked on this planet for 4 billion years. Are you telling me that by destroying the ecosystem, making it nearly impossible for anything to thrive and putting what we haven't killed off into zoos to show our children all the wonderful things that the Earth used to support that we are actually doing the world a favor? Some logic.

Why is what is natural best? And best for whom and by what measure? And how are the actions of humanity distinct from what is natural?

Also, that's a pretty text book example of a straw man. By your logic we should condemn homeless shelters because of the existence of poverty, it does not follow. Zoos can do good in a world where ecosystems are threatened, without themselves being complicit in the exploitation of ecosystems.


How stupid. Who are we to say what is better. Tell me that. It is a stupid thing to say an animal is better off in a zoo or even just as well off, it does not belong there. How much freedom does a lion or a gazelle have in this world? As much as a man or a roach. We are all subject to things we cannot control, think of the butterfly effect. We can't leave things be. Nature will balance itself out always despite all our self importance we are a mere blip on the radar of even this planet thoroughly unimportant. As for pets, dogs and cats were not always so subservient, we breed them to be that way. People can be breed to and likely are and for the same reasons man choose to breed early dogs.

Why is freedom a relevant category for measuring the good or bad of zoos? Is it because we are to infer that animals suffer from a lack of freedom? Perhaps that is true, but do they suffer more from a lack of freedom than they do from starvation or disease in the wild? Oh and they would suffer those things with or without human intervention in ecosystems. Does nature always balance itself out? What does it mean for nature to be "balanced," it me as romantic projections without any basis in a thorough understand of ecology.


Life in the wild is not BAD. BAD and GOOD are abstract concepts created by humans. It is exactly what it is. Who are we to change that. As if the life we made for ourselves is worth anything. If you never risked life how do you truly know what it is worth? We have created a population of soft asses who couldn't make it a day in the real world. A bunch of mindless drones taught to buy products and that is better. Nature is bad. That's like blaming the wolf for eating the sheep and calling it a murderer. The wolf cannot be separated from death. The wolf is DEATH.

But of course you say above that nature is best, thus you are certainly imposing a moral judgement on nature, the Romantic idealization of it. I don't think nature as you are using it is a coherent idea to begin with, if anything is "an abstract concept created by humans" it is distinguishing the actions of humanity from the natural.


Nature is beautiful. The natural world is beautiful. Animals are beautiful and free in their natural environments. I bet you'll tell me the human body is ugly and profane also?

So, that seems entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Beauty doesn't exist without someone to perceive it, so there again you show the double standards you continuously set up about nature.

It's difficult to really tease out anything of substance from what mostly comes off as angsty sophistry.


Ah, regarding conservation, why should that be our goal? It's less important to conserve species than it is to provide help for *individual animals*. A species can neither feel pain nor pleasure, only individual members of a species can. Unfortunately, I find that the natural sciences are ideologically biased because few people really think about these ethical issues rationally and systematically.

I'm not as fully committed to utilitarian ethics as you, Dodo. Anyway, I'm not sure it's possible to separate the preservation of individuals from the preservation of the group. Of course, if you try to make this separation you end with a bit of utilitarian nihilism, where the best way to end new suffering is to end new life. I support conservation for pragmatic reasons, in that it preserves access to certain scientific insights on life and biodiversity that may come from having a wider range of life available to examine.

[E.A Rumfield]

Humans used to tell stories of Gods to explain the unexplainable. Now we are God. We became God when we started building machines. When we started creating life. In a few hundred years humans will be genetically produced, just like chicken. Science can already build a human heart in a lab. That is unnatural. Would you trade all the good and the bad the world has to offer for a sterile controlled existence? You would rather be feed then feed yourself? Where is the growth? Where is the pain? Where is the adventure? Where is the pleasure in that? We need suffering to understand happiness, the two coexist together. Outside of that is emptiness which I feel is much worse.

[cacian]

Interesting discussion so far!

First of all, I fully agree that horse racing is unnecessary cruelty, merely for our enjoyment, and that we should make it illegal. (I don't buy the objection that this would lead to significantly more underground animal fighting activities.)

