argument top image

Are zoos ethical in the modern age?
Back to question

Zoos have inadequate living conditions

Ultimately, zoos would have to go to great architectural and environmental lengths to provide the animals with sufficient living space. Zoos cannot give an animal the environment it needs due to monetary and geographical circumstance.
Animals Ethics

The Argument

Often, zoos located in poor areas are underfunded, therefore they cannot provide proper living conditions for the animals. Without adequate living conditions, the animal's overall health suffers.[1] If a zoo does not have the ability to properly care for wild animals, they should not be operating. For example, nearly 500 animals died over the span of four years at a Cumbrian zoo. Most of the deaths were caused by hypothermia or emaciation.[2] Multiple zoos in Indonesia do not provide a proper enclosure for their animals, such as the sun bear. The bears do not have clean water, shade, and have to rely on zoo visitors for food.[3]

Counter arguments

Many zoos go to great lengths to mimic an animal's natural environment to ensure the animal gets the proper care it needs. They ensure the animal had enough food, water, and shelter to remain healthy. Only under-funded zoos are harming animals, therefore not all zoos are bad or should be closed.



[P1] Zoos cannot give animals healthy living conditions. [P2] An animal's health will suffer if it does not have the proper enclosure. [P3] Zoos should close if they cannot provide healthy living conditions.

Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Monday, 26 Oct 2020 at 14:19 UTC

Explore related arguments