Is keeping wild animals in captivity a good idea?

This is the report of a special philosophy cafe session on 25/3/9.

Many answers (positions) are proposed.

Yes, it is a good idea, because:
1. It makes possible scientific research.
2. Visitors can see those animals. This produces commercial benefit. This allows people to form compassionate links with the animals.
3. The animals are safer in captivity than in the wild.

No, it is not a good idea, because:
4. It is inhumane.
5. Animals lose their freedom.
6. It encourages people to collect animals (like stamps).

We make some brief comments on some of these arguments.

Argument #1
Yes, keeping wild animals in captivity makes possible scientific research. It is also possible to do animal research in the wild. This does not refute the argument (that research in captivity is possible).

Argument #4
It is inhumane to keep wild animals in captivity. This relates to the idea of animal rights. But animals do not claim these rights; it is we humans who give animals these rights. Animals don't know about these rights.

Argument #5
Animals lose their freedom. Are animals aware of this?

We decide to test an argument. We pick Argument #2, specifically the second version.

Argument #2
Reason: Keeping wild animals in captivity allows people to form compassionate links with the animals.
Conclusion: Therefore, keeping wild animals in captivity is a good idea.

We apply the first test: Does reason imply conclusion?

We agree that it does. The argument passes the first test.

We apply the second test: Is the reason true?

We decide that some people do form compassionate links, and some people do not. The argument passes the second test in a weakened form.

We next turn our attention to Argument #4.

Argument #4
Reason: Keeping wild animals in captivity is inhumane.
Conclusion: Therefore, keeping wild animals in captivity is not a good idea.

We apply the first test: Does the reason imply the conclusion? We answer "yes".

We apply the second test: Is the reason true? Is keeping wild animals in captivity indeed inhumane?

We decide we need to define captivity before we can answer this.

Here we experience some difficulty, considering various examples and counterexamples eg. cages, zoos, nature reserves, parks. We arrive at:

Captivity =df. roam freely in man-made constrained space that simulates their [animals'] natural environment.

We are not entirely satisfied with this. We are bothered by cases of eagles and Artic terns -- which in nature uses more space than man can ever provide.

But we run out of time. We end the discussion. It has been an excellent session.

Readers who are interested to engage in the rational and rigorous pursuit of truth and right (which is how I define philosophy) are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome. Prior knowledge of philosophy is not required. The next philosophy cafe session will be on 15 April 2009.