Then I also want to point out that we can say the very same thing about eating animal products for food. It's unnecessary given that there are healthy alternatives, and it's cruel to the animals. There's suffering even on the nicest farms. It's much easier and more humane to not breed the animals in the first place, than to worry about how we can "humanely kill" them, or transport them to their final destinations.

Regarding zoos and the wild, I actually fully agree with the points raised by OrphanPip and Paulclem. Nature is a terrible place to live in. The vast majority of animals in nature die a cruel death shortly after birth. That's because the prevalent reproductive strategy is r-selection, which focueses on having huge amounts of offspring. For a population to remain constant, only one child per parent will make it to reproduction, all the others die early and presumably painfully.

Life in the wild is bad. Does that mean zoos are okay? I wouldn't say so. If the animals suffer from the confinement, that's still bad, regardless of what their conspecifics in the wild are going through. We still try to help fellow citizens that are living a bad life (e.g. because they are homeless or very poor), even though these people might have a better life than the average Homo sapiens living in the wild. (Many hunter gatherer societies have mortality rates much higher than those in the most violent modern cities, for instance, but that doesn't mean that the violence in those cities is okay.) However, if the animals don't suffer from confinement and live happy lives in the zoos, then that seems fine, why would we object to that?

Maybe at some point, when technology grows enough, we can help animals in the wild. In the meantime, let's just stop adding additional animal suffering on our part. Ah, regarding conservation, why should that be our goal? It's less important to conserve species than it is to provide help for *individual animals*. A species can neither feel pain nor pleasure, only individual members of a species can. Unfortunately, I find that the natural sciences are ideologically biased because few people really think about these ethical issues rationally and systematically.

I don't know.
Animals belong in the wilderness as nature intended.
Humans interfer with everything they won't rest until they have had a hand on it.
I don't believe for a minute that wilderness is inappropriate for animals. The wild is a natural habitat for animals just like the amazon is for wild plants. It is as simple as that.
Humans have a had a long history of interefering with nature. It goes from animals to humans to plants.
Everything one can possibly imagined is being bred in a lab. It is terrigying the thought of it. There are consequences to everything we do and we are and willbe paying the price for it one way or another.

[Volya]

Don't they say 'It's better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand years as a lamb.' ?
If I were a lion, I would rather spend 5 years in the wild living my life how I was meant to, than spend 20 years cooped up in a zoo.

[Paulclem]

How stupid. Who are we to say what is better. Tell me that. It is a stupid thing to say an animal is better off in a zoo or even just as well off, it does not belong there. How much freedom does a lion or a gazelle have in this world? As much as a man or a roach. We are all subject to things we cannot control, think of the butterfly effect. We can't leave things be. Nature will balance itself out always despite all our self importance we are a mere blip on the radar of even this planet thoroughly unimportant. As for pets, dogs and cats were not always so subservient, we breed them to be that way. People can be breed to and likely are and for the same reasons man choose to breed early dogs.

What a pleasant repartee you have. it's a great pleasure to converse with you.

Nature is red in tooth and claw - kill and be killed, slaughter in the seas - the strong eat the weak, the weak survive by reproducing a lot - itself a burden upon individual animals. My point is that nature and the natural state is a cruel and hard place for all animals in the food chain. They suffer accidents and disease without any of the relief that we can access. The natural state is just where most of them have to live. At least in zoos - many of which in the West are much more concerned with welfare - there are vets, food, shelter and water. But, as I said before, it is impossible to house all animals in zoos, and to prevent the "natural" slaughter that goes on.

[Alexander III]

Don't they say 'It's better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand years as a lamb.' ?
If I were a lion, I would rather spend 5 years in the wild living my life how I was meant to, than spend 20 years cooped up in a zoo.

I don't understand. You are not a lion, but you are a human and just as much of an animal as a lion. Yet you say as a lion you would live in the wild and forgo the comforts of domestic life, yet as a human you usurp all the pleasures of a domesticated life and would never live in a wild and primeval state. Saying you would do so as a lion, yet not as a human is as ridiculous as me saying, if I were a billionaire I would give all my money to charity. I am not a billionaire, hence I don't need to give all my money to charity, yet I can also gloat about what a noble and christian man I am that if I had a billion I would give it all away.

