Whether it's people incarcerated in prisons, or animals confined in zoos, aquariums, laboratories, farms, and in our own homes, millions of upon millions of sentient creatures live in captivity. To be held captive, some might say, is to be denied basic rights of autonomy. But physical captivity, others might say, can have significant social benefits. So under what conditions could it be morally justified to hold a creature in captivity? Should we think of humans and animals differently? And in a civil society, is captivity a necessary harm, or should we work towards eradicating it? John and Ken have a captivating conversation with Lori Gruen from Wesleyan University, editor ofThe Ethics of Captivity.
The show begins with John wondering whether human and animal captivity should be lumped together as being the same. Ken doesn’t see why not, so John brings up that human captivity and animal captivity are different, particularly morally different. Ken does not recognize this difference, explaining that a person is deprived of autonomy and freedom when in prison, just as is an animal in a cage. But, John says, people in prison are being punished, whereas animals are not. Animals, he argues, are better in captivity in today’