The Ethics of Animal Confinement in Zoos: A Moral Relativism Debate

Abstract

Moral Relativism Argument on the Ethics of Confining Animals from their Habitats to Zoos. Student’s Name Institution Affiliation Instructor’s Name In the changing world, animals are captured from their natural habitat and confined in zoos as pets. The moral ethic behind animal confinement is controversial, with various critics on confinement while others uphold it. The concept of animal ethics on the issue of confinement is attributed to moral relativism. Moral relativism is based on the analogy that different cultures and individuals have different views and perceptions on the morality of a given circumstance. The truth and justification of ideas are not absolute and plausible with moral relativism. However, moral relativism is flawed and implausible when it comes to the confinement of animals who belong to the wild. Confinement of animals cannot be justified on any moral grounds, regardless of it being a common practice in the contemporary world. There ought to be moral codes that undermine such practices contrary to animal ethics. This essay argues that moral relativism is implausible for animal confinement despite being a common societal practice. When we fail to think, animal confinement is appealing and recommendable. Zoos protect the loss of endangered species from poachers, starvation, and climate change. The animals are brought to a safe and comfortable environment. The lovers of wild animals argue that zoos provide ample space, animals are happy and satisfied, and health and nutrition are maintained. Zoos are also breeding points for endangered species, and endangered species can easily find their mates. Animal confinement provides individual happiness, memory, and empathy towards animals. Zoos are resourceful to a community economically and stirred up for educational purposes. However, its flaws are distinct and cannot be justified in moral relativism. Animal captivity is enough to justify cruelty and ancient practice to wild animals. It is morally wrong and undesirable to uphold animal captivity. The arguments for confinement are vague and lack value. Just because wild animals are endangered is not a stepping point for confinement. It dooms animal liberty and rights. There is more to caring for and treating wild animals in an ideal environment than unnatural and uncomfortable for them. No matter has privileged and comfortable they are, they cannot compare it with the freedom of the wild. Captive breeding is difficult since locating the same species is challenging. It can also prove to be ineffective since captive-bred animals lack survival skills when released in the wild. Since natural mating is difficult in zoos, animals are artificially inseminated,...