My intention is not to be rude to you, but I have heard that expression used by so many vapid creatures at university that it has truly annoyed me.

[cacian]

Don't they say 'It's better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand years as a lamb.' ?
If I were a lion, I would rather spend 5 years in the wild living my life how I was meant to, than spend 20 years cooped up in a zoo.

I agree Ithink without a shadow of a doubt lions belong to the wilderness and nature.
That is the only habitat they are to be in and they must be let free to roam it as they wish it

[Volya]

I don't understand. You are not a lion, but you are a human and just as much of an animal as a lion. Yet you say as a lion you would live in the wild and forgo the comforts of domestic life, yet as a human you usurp all the pleasures of a domesticated life and would never live in a wild and primeval state. Saying you would do so as a lion, yet not as a human is as ridiculous as me saying, if I were a billionaire I would give all my money to charity. I am not a billionaire, hence I don't need to give all my money to charity, yet I can also gloat about what a noble and christian man I am that if I had a billion I would give it all away.

My intention is not to be rude to you, but I have heard that expression used by so many vapid creatures at university that it has truly annoyed me.

As it happens, I do dislike my current lifestyle. However it is a necessary evil in order for me to gain a full education. After that I plan to go travelling for the rest of my life, which is pretty darn close to living in a wild and primeval state.

[Alexander III]

As it happens, I do dislike my current lifestyle. However it is a necessary evil in order for me to gain a full education. After that I plan to go travelling for the rest of my life, which is pretty darn close to living in a wild and primeval state.

Unfortunately lions don't get to sleep at the four seasons and make use of currency to purchase food. In fact in the wild they have no health-care, no guarantee of food and water, and most of all other male lions are always trying to kill them. So yea, traveling around the world is totally the same as being a lion in the wild. Because after all lions are animals and can tolerate the harshness of nature far more than us humans, who are not animals, rather we are superior creatures born to live not in nature but in society; hence a wild lion in Kruger Park is the equivalent of a man who rents instead of purchasing property. Both wild and primeval and brave souls of equal daring. When the lion dies young from hunger or disease he lived a brief life spiting the gods, like the hero of a man who goes into the jungles of Thailand searching that rare breed of whore which costs less than a Mcdonalds meal.

[Volya]

Did I ever say it was exactly as the same?
Would you rather live in a cage your entire life, or be able to roam. Freedom or safety is what it amounts to.

[E.A Rumfield]

What a pleasant repartee you have. it's a great pleasure to converse with you.

Nature is red in tooth and claw - kill and be killed, slaughter in the seas - the strong eat the weak, the weak survive by reproducing a lot - itself a burden upon individual animals. My point is that nature and the natural state is a cruel and hard place for all animals in the food chain. They suffer accidents and disease without any of the relief that we can access. The natural state is just where most of them have to live. At least in zoos - many of which in the West are much more concerned with welfare - there are vets, food, shelter and water. But, as I said before, it is impossible to house all animals in zoos, and to prevent the "natural" slaughter that goes on.

You have no point. Who are we to say that their life is unpleasant? We can barely breath the air now a days. You speak like it is our Duty to help the poor suffering animals. This Earth has supported abundant life for billions of years, what have we done. It is our Duty to save them from their rotten. You're missing it and I feel sorry my friend.


Unfortunately lions don't get to sleep at the four seasons and make use of currency to purchase food. In fact in the wild they have no health-care, no guarantee of food and water, and most of all other male lions are always trying to kill them. So yea, traveling around the world is totally the same as being a lion in the wild. Because after all lions are animals and can tolerate the harshness of nature far more than us humans, who are not animals, rather we are superior creatures born to live not in nature but in society; hence a wild lion in Kruger Park is the equivalent of a man who rents instead of purchasing property. Both wild and primeval and brave souls of equal daring. When the lion dies young from hunger or disease he lived a brief life spiting the gods, like the hero of a man who goes into the jungles of Thailand searching that rare breed of whore which costs less than a Mcdonalds meal.

