My instinct, which I know is shared by most people who frequent the Reef Central boards, is that as aquarists, it is our duty to provide at least reasonably good care for the animals in our charge. E.g., that they be provided a home in which their basic needs are met for a timeframe approximating the animals' natural lifespans.
This assumption underpins almost all of the discussions about whether certain animals are better left in the ocean, whether a given tank is overstocked, and whether a given tank size is appropriate for particular species. The argument of the much-discussed "Tang Police," for instance, centers on their belief that tangs are unlikely to thrive without adequate unimpeded swimming room. Importantly, the argument is not that it would be merely unwise or imprudent to keep a tang in a 55g or whatever. Rather, the view is that it would be unethical to do so.
(There are other arguments with respect to certain rare or endangered species, but I leave those aside for now. I am concerned instead with the general ethical questions surrounding reef inhabitants that are commonly available to consumers.)
Although I tend to share this general view, I find it difficult to articulate precisely why. It cannot be that I believe it to be ethically wrong to outright kill fish, even for consumption - I eat seafood, including large finfish, all the time. Moreover, I apparently do not care much about the humane treatment of such animals, either, as I honestly do not consider whatsoever the treatment that may have befallen such animals before they arrived on my dinner plate. For what reason, then, should I feel differently about the fish in my own aquarium? It certainly won't do to say that they shouldn't be killed (or merely neglected) because they're pretty.
And as for animals that we might reasonably consider to be among the "lower" orders of animals, the simpler animals such as corals, anemones, and other invertebrates: in my daily life I think nothing of killing land-dwelling but perhaps analogous animals such as insects if they inconvcenience me by appearing in my home. Why then should I care anything about the treatment of perhaps similar "simple" animals in home aquaria? (By "simpler," I speak only to their capability for sentience, or self-awareness - or more accurately, their presumed lack thereof.)
(Again, I put aside the conservation argument that urges captive propagation of corals, which is about something different.)
One possible argument that I've considered is that one ought to take good care of the animals in one's care not so much for the sake of the animals, but for one's own sake. I think that a good argument perhaps can be made that when one mistreats or neglects a reef dwelling animal (even a simple one) in one's care, one thereby degrades oneself. And perhaps the corollary is also true: that it is ennobling to tend well these living creatures.
But I said I was looking for more philosophical and analytical rigor, and so far, I haven't really made an argument at all - just a bald assertion that sounds nice.
I'm not sure that the common view on this issue (which I share) can be defended without resort to some pretty absolutist animal rights views which neither I nor many other aquarists share. But I hope it can be, and I look forward to thoughtful responses about this.
This assumption underpins almost all of the discussions about whether certain animals are better left in the ocean, whether a given tank is overstocked, and whether a given tank size is appropriate for particular species. The argument of the much-discussed "Tang Police," for instance, centers on their belief that tangs are unlikely to thrive without adequate unimpeded swimming room. Importantly, the argument is not that it would be merely unwise or imprudent to keep a tang in a 55g or whatever. Rather, the view is that it would be unethical to do so.
(There are other arguments with respect to certain rare or endangered species, but I leave those aside for now. I am concerned instead with the general ethical questions surrounding reef inhabitants that are commonly available to consumers.)
Although I tend to share this general view, I find it difficult to articulate precisely why. It cannot be that I believe it to be ethically wrong to outright kill fish, even for consumption - I eat seafood, including large finfish, all the time. Moreover, I apparently do not care much about the humane treatment of such animals, either, as I honestly do not consider whatsoever the treatment that may have befallen such animals before they arrived on my dinner plate. For what reason, then, should I feel differently about the fish in my own aquarium? It certainly won't do to say that they shouldn't be killed (or merely neglected) because they're pretty.
And as for animals that we might reasonably consider to be among the "lower" orders of animals, the simpler animals such as corals, anemones, and other invertebrates: in my daily life I think nothing of killing land-dwelling but perhaps analogous animals such as insects if they inconvcenience me by appearing in my home. Why then should I care anything about the treatment of perhaps similar "simple" animals in home aquaria? (By "simpler," I speak only to their capability for sentience, or self-awareness - or more accurately, their presumed lack thereof.)
(Again, I put aside the conservation argument that urges captive propagation of corals, which is about something different.)
One possible argument that I've considered is that one ought to take good care of the animals in one's care not so much for the sake of the animals, but for one's own sake. I think that a good argument perhaps can be made that when one mistreats or neglects a reef dwelling animal (even a simple one) in one's care, one thereby degrades oneself. And perhaps the corollary is also true: that it is ennobling to tend well these living creatures.
But I said I was looking for more philosophical and analytical rigor, and so far, I haven't really made an argument at all - just a bald assertion that sounds nice.
I'm not sure that the common view on this issue (which I share) can be defended without resort to some pretty absolutist animal rights views which neither I nor many other aquarists share. But I hope it can be, and I look forward to thoughtful responses about this.
I'll make a more informed post tomorrow - when I'm sober.
