387
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
387 points (100.0% liked)
interestingasfuck
1257 readers
1 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not in a binary sense, no. Such thinking isn't useful, however. Zoos are a very strong net good fot animals, with minimal downsides (assuming the zoo keepers aren't calloused assholes).
Yes I'm well aware of the difficulties involved, but they can be mitigated, as your source explains. There's more issues than just keeping them from going stir-crazy, but a proper zoo (the only kind I advocate for) will do their best to address all of them.
You and I have different moral systems and you think that hammering a deal-breaker for you will cause me to change my mind, when I'm perfectly okay with causing a small harm in order to secure a much much greater good.
You keep bringing up that zoos cause harm. This seems to be a deal-breaker for you. It seems your view is that if it's possible to achieve some amount of your goal without causing harm, you should do that, even if causing a small amount of harm would enable you much greater success in whatever it is you're after. In my view, it's acceptable to cause a small amount of harm, if you get significantly greater good from doing so. Of course the details matter, and I don't believe either of us would argue our position in every scenario, but in this case I find the manageable harm caused by zoos to be worth the increased interest in wildlife conservation.
Well wait, what's your goal? Because one of my goals is maximize environmental conservation.
I mean, there are people out there who would destroy the environment if we just sat back and did nothing so.... Yeah gotta take action.
You're not very good at thinking beyond immediate consequences, are you?