That is much my point humans do not belong living in society. Working some 9 to 5 behind a desk for 40 years kills you before you even knew you were dead. That's why you rarely meet a person truly alive. We have gone wrong somewhere, made a wrong turn. Technology can be used to help people but it is not, people are used for technology and that makes no sense.

[cacian]

Did I ever say it was exactly as the same?
Would you rather live in a cage your entire life, or be able to roam. Freedom or safety is what it amounts to.

Well one can have both I am sure.
What's the point of freedom if it is not safe.
So I say neither just 'be' and ensure you 'are'.
Safety is life and so being 'let to be' is important because that means one is safe too.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The worst thing about horse racing is if they break their leg, and then it's all :beatdeadhorse5:.


That is much my point humans do not belong living in society. Working some 9 to 5 behind a desk for 40 years kills you before you even knew you were dead. That's why you rarely meet a person truly alive. We have gone wrong somewhere, made a wrong turn. Technology can be used to help people but it is not, people are used for technology and that makes no sense.

I thought Fight Club was a good movie, too.

I was going to respond at length as Pip did, but I realize the futility of such an act as you'd just spew more adolescent philosophical crap rather than actually respond.

[OrphanPip]

Did I ever say it was exactly as the same?
Would you rather live in a cage your entire life, or be able to roam. Freedom or safety is what it amounts to.

That's an anthropomorphic projection though. I also doubt that freedom and safety are dichotomous. Do you have freedom of choice if all you do every day is search for food? What freedom do you have if you are burdened with the arduous task of keeping yourself alive.


I thought Fight Club was a good movie, too.

I was going to respond at length as Pip did, but I realize the futility of such an act as you'd just spew more adolescent philosophical crap rather than actually respond.

I'm still waiting to find out what makes human behaviour somehow distinct from nature.

[Paulclem]

You have no point. Who are we to say that their life is unpleasant? We can barely breath the air now a days. You speak like it is our Duty to help the poor suffering animals. This Earth has supported abundant life for billions of years, what have we done. It is our Duty to save them from their rotten. You're missing it and I feel sorry my friend.

I think it is quite clear that wild animals hunt kill and eat each other. They suffer thirst in summer and cold in winter. Can you imagine months of no heat but that from your own body. And what about illness, injury and the approach of death? Then there is the constant fear of predation by other animals and man. Many environments are harsh for a significant time out of the year. To think that thhey don't suffer is misguided. As for zoos, my point was that the animals are safe.

[E.A Rumfield]

I think it is quite clear that wild animals hunt kill and eat each other. They suffer thirst in summer and cold in winter. Can you imagine months of no heat but that from your own body. And what about illness, injury and the approach of death? Then there is the constant fear of predation by other animals and man. Many environments are harsh for a significant time out of the year. To think that thhey don't suffer is misguided. As for zoos, my point was that the animals are safe.

Yea they are safe but should they be safe? If the game is over why keep playing? You think it is quite clear that animals hunt each other? Oh do you really now. Well should they not? Should the tasty creatures be farmed for our express concern. Should we feed the carnivores farm fresh poultry? An animal dies. Say it is hunted. The hunter has its share. The carcass remains to feed various small scavengers, birds all the way down to vermin and insects. Death is an important part of life. You can think however you want, you want to be victims of society fine by me but how can you tell me we can handle things better than a system that has worked for all of time. It is this self important solely human characteristic that will be our downfall. We think we are so smart but really we've only been around for a million years and at the rate we are going we'll be gone in a thousand and who will be smart then. Not use. None of it matters in the end of course, the world will play out how it is meant to, of course there is a minor fight to be fought.

[cacian]

The worst thing about horse racing is if they break their leg, and then it's all :beatdeadhorse5:.

Indeed it was only for their leggs we would all be ballet dancying around them for fun.

