AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Well, could be, but that's a context that wasn't offered.
AoD
AoD
You've lost all perspective if you believe that Marineland is no more unethical than the Shedd.
I think I can give some idea why I believe Shedd's approach to captivity isn't more legitimate, that is, more ethical
In the end I can respect the viewpoint that no captivity is good, even if I don't agree with it... still, I would find it 'ironically laughable' that many who feel this way would keep pets or benefit from the knowledge of animals in any way, which we all do!
And I think there's reasons to believe that, in most but not all cases, such captivity is objectionable.
Tewder, Miscreant's just not familiar with the Shedd yet. Go easy!
The Shedd is renowned Miscreant. It's maybe unwise to build an argument about something that's barely researched, as you said…
There's an ethically relevant difference between comparing Marineland and Shedd wholesale and comparing them with respect to the more limited issue of their approach to captivity. This can be seen by the fact that it's possible for Marineland to be ethically worse than Shedd if it, say, ruthlessly tortures its animals once they are in captivity while Shedd, say, feeds them the finest sea food known to man, even though both involve captivity.
And I've argued only that Shedd is no more legitimate (i.e. ethical) than Marineland when it comes to their approach to captivity. I think my argument for this claim was pretty clear, but I don't think it's been fairly considered. Perhaps some of the confusion arises from the vagueness of the phrase 'approach to captivity.' As Ramirez himself concedes, and as I've brought up twice in separate posts, a primary (if not the only) reason for training the animals at Shedd is because they are subjected to an unnatural environment where their innate capacity to exercise behaviours necessary for their survival are compromised. Marineland's approach to captivity is comparable because it too subjects animals to an unnatural environment.
This is what I mean by saying that their 'approach to captivity' isn't ethically different. Respectfully, from what I can tell, your replies to my initial post don't clearly provide a counter-argument to this claim.
I clearly said that I don't think that captivity is categorically objectionable:
An exceptional case where I don't think that captivity is objectionable is with animals that have been domesticated for a very long time and whose environment doesn't egregiously restrict their satisfying their natural capacities. Dogs and cats are included here, snakes and birds aren't. Though I do believe it would be ideal to move towards 'un-domesticating' cats and dogs in the distant future. But I admit I'm not sure this is possible. The case is different, I believe, with relatively exotic sea life.
Snore...who has time to read these diatribes...more pictures please...
The pictures above seem to indicate the retail portion is starting construction now ?
An exceptional case where I don't think that captivity is objectionable is with animals that have been domesticated for a very long time and whose environment doesn't egregiously restrict their satisfying their natural capacities...I do believe it would be ideal to move towards 'un-domesticating' cats and dogs in the distant future. But I admit I'm not sure this is possible.
Hi Miscreant,
I was curious about your statement, which I don't want to lift out of context. I understand you weren't strongly advocating this. But I'd like to understand how reasonable progressive arguments self destruct by becoming dogmatic. Does it reflect a need to be consistent?
I can't think of ANY reason to un-domesticate cats and dogs. The enviroment doesn't need it and the dogs & cats don't need it. They were literally bred to desire human companionship.
So it seems to be one of those "idealist" arguments that takes the view that all human intevention on this planet has been negative and must be undone on principal rather than case by case logic. You had me, then you lost me - so to speak.