Another article on the Copenhagen giraffe (but one that is really worth reading).

[CGSwans]

If we're getting into the argument from equivalence, how about humanely euthanising human children after a year or two? You'd be hard-pressed to argue that a baby is more self-aware than a chimp, say, and it would be great experience for first-time mothers.

I think there are two primary reasons why the above is considered unethical. The first would be that human life is inherently special, but this a) requires justification applicable to every member of our species but no member of another species (good luck with that...), and b) highlights the hypocrisy of zoos (including Copenhagen) anthropomorphising, then dismissing the public backlash against culling. The second is that killing a human baby would adversely affect others, notably the mother, but again this applies to the Copenhagen example - thousands were outraged and upset by Marius's death.

Interesting. I would argue that the universal human rights that make killing a child ethically unthinkable are not necessarily based on intrinsic qualities of the humans themselves, but rather on the need to have universal principles of law and justice, to enable big societies to function in the absence of the kinship bonds that human social groups evolved to be based upon.

In short, killing a child is abhorrent because it needs to be; once you argue that certain people do not have an automatic right to live safe from violence you have a much more Hobbesian world. At the extreme end you are preparing the intellectual ground for slavery and genocide.

It might be that a similar functional ethics prevents zoos from breeding and feeding, on the basis that it undermines public trust in the institution, but whereas not having human rights has been tested at length, with horrific results, I'm not sure the same is true for breed and feed practices.

On a second point, your argument can be turned on its head. If chimpanzees have the same value as young children, based on their intellectual capacity, and children have rights, then do not chimpanzees also deserve the same rights? I'm not instinctively opposed to great ape personhood, but it opens a Pandora's box of ethical issues for zoos. Recognise ape personhood and zoos become at best protective custody institutions; I'm not sure that breeding animals at all becomes ethical under these assumptions.

I agree on the hypocrisy of anthropomorphism, and to be fair the article demonstrates that Copenhagen's management do too. 'Marius' was only ever supposed to be known as 'the giraffe'.

disagree, and the example you provide suggests you do, too. You describe giraffes and cattle as "directly comparable", but what about giraffes and jellyfish? Or primates and poriferans? In both cases, I think the invertebrates, which have neither self-awareness nor emotions, are less intrinsically valuable than the mammals, which are (potentially) capable of both.

You've probably caught me out on poor language, but I'm not sure it undermines my point at all. Yes, a giraffe life has features that suggest it has greater intrinsic value than a jellyfish, but the distance between a giraffe and a jellyfish is exponentially greater than the difference between a giraffe and a cow. I'm not a biologist but is there actually evidence to suggest giraffes are capable of higher functions than cattle or pigs? If not I'm not sure it's relevant.

Where to draw those lines will always be an issue but, unlike previous posters, I think a taxon-based approach is appropriate. In fact, one of my main bugbears with the "animal rights" movement is that it follows Orwell's seventh commandment: all animals are equal. This contradicts one of the few hard-and-fast rules of ecology: species differ. So, where is the moral obligation to treat them all the same?

It's not an obligation so much as a justification. You don't have to treat them the same, but you *can*.

The political onus may be on breed and feed advocates to make their case, but I think the ethical onus is actually on the opponents to explain why giraffes are intrinsically more valuable. It's not because cattle are bred for human purposes and giraffe aren't; Marius ultimately *was* born for human purposes, as are all animals born in captivity.

As a general point, particularly pertaining to the discussion over "Disneyfication", you can go too far the other way (Denmarkation?). Would anyone here support adding lions to Copenhagen's giraffe enclosure, for example? I think not, because most accept we have a duty of care to zoo animals which we don't have to their wild conspecifics. Certainly the industry itself is structured on that assumption.

Absolutely. The duty to prevent cruelty is the most fundamental that a zoo has. It's unfortunate that doing this is incompatible with giving lions what would be the best enrichment possible, but it is what it is.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Expertise in one field doesn't make one an expert in everything. Aren't ethicists, rather than scientists, the experts on whether this decision should have been taken?

No. The keepers at Danish zoos are experts in animal husbandry and so they are qualified to make decisions about animal husbandry. I understand and accept the argument that ethicists are qualified to make ethics decisions, but I don't think the decision about population control falls outside the realm of keeper expertise. Additionally, this wasn't an issue of a relevant ethics board lecturing Holst on how he should have handled the situation better; it was an issue of a galvanized public pressuring the zoo to conform to their view about animal ethics instead of go forward based on their professional opinion. I accept that there are legitimate ethicists who may have professional opinions about what Copenhagen did, but the general public and many of those who attacked the zoo are not experts on ethics or animal husbandry, and shouldn't be making decisions about either. Finally, as the article indicated, the pressure and attacks came mostly from people outside Denmark; the Danish government and people were largely supportive of the zoo's decision. Even if one were to argue that Holst should have caved to public pressure from Danes (and I would disagree with that), why would one argue that he should have gone against Danish opinion and caved to the public opinion of foreigners?

 

[FunkyGibbon]

You may well be right and this was possibly a PR stunt, but 'sordid little cameo' is a bit over the top! It doesn't seem to have harmed YWP either!! Time will tell....

Yes, it probably was a little over the top, but I thought it was a nice turn of phrase, and I stand behind the intent of using it.

I think it was clearly a publicity stunt and, given that it was done in such a way that it considerably increased the pressure on Copenhagen, I think it was extremely reprehensible. The proper thing to have done would have been to make the offer in private.