[Alexander III]

fvck sarcasm

[cacian]

fvck sarcasm

LOL I did not see it as that.:p

[Paulclem]

Yea they are safe but should they be safe? If the game is over why keep playing? You think it is quite clear that animals hunt each other? Oh do you really now. Well should they not? Should the tasty creatures be farmed for our express concern. Should we feed the carnivores farm fresh poultry? An animal dies. Say it is hunted. The hunter has its share. The carcass remains to feed various small scavengers, birds all the way down to vermin and insects. Death is an important part of life. You can think however you want, you want to be victims of society fine by me but how can you tell me we can handle things better than a system that has worked for all of time. It is this self important solely human characteristic that will be our downfall. We think we are so smart but really we've only been around for a million years and at the rate we are going we'll be gone in a thousand and who will be smart then. Not use. None of it matters in the end of course, the world will play out how it is meant to, of course there is a minor fight to be fought.

This aspect began with you saying that animals were better off in the wild and my point is that they are not better off in a zoo. I don't claim that this is possible for all but a few, and I don't mean those zoos with no space. There are better ones more like safari parks.

I don 't think for a moment that animals were made to live and die by design, but that cones down to my worldview. It is not a romantic worldview that sees droves of animals running free, but animals in thrall to their needs and instincts. It is a cruel existence full of suffering with no romannce whatsoever. Watch any documentary and they'll have the predatory scene or one with a lost youngster. I don't watch them much. Too horrible.

I've just corrected this post as I was posting with my phone and it's prone to my mis-types.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

OK let's start again.
Indeed it was only for their leggs we would all be ballet dacinying around them for fun.

Don't even know what that means.

[qimissung]

I fully understand that animals suffer in the wild. But I still think humans ought to try to leave them alone, to live out their lives on their own terms. I don't trust humans, and I think that we tend to meddle, just as often for selfish reasons as altruistic ones where animals are concerned.

[Paulclem]

I fully understand that animals suffer in the wild. But I still think humans ought to try to leave them alone, to live out their lives on their own terms. I don't trust humans, and I think that we tend to meddle, just as often for selfish reasons as altruistic ones where animals are concerned.

I don't disagree. Environmentally protected areas are probably the best we can do for the vast majority.

[Dodo25]

Those who have been discussing animal welfare and the wild might find the following video highly interesting, starting from 17:00 (not earlier) onwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGg3Hqp_kbk



I'm not as fully committed to utilitarian ethics as you, Dodo. Anyway, I'm not sure it's possible to separate the preservation of individuals from the preservation of the group. Of course, if you try to make this separation you end with a bit of utilitarian nihilism, where the best way to end new suffering is to end new life. I support conservation for pragmatic reasons, in that it preserves access to certain scientific insights on life and biodiversity that may come from having a wider range of life available to examine.

Hahaha, I just realized the irony behind my screen name! :)

The preservation of groups doesn't seem important to me as I don't see why species membership would be an ethically relevant criterion. Not sure whether this is a good analogy, but suppose there are two groups of hunter-gatherer people from different tribes. Both groups are dying from a horrible disease that causes a lot of suffering, and we can only cure the people from one group (due to geographical constraints, for instance). If one group constitutes the last members of an otherwise extinct tribe, and the other group belongs to a tribe with a lot of people left but is twice as large, which group should we save? Assuming of course that there'd be no relevant knowledge lost by letting the one tribe go extinct. I believe most people would simply decide to help the larger group, all else being equal, and I strongly agree with that view. Analogically, if we are to treat the same interests or the same suffering of beings equally, then each animal counts to the extent it is sentient, without considerations about species membership. There certainly are indirect / pragmatic reasons for some species conservation to some extent, but those would have to be balanced against the direct interests of the individual animals.

This view doesn't necessarily imply that it would be best to prevent all not 100% happy future beings from being born. Altough, given the fact that most wild animals really do die painful deaths in their childhood and that this doesn't seem like a fun life, reducing the amount of wild animals might be a good thing even on that account. It would be fantastic if we could somehow start a large international research project on wild animal welfare in order to assess the quality of life in the wild, and in order to figure out possible strategies of helping wild animals.

