Amazon.com Widgets

Are the unnatural habitats found in zoos immoral?

  • Prostitution of Life

    The idea of containing a form of life for the simple purpose of amusement, entertainment, and visual gratification is questionable. The animals in zoos are not the result of a domesticated species for the purposes of human companionship or food. Animals in zoo are wild creatures that are designed by nature to live in the wild. Zoos, in a way, are nothing more than a brothel to gratify the human species visually at the cost of a ticket.

  • Hgh uuh yj

    Ujjk dkk jj k ko k kj kj k lhjh hjj jlhjj j kkh j hl kjh hj jkl j jljh hjkllh j hhkl j jk jkj hjk jkj kjjhj kj j h kl jkll hjklhl kjkkl jh jjhj h hjk jkk kj hkkh khhhj kk k khkhk kk hk

  • Zoo's while can appear educational are immoral and unnatural.

    Animals were born into the wild for a reason and should remain for their well being. For example, the recent discovery of zoochosis a deadly disease, which is on par with the human disease schizophrenia. Symptoms of Zoochosis include the following- Biting holes in skin, pacing back and forth, not eating, attempted escape/attack, and fluent bobbing of the head. This horrible disease, caused by man is killing animals world wide. So yes I do believe to say the least that zoos are completely immoral and should be banned.

  • Let Freedom Reign

    I believe that animals can comfortably and naturally live in zoos, provided that the habitats, involvement, food and reproductive ability are natural and not interfered with. Putting an isolated animal in a concrete room will frighten it and change it's natural instinctual patterns, give it space, toys, grass, trees and company.

  • Animals who live in captivity tend to respond negatively.

    There is a condition called 'zoochosis,' where animals living in captivity perform unnatural behaviors. This includes repetitive pacing, biting or licking the walls or bars of their enclosure, and vomiting. It is unnatural for these animals to perform these, and it is immoral to believe that they can healthily live in these conditions. Also, animals living in captivity tend to have a mortality rate of less than half of what the rate would be in the wild.

  • We wouldn't want that, right.

    Go and watch an episode of The Twilight Zone, where they put a human being in a zoo. You wouldn't want that, would you? It's just utterly insane that we put animals, our equals, in small cages just for our children to look and laugh at them, disgusting to say the least.

  • I think that it is immoral...

    i think it is immoral because the animals are trapped in a cage being gawked at when they should be out in the wilderness living their life. I find it preposterous that people will put animals in unnatural habitats just to gain of them.

  • I think that the unnatural habitats in zoos are immoral, because the name "unnatural" alone tells you that it is not as intended how they should live.

    The habitats are very small, and doesn't allow them to roam free as nature intended them to. Their ability to communicate with other members of the species is taken away. They are deprived of natural surroundings and all the creatures that occupy them. Being shut off in a prison, it causes unwanted anxiety for the purpose of making money. The ability to think or decision-making is severely limited due to being stuck in a small enclosure.

    Posted by: darkscion22
  • I do not believe that placing animals in small insufficient unnatural habitats is moral or humane, because they deserve to live their life as intended by nature.

    Animal are living creatures and deserve to live their life the way they were intended. If polar bears enjoy arctic weather and ice caps, why is it that we think it is ok to crate them in a 70 square foot cage? Polar bears like the cold of the arctic, yet some are forced to live in the middle of the city, in 90 degree weather all summer. That is cruel, and no one should be forced to live in environments so unsuited for what they are intended.

    Posted by: danielleduce
  • Unnatural zoo habitats are immoral because they harm captive animals.

    Zoo animals depend on human beings to provide for their welfare, and in return provide enjoyment to visitors and profits for the zoo. An unnatural habitat makes the life of a zoo animal unpleasant and unhealthy. It is immoral for a zoo to make a profit from an animal trapped in an unnatural enclosure that causes physical or mental distress. For some animals it's a form of torture...our society agrees that cruelty to animals is immoral, therefore unnatural zoo habitats are immoral.

    Posted by: C4mmyGrant
  • No, because the zookeepers try to recreate their natural habitat the best that they can.

    I don't think the habitats seen in zoos are immoral. The zookeepers try to recreate the animal's natural habitat the best way they can. I go to zoos all the time, and usually I see great habitats, with happy animals. The people that go to zoos don't know what their real habitat looks like, so how do they know what the animals are supposed to have?

    Posted by: ThiefShna
  • No, because the habitats in zoos are better than the ones in the wild.

    Animals in zoos are better kept than if they were in the wild. Sure, not everything is perfect, and the animals do not have a huge area to roam around. But, the zookeepers do take great care of them. If an animal gets sick in a zoo, it can be cared for, unlike the wild, where it is very likely it will just die from its sickness.

    Posted by: R04chGrov
  • Overall the habitats found in zoos are not immoral because they do provide all of the necessary things the animals need for survival.

    Although there are a few things that could be improved upon, overall zoos provide the animals what they need for survival. Most of the animals have never experienced a habitat outside of the zoo, therefore making the smaller conditions much more acceptable. Also, if we would not have zoos then people who can not afford to travel would not be able to see such animals as elephants and monkeys and so on.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • Artificial habitats in zoos are not immoral in the least bit.

    There's a misconception about how animals are treated at zoos. Yes, in some cases there is animal abuse, but those are isolated incidents. Animals live better lives than some humans in zoos. They get food for free, and unlike circus animals, they are not pressured to perform. The conditions for animals in zoos are better than the conditions for some poor people in their homes.

    Posted by: RayEar
  • The unnatural habitats are not immoral as long as they are being handled in the appropriate manner so they do not attack.

    Keeping an animal in an unnatural habitat or recreated environment is not immoral as long as the animals are treated in a safe manner. If animals are abused or malnourished while being kept in a zoo, then it is wrong. But if the animal is being treated well and feels safe, it should be allowed for them to live there, for people to see. Most people would never see a wild animal without these zoos. As long as the correct safety measures are in place, these habitats should not be considered immoral.

    Posted by: D35General
  • I don't think zoo habitats are unnatural or immoral. In fact, I believe that zoologists strive to make the best habitats possible.

    I believe that most zoo habitats, while not the animals' normal environment, are created to suit the animals' needs. I do not believe keeping animals in these habitats is immoral because most zoos today are trying to provide safe homes for endangered or injured animals. There is nothing immoral about that.

    Posted by: VividDel
  • The zoo providers do a good job keeping the animals in their "natural" habitat by producing another environment like the animals in the real world, in the zoo.

    I believe that the unnatural habitat in the zoo is not immoral. This is because the animals are kept in a mimicked area of their real habitat; it is not like the zoos place the tigers in with the penguins in cold air and whatnot. The zoo itself is immoral because the animals teach everyone about the different environments and also the types of different animals all over the world.

    Posted by: N34rIyGaIv
  • Although Zoos may be unnatural habitats for animals, there is nothing immoral about zoos as long as they are humanely treated.

    Although zoos are unnatural habitats for animals to live in, there is nothing immoral about putting them in a zoo. Animals were created for man's enjoyment and housing some of them in zoos allows for the opportunity for people to enjoy the brilliance of God's creation. The key is to provide humane treatment to the animals.

    Posted by: TasticBran
  • Hgh uuh yj

    Ujjk dkk jj k ko k kj kj k lhjh hjj jlhjj j kkh j hl kjh hj jkl j jljh hjkllh j hhkl j jk jkj hjk jkj kjjhj kj j h kl jkll hjklhl kjkkl jh jjhj h hjk jkk kj hkkh khhhj kk k khkhk kk hk

  • There's room for improvement, but as long as we recognize that, I think we're okay

    The original purpose of zoos was the simple menagerie, intended for simply our amusement, but as environmental issues have become more prominent, the purpose of zoos has changed into one encouraging more sensitivity to endangered species and conservation. Some zoos have made it through this transition better than others. What we need to do now is learn more about those animals and try and make today's zoo exhibits more reflecting what we have learned (e.G. Making larger exhibits for species that have large territories in the wild, making more variety for nomadic animals, greater stimulation for predators, etc.). Some zoos have not quite made it out of the menagerie phase, but others have.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.