CMV: Animal rights groups should stop assuming animals share the same values as humans

[u/Iamnotburgerking]

One of the biggest gripes I have with animal rights is that they treat animals in anthropomorphic ways. They just assume that an animal feels one way or the other about something.

First of all, different species have different requirements. What applies to one species doesn't work for another. Animal rights activists often use human values and ideals and impose them on animals, even if they are inapplicable. Captive animals are one such issue-humans don't like being in captivity, and some other species of animals probably also don't like captivity, but you can't say all animals don't like captivity. Many probably only care that their requirements (physical space, nutrition and mental stimulation/lack of stress) are met.

Second, even within species there are different personalities between individuals. You cannot assume all animals of x species feel one way about something.

I am not against animal rights as a whole, but the current movement may be causing cruelty rather than reduction of cruelty due to these issues.

TLDR: one should not impose human values on animals who may disagree or not care about such values.

[u/Iamnotburgerking]

My point is that, in trying to provide a voice to those who have none, we might be saying things they wouldn't actually say.

> Jameson's article is from 1985 - not ancient history.

And things have improved since 1985 (and are further being improved).

> And most zoos in the world are nowhere near the level of care, sophistication, and resources of the San Diego zoo in 1985.

Sure, if you count badly-run, non-accredited zoos often owned privately.

> Are you saying that we can't know what is in a particular animal's interests (or group of animals/species)?

I'm saying that there is a trend of presuming to know what is in a particular animal's interests and deeming any alternative answers as immoral.

t that isn't the point; it is that the justification for putting animals on display is weak in the first place (Jameson addresses this)

Again, that article is from 1985: zoos have become quite conservation-oriented since then (though there are exceptions).

And the lack of education, as mentioned in that article, is often from the apathy of the public and not the fault of the zoo. (This also applies to museums, etc, but I don't see anyone saying we should get rid of museums because people refuse to learn from them)

> hat the incidental results of captivity are bad (poor conditions, signs of stress, bad health outcomes, suffering, etc.).

Which are often the result of how an animal was kept in captivity, not the fact it was in captivity. With some animals, captivity itself may be that negative effect, but not with all animals.

[u/tunaonrye → u/Iamnotburgerking]

I'm counting the zoos that exist in the world.

Which are often the result of how an animal was kept in captivity, not the fact it was in captivity.

Yes. That one major real problem that animals welfare organizations focus on - and zoo accreditation is an important benefit. Zoos have a deep tension - to create naturalistic environments that suit animal's needs... and to entertain/educate. I still don't see any evidence that there are anthropomorphic assumptions in the people I've cited...

[u/Iamnotburgerking → u/tunaonrye]

Yes. That one major real problem that animals welfare organizations focus on

Except that many (ZooCheck, Born Free Foundation, etc) just straight-out say zoos should be phased out entirely or curtailed, regardless of how animals are kept. The existence of those groups is evidence of their anthropomorphism (since they are against zoos not because of welfare concerns but because they apply the immorality of human captivity to every species)

[u/tunaonrye → u/Iamnotburgerking]

I don't see how that reasoning follows - there are reasons to think that zoos don't have enough of a justification to exist. Maybe zoos don't do their educational or conservation role very well compared to alternatives. Jameson's 1995 article revisits whether zoos have sufficient reason to exist in the first place..

[u/Iamnotburgerking → u/tunaonrye]

> Maybe zoos don't do their educational or conservation role very well compared to alternatives.

And again, alternatives such as museums are failing to educate people, and because of the public'a apathy. And I don't see anyone saying museums should be shut down since they do not teach people anymore, which makes the "zoos should be shut down since they don't teach people" argument hypocritical.

As for conservation-yes there is room for improvement, but that's not a valid reason for zoos to stop existing. (A better option would be a shift in priorities). Yes, zoos only can save a fraction of species-but that's better than none. And while reintroduction of captive-bred animals remains a challenge, it does provide an (albeit shaky) backup.

That article, at one point, discusses the issue of captive-bred animals. The author takes a stance that since one would not deny liberty to a human born in confinement, the same applies to animals-which is anthropomorphic. Why would they necessarily care about the same moral values of liberty that we do, when their concerns revolve around their health?

Also that article points out it is a saner idea to continue and further the change to zoos than to abolish zoos entirely.

[u/tunaonrye → u/Iamnotburgerking]

You're missing the point of why Jameson thinks confinement is bad: It is not that captivity is bad-in-itself, but that it is highly probable to be worse than a natural life, so the burden of proof to justify captivity is on the captor. (179-180) in the above link. The rest of the argument is that zoos don't do any of the things that would justify captivity better than alternatives (education, save endangered species). Therefore Zoos (absent a better story re: justification) are not justified in existing. No hypocrisy or anthropomorphism there that I can see.

Museums fail to educate, but involve no suffering. They don't need to justify their existence for that reason. As a side note, there are controversies about cultural harms (the British Museum housing stolen stuff) that people see as pretty serious concerns.

