Ecological, ethological, and ethically sound environments for animals: Toward symbiosis

There are inconsistencies in the treatment and attitudes of human beings to animals and much confusion in thinking about what are appropriate conditions for using and keeping animals. This article outlines some of these considerations and then proposes guidelines for designing animal management systems. In the first place, the global and local ecological effects of all animal management systems must be considered and an environment designed that will not rock the biospherical boat. The main points to consider are the interrelatedness of living things with each other and the environment, the self-sustaining nature of ecosystems, and the importance of diversity in the stability and maintenance of ecosystems. These can and should be taken into account when assessing animal management. They are illustrated by examples of companion/urban dogs, as well as farm, zoo, and circus animals. The environment must also be considered from the point of view of the ethological needs of the animals. There are two possible approaches to this: (1) the reductionist approach, illustrated by the choice experimental tests; and (2) a holistic, evolutionist approach that concentrates on the degree of behavioral restriction and the identification of distress. The assessment of an animal's ethological needs, and thus the ethological soundness of an environment, must take into account the species needs (communication system, species-specific characteristics of the brain receptors and cognition) and the individual's needs (his past experience). The behavioral effects of domestication and how distress can be assessed are discussed. Different ethical positions toward animals and their treatment are briefly outlined, and it is argued that, provided animals are in ecologically and ethologically sound environments, their use by human beings is ethically acceptable. The animal-human association should be characterized by symbiosis—mutual benefit—rather than a parasitic or exploitative relationship—employer to employee, rather than master to slave.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF01826810
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 37,309
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Animal Thinking.Donald R. Griffin - 1984 - Harvard University Press.
Animal Liberation.Peter Singer (ed.) - 1990 - Avon Books.
Animals and Why They Matter.Mary Midgley - 1983 - University of Georgia Press.
Animal Liberation.Bill Puka & Peter Singer - 1977 - Philosophical Review 86 (4):557.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
32 ( #207,095 of 2,309,303 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,484 of 2,309,303 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature