An empty cage sits near the entrance of the Melbourne Zoo. Originally used as an exhibit for orangutans in 1927, this iron-barred concrete floor confinement is a graphic illustration of how animals used to live. A plaque states that the cage remains as a reminder of when animals were “objects of curiosity and displayed in cages which paid little heed to their true needs.”1 The cage is meant to symbolize how far society has evolved in eighty years, but to those who still view zoos as concrete jungles, the evolution is far from complete. During the late 20th century, zoo directors began to transform what was originally intended as a venue for entertainment, into a progressive initiative for animal preservation.2 As human encroachment into wild habitats has increased across the globe, zoos found themselves in a position where they were able to increase awareness about animals and their eroding habitats. During the past decade, many zoos have shifted their primary initiative from preserving animals through captive breeding to preserving species and their wild habitats.3 This has been possible, as zoos have become a main disseminator of animal education and research, resulting in climbing population levels of numerous endangered species. To many, the zoo has successfully transformed itself from a place of entertainment into a cultural center that educates and enlightens on ways in which people can contribute to animal conservation. 1 Millar, R. &. (2008, January 19). Animal Rights and Wrongs. Retrieved Feb 5, 2008, from The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/animal-rights-and-wrongs/2008/01/18/1200620207184.html 2 Kuehn, B. (2002, December 1). Is it Ethical to Keep Animals in Zoos? Retrieved Feb 6, 2008, from Journal of the American Veterinary medical Association: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec02/021201d.asp 3 Kuehn, B. (2002, December 1). Is it Ethical to Keep Animals in Zoos? Retrieved Feb 6, 2008, from Journal of the American Veterinary medical Association: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec02/021201d.asp - Throughout this paper, “zoo” referencing the general use of the term, not in a “research center” senseAlthough this may seem like an admirable shift in direction, many questions still remain on the morality concerning zoos and their practices. Although nearly all animals that are in zoos are born in captivity, we still must question the ethics behind their confinement.4 Even though they are born in a cage and will undoubtedly exist within a manmade habitat throughout their life, do humans have the right to deny an animal its freedom? Furthermore, can we determine if animals have preferences themselves and if their preferences should be considered within society? Throughout this paper, I will take an objective stance in regards to the preferences of animals and critically look at the morals and economic equity of animal captivity. To the economist, a viable solution or efficient situation arises in which the benefits of an action are greater than the imposed costs.5 In many cases, the facts readily present themselves and the analysis is unambiguously black and white. But in terms of zoos, and animals, we are confronted with a myriad of gray. There is no clear distinction as to what rights animals are truly entitled to, who can speak for animals and who cannot, and how animals should be treated. United States Law does attain that they should not be treated unjustly or cruelly, but on marginal issues such as zoo captivity or their accepted place in society, we often retreat to thoughts that humans are superior and that animals are not sentient creatures, that is, they are not self-aware and as such do not demand the rights of sentient beings.6 4 Millar, R. &. (2008, January 19). Animal Rights and Wrongs. Retrieved Feb 5, 2008, from The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/animal-rights-and-wrongs/2008/01/18/1200620207184.html 5 Morey, E. (2008) Moral Philosophy, aka Theories of Ethics. Retrieved Feb 16, 2008, From 4999: http://www.colorado.edu/economics/morey/4999Ethics/ethicsandmoralphilosphy/Moral%20Philosophy%20aka%20Theories%20of%20Ethics.pdf 6 I am holding the assumption that animals of higher orders may be sentient creatures, but for the sake of argument and simplicity, am stating that all animals in zoos should receive equitable treatment.Although some of these thoughts rely heavily on philosophical inquiries, what needs to be addressed is the question of who is benefiting from zoos. Yes, the people flocking to the zoo in herds are benefitting, the animal preservation funds that survive from donations are benefiting, yes the city where the zoo is located is benefiting, but what about the animals? And even more so, do animal’s preferences count? Economists are ethical consequentialists; they judge situations on their outcome, not on the sequence of events to get there.7 What is important is the final product of a procedure and its effect on the world, not the mere intermediate stages that are irrelevant in the end. In terms of the zoo, this thought process might appear to be relatively straightforward. An economist will view the animal in their habitat, stocked full of toys, food and shelter. The economist will take into consideration the professional staff whose sole job is to research the animal for the benefit of itself and remaining populations in the wild. Within zoos, there are no predators, research can be gained that would have otherwise been impossible to attain, and the animals are cared for by zookeepers who often volunteer out of their appreciation and respect for the animal kingdom. Furthermore, people are being educated about the animals and their habitat, ultimately leading to donations and funding for habitat loss programs and other methods of species preservation. 7 Morey, E. (2008) Moral Philosophy, aka Theories of Ethics. Retrieved Feb 16, 2008, From 4999: http://www.colorado.edu/economics/morey/4999Ethics/ethicsandmoralphilosphy/Moral%20Philosophy%20aka%20Theories%20of%20Ethics.pdfTaken from this perspective, an economist would believe that animals within a zoo are, in fact, better off than those in the wild. It seems quite clear that wild animals, which do not have the luxury of seemingly endless resources, are not as well off as their captive relatives. Through on economic consequentialist’s eyes, the benefits of zoos outweigh the imposed costs on the animals. Wild animals are subjected to harsh