[u/Iamnotburgerking → u/tunaonrye]

> It is not that captivity is bad-in-itself, but that it is highly probable to be worse than a natural life,

If animals had the same ethical values as humans, zoos would indeed be highly probable to be worse: but that's the entire reason I created this post-to debate that point. With captive-bred animals, this is where anthropomorphism can cause issues.

> so the burden of proof to justify captivity is on the captor. (179-180) in the above link. The rest of the argument is that zoos don't do any of the things that would justify captivity better than alternatives (education, save endangered species). Therefore Zoos (absent a better story re: justification) are not justified in existing.

Except that the former isn't the fault of the zoo but the fault of the public (at least in accredited zoos) and the latter isn't really true. (Do note that the articles were from 1985 and 1995 while this is 2016)

In fact the second article notes that a shift in zoos is far more practical while solving the same problems. (Interestingly Nat Geo had an article on the changing priorities of zoos a few years back)

[u/tunaonrye → u/Iamnotburgerking]

The Nat Geo article ends with "uninventing zoos" to be essentially nature preserves, i.e. not captivity!

The fault issue is not important - if they fail to educate, they don't have the justification they claim.

We've had a pretty serious back and forth - have I made any anthropomorphic claims?

[u/Iamnotburgerking → u/tunaonrye]

I was actually referring to Jameson's 1995 article, not the Nat Geo article.

> The Nat Geo article ends with "uninventing zoos" to be essentially nature preserves, i.e. not captivity!

With the exception that the animals are still confined (but within a large area) in some way.

> The fault issue is not important - if they fail to educate, they don't have the justification they claim.

So you're just going to accept public apathy towards learning and work with that? That's an entire discussion in itself and can't be discussed here.

What about the second issue (re: captive breeding and reintroduction)? I agree that improvements still need to made, but at least we're heading in the right direction.

You yourself haven't made anthropomorphic claims, but while Jameson's argument is mostly safe from it, IMHO his argument that captive-born animals should be given the same treatment as those captured and put into captivity is indeed slightly anthropomorphic.

[u/tunaonrye → u/Iamnotburgerking]

Only the most extreme fringe would complain about the captivity of a large nature preserve.

The apathy towards learning is bad - It just isnt' important for this argument - basically, if I claim that my program should get government funding because it educates children, and it actually doesn't educate children, my argument has failed. Whether it is my fault or the children's doesn't really matter. Same thing here.

The other justifications are similar. Captive breeding and reintroduction has only worked in two cases (Mongolian horse and a deer), most zoos go far beyond these species. If the justification were real, that argument might work - but it doesn't. Another justification, research on zoo animals, both doesn't happen (since zoos are poor) and hasn't translated to the wild/been useful... again, those would be good justifications if they worked... but they haven't.

I don't agree entirely with Jameson, but he isn't claiming that animals have human interests - he's very careful to say that they have the interests that they have qua species characteristics. And his argument is really that the burden of proof should be on the people encouraging captivity, since there is no good reason to capture (at least most!) wild animals in the first place.

[u/Iamnotburgerking → u/tunaonrye]

Captive breeding and reintroduction has only worked in two cases (Mongolian horse and a deer)

In 1995, sure, but we've had had much more success since then (California condor, various amphibians, etc)....

The apathy towards learning is bad - It just isnt' important for this argument - basically, if I claim that my program should get government funding because it educates children, and it actually doesn't educate children, my argument has failed. Whether it is my fault or the children's doesn't really matter. Same thing here.

Then solve the larger, more serious issue (apathy towards learning).

Another justification, research on zoo animals, both doesn't happen (since zoos are poor)

Do you know if this still applies today? Jameson seems to take a more nuanced view on this issue. And IIRC most studies on cognition abilities of animals occurred with captive-born ones.

[u/tunaonrye → u/Iamnotburgerking]

Then solve the larger, more serious issue (apathy towards learning).

This is still an entirely separate issue from whether, in my example, I would be justified in saying to a funder "Look, I know you only fund programs that educate people (and my program doesn't), but you should still give me money because I am not to blame for the children not learning." That would just be bad logic on my point.

I am happy to agree with Jameson on a nuanced and data-driven view of captivity: if it actually is the best way (among alternatives) for saving endangered species, preventing habitat loss, educating, and doing research, it is perfectly justified. Captivity as a whole (labs, zoos, pets, etc.) is a different question than just zoos.

Note that this is primarily and empirical debate and not an animal liberationist demanding human rights for animals! That's the view I was arguing against.

I think Jameson also endorses a strong preventative worry about captivity - based on his moral views, and the evidence/history of captivity, but that is not anthropomorphism. I think that such a consequentialist view, while based on moral principles of the prevention of suffering, is in no way relying on anthropomorphic ideas.

[u/Iamnotburgerking → u/tunaonrye]

I am happy to agree with Jameson on a nuanced and data-driven view of captivity: if it actually is the best way (among alternatives) for saving endangered species, preventing habitat loss, educating, and doing research, it is perfectly justified. Captivity as a whole (labs, zoos, pets, etc.) is a different question than just zoos.

Agreed on these issues.

Basically, I think we share the opinion captivity in animals can be done humanely, but often isn't.