Personally I don't think that happiness can ever outweigh torture. Torture is always a problem, whereas the absence of happiness doesn't strike me as something horrible. Classical utilitarianism wants to turn rocks into happiness, that seems fine to me, but the rocks don't really care afaik. Any conscious being in agony, on the other hand, really does care. So isn't there more urgency? I prefer a "prior-existence" view, or I even sympathize with the negative utilitarian view that would just minimize suffering and that's it. But the nice thing about ethics is that plausible theories converge on so many practical issues, and if you one is a consequentialist (and the alternative really don't strike me as "plausible" at all), whether prioritarian or some branch of utilitarianism, then it follows from anti-speciesism that wild animal suffering is an issue of utmost priority that we should address in the long run.


I fully understand that animals suffer in the wild. But I still think humans ought to try to leave them alone, to live out their lives on their own terms. I don't trust humans, and I think that we tend to meddle, just as often for selfish reasons as altruistic ones where animals are concerned.

I really understand this sentiment, we have been systematically exploiting animals over centuries and right now things with farm animals are worse than ever, and we have made a mess of this planet so. It does seem suspicious that suddenly, we should become the saviors of all the animals. But I really believe that this is the only hope! Unfortunately, things really are that bad.

Yes, it may appear like the nicest thing would be to finally leave the animals alone. But consider the following, if hunger breaks out in Somalia, we wouldn't preach "leave them alone" simply because of our terrible track record with things like slavery or racism. We would interfere and help the people there if we could. Likewise, we should try to alleviate the suffering of all sentient beings, wherever they are or whatever the cause of their suffering. (Of course, this is not going to happen as long as we still farm transport and kill animals for food purposes, so this has to change first.)

[qimissung]

That's a good argument, Dodo. What about what Paul said:

"Environmentally protected areas are probably the best we can do for the vast majority."

Because we can't even take care of other humans yet. Not really. Our track record in that area is spotty, at best. Nor can we even agree that we need to take care of our planet if any future generations of any and all species are to be able to survive, much less thrive.

It just seems like every time we poke our fingers into it, we have changed something else we didn't count on, and usually for the worse.

[cacian]

Don't even know what that means.

LOL it's just me being silly.

[Dodo25]

That's a good argument, Dodo. What about what Paul said:

"Environmentally protected areas are probably the best we can do for the vast majority."

Because we can't even take care of other humans yet. Not really. Our track record in that area is spotty, at best. Nor can we even agree that we need to take care of our planet if any future generations of any and all species are to be able to survive, much less thrive.

It just seems like every time we poke our fingers into it, we have changed something else we didn't count on, and usually for the worse.

In the video I linked, Oscar Horta (who by the way is not a utilitarian but an egalitarian rather) explains some ways in which we could (and in fact do) help wild animals already. We vaccinate them against rabbies, for instance, albeit not for their own sake but in order to protect humans. There could be interventions like that for the animals themselves. Or another example, hunters often feed (and sometimes also warm) deer in the winter, so that they can shoot them in the summer. Feeding and warming deer in the winter is awesome, and we could also look for more humane ways of population control than shooting them.

David Pearce suggests that a complete welfare package for elephants would already be technically feasible: http://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/elephantcare.html

Currently, such a project would cost too much in order to be an effective use of money (though one might wonder whether different things countries spend their money on really are better), but it goes to show that interventions of that kind may be feasible in the future. Yes, it's all very difficult and we need a huge amount of knowledge, but I wouldn't underestimate the growth of knowledge and technology. If we do what we can now to fight speciesism and the dangerous meme that what is natural is somehow ideal, then we can ensure that future generations will, if they ever reach the right technological sophistication, do something in order to alleviate wild animal suffering on a large scale.

I'm not saying that we should try to help animals no matter what. If our current estimate is that we can't be confident enough to do more good than harm, and unfortunately for large-scale intervention this seems to be the case, then we should of course wait. I'm just saying we should work on those empirical questions in the meantime instead of giving up.