[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well, could be, but that's a context that wasn't offered.

AoD

 

[Miscreant]

Alllright, I've been sucked back in. I'm going to address a few different things here, but I'll try to keep my post succinct.

Tewder, you wrote:

You've lost all perspective if you believe that Marineland is no more unethical than the Shedd.

The finer details are important at this juncture. I haven't argued that, literally, 'Marineland is no more unethical than the Shedd.' Instead, I argued that:

I think I can give some idea why I believe Shedd's approach to captivity isn't more legitimate, that is, more ethical

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.

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!

I clearly said that I don't think that captivity is categorically objectionable:

And I think there's reasons to believe that, in most but not all cases, such captivity is 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.

And Interchange42, you wrote:

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…

Much of this is right. I'm not too familiar with Shedd. But I'm not sure I agree with the assumption that this matters for the specific topic under debate, which again is Shedd's approach to captivity. From what I can tell, Ramirez says enough about this approach in the link Tewder posted above. It's to these remarks only that I'm responding. So I think that provides a reasonable basis to build an argument.

You might reply that I need to read more, and if I did maybe my argument would change. This is of course always possible, and I want to be modest and concede it. But note this: the only information that would cause me to change my argument is if Ramirez elsewhere was quoted to say that his approach to captivity is different, that is, if he contradicted himself. The reason is that--and I think this is the real dispute between us three here--I don't think that in most cases of animal captivity the ends justify the means. But your arguments (or, yes, Tewder's in particular) presuppose this: we learn from the animals, it benefits them and us, therefore their captivity is justified.

I think in some cases this might be true, but I don't believe it is in Shedd, given what Ramirez said about the need to train the animals: (and to repeat) they must be trained because their environment is foreign. If we really want to learn about the animals in nature, it's best to do so in nature where they can be the animals they are.

So I think the upshot of the debate so far is this: what arguments can be brought to defense of the assumption that the ends justifying the means--an essentially consequentialist analysis of ethical value--is the right model of ethical justification when analyzing the issue of animal captivity?

Because note that very few of us would adopt that model if it came to human captivity, where we'd be more likely to adopt a 'deontic' analysis of ethical duty that said such an action is wrong in itself, regardless its outcome.

Finding the ethically relevant difference between the two such that these different ethical analyses are justified is tough. But that is the real issue here, I believe.

So much for being succinct. If the mods decide we've veered too far off topic, I'd be happy to continue via PM.

 

[Tewder]

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.

At Shedd the care and monitoring etc is all geared to the welfare of the animals, including the training that helps them 'adapt' to their environment in a healthy way. Even if the environment is 'artificial' (captivity), there is nothing more natural than the ability to adapt which is fundamental to all species. In nature this may happen slowly over time, or suddenly and drastically, depending on circumstances, but the imperative to adapt and evolve is constant and natural. At a facility like the Shedd this process is imposed, but imposed very carefully through the expertise of trainers like Ramirez. To my mind this is infinitely different than what seems to be happening at Marineland where the needs of the animals in captivity are 'balanced' (their words, not mine) with other mandates like turning a profit (my conjecture).

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.

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Cats in captivity (house cats) will behave very differently than cats that are allowed outdoors, yet an indoor cat can live a very content life if it is given the adequate care and stimulation required to be healthy and adjusted ( and in fact it will live longer and healthier). To do this though we need an understanding of cats and their 'essential needs' in order to be able to provide what it needs to adapt in a healthy way ('training' in other words).

... and again, I do understand the viewpoint of zero tolerance for captivity whatsoever, which I would very much disagree with, but feel that it is a stretch to say that all approaches to captivity are essentially the same because they involve captivity. In other words I think there's room to acknowledge better approaches to captivity even if one doesn't agree with captivity. Whew! Not sure if that makes any sense at all but there you have it!

 

[langstarr]

Snore...who has time to read these diatribes...more pictures please...

 

[Kraylin]

Snore...who has time to read these diatribes...more pictures please...

Someone had to say it!

I'm sure there are a lot of us who have strong feelings on the topic that has covered the last few pages at length, however I do not think this is the place for that debate any longer. You made some valid points, lets move on.

Pictures please!

Or how about someone answer this question that seems to have been missed as the debate began.

The pictures above seem to indicate the retail portion is starting construction now ?

 

[buildup]

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.

 

[someMidTowner]

August 28th:

 

[Miscreant]

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.

Yeah, I think this is a good insight. For one, you're right on when you say that progressive arguments can self-destruct by becoming dogmatic, one example of which is when an argument for the plausibility of x becomes an argument for y, when y it's just intuitively implausible to almost everyone. The need to be consistent probably plays a role in here. I might be guilty of that.

Regardless, though they're far-fetched, there might be some reasons to un-domesticate cats and dogs. More specifically, if I were to get into this more--and from some of the posts above it's not a great idea to do so--I'd take issue with your claim that they were 'literally' bred to desire human companionship. Go visit one of the dozens of feral cat colonies downtown and I think it quickly becomes clear that's not necessarily true; or even if it is, it doesn't carry much weight since that 'bred desire' is easily overturned by environmental factors.

 

[Hypnotoad]

For those then-and-now fans, here is a picture of the site circa 1989 that I scanned from an old book profiling the Sky Dome.

 

[Miscreant]

That is awesome. I love 80s pics of downtown TO, as it reminds me of my earliest years in the city, especially going to Jays games with my Dad and eating vendor sausages on Blue Jays way, just north of Front. Good times.

 

[someMidTowner]

That picture is interesting in a million different ways:
BCE/Brookfield under construction
No south entrance to convention centre
No simcoe underpass
No bremner blvd east of the tower - or anthing else east of the tower for that matter
Bush shed roof at union looks pristine (as does FCP's marble)

I could go on all day...
Thanks for that pic hypnotoad

 

[Dan416]

Undomesticated dogs still exist. They're a little known species known as "wolves".

I'd wager that undomesticated cats still exist as well, I somehow doubt we drove domestic cats forebears extinct. I'm too lazy to google that though.

 

[Big Daddy]

^?

 

[MafaldaBoy]

September 1, 2012:

 

[someMidTowner]

September 9th: