동물원 옹호 논의에 대한 비판적 재고
The Argument in Defense of Zoos: A Critical Reconsideration
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
실험용 동물이나 식용 동물의 삶과 비교해 보았을 때 동물원 동물들은 상대적으로 훨씬 나은 삶을 영위하고 있는 것처럼 보인다. 그들은 희소성을 갖추고 있으며, 대체로 가격이 비쌀 뿐만 아니라 동물원을 방문하는 사람들에게 지속적으로 관람의 기회를 주어야 하기 때문에 관리자들이 동물들의 건강과 목숨 유지에 세심한 관심을 기울인다. 실제로 동물원 관계자들은 대부분 동물원의 동물을 실험용, 식용 동물처럼 대하지 않는다. 그들은 단지 실험이라는 목적을 위해 동물원 동물을 죽여서 실험해 보지 않으며, 동물들을 돌보기 위해 최선을 다한다. 이처럼 실험용, 식용 동물들과는 달리 동물원의 동물들은 이런저런 혜택을 누리며 살아가고 있으며, 때문에 동물원은 별다른 도덕적 문제가 야기되지 않는 것처럼 보인다. 그럼에도 레건(T. Regan)을 포함한 동물원 반대론자들은 동물들의 자율성을 침해한다는 이유 등을 들어 동물원에 반대하는데, 구체적으로 그들은 동물원을 옹호하는 논변인 (1)교육에 기여한다, (2)과학연구에 기여한다, (3)희귀동물 보전에 기여한다, (4)사람들에게 즐거움을 준다는 논변이 설득력이 없다고 생각한다. 이 글은 이러한 논의를 둘러싼 찬반 논의를 비판적으로 검토하고 있다.
Abstract
Compared to animals used in laboratories for tests and animals reared for food, zoo animals appear to lead a better life and are better regarded. Zoo animals are treated well because they are rare specimens, and a concerted effort is made by zookeepers in ensuring their continued well-being for zoo visitors. Indeed, zookeepers do not treat the animals in the same way scientists might treat laboratory animals or farmers might treat animals reared for food. Zookeepers do not think of slaughtering an animal for human consumption, nor do they indiscriminately use the animals for experiments. Instead, zookeepers are dedicated to caring for the animals to the best of their abilities. As animals in zoos unlike laboratory animals or those reared for food are able to lead peaceful and long lives there appears to be little moral or ethical objections to keeping animals in zoos. However, there are some individuals who strongly object to the existence of zoos. Anti-zoo campaigners, such as T. Regan, are opposed to zoos because they claim zoos violate the autonomy of the animals. This argument is unconvincing vis-à-vis those who claim zoos have much to contribute to society in that: (1)they enable scientists and private individuals alike to observe animals at a close range, (2)they aid scientific research in animal behavior and biology, (3)they ensure the conservation of endangered animal species, (4)they provide the public with a means of viewing the different creatures they would not otherwise see. Due to the existence of disparate views for and against zoos, this paper seeks to critically review and analyze the pros and cons of zoos.
참고문헌 (16)
- 김진석, "동물의 권리와 복지" (2005), 건국대학교출판사
- Goodall, J., "희망의 자연" (2010), 사이언스북스
- Rolands, M, "동물의 역습" (2004), 달팽이
- Singer, P, "동물해방" (1999), 인간사랑
- Bostock, S, "Zoos and Zoological Parks, In Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics Vol.4" (1997), Academic Press
- Brink, D, "Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics" (1989), Cambridge Univ. Press
- Clifford, S, "Animal Rights: a Reference Handbook" (2009), ABC-CLIO
- Hursthouse, R, "Ethics, Humans and Other Animals : an Introduction with Readings" (2000), Routledge
- Hutchins, M, "Ethical Considerations in Zoos and Aquarium Research, In The Animal Ethics Reader" (2003), Routledge
- Jamieson, D, "Against Zoos, In Defense of Animals : the Second Wave" (2006), Blackwell Pub
- Lindburg, D, "Zoos and the Rights of Animals, in The Animal Ethics Reader" (2003), Routledge
- Rachels, J, "Created from Animals" (1990), Oxford Univ. Press
- Regan, T, "Are Zoos Morally Defensible?, In The Animal Ethics Reader" (2003), Routledge
- Steeves, H, "imal Others: On Ethics, Ontology, and Animal Life" (1999), State University of New York Press
- Sunstein, C, "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions" (2004), Oxford Univ. Press
- Wemmer, C, "Opportunities Lost: Zoos and the Marsupial that Tried to be a Wolf, in The Animal Ethics Reader" (2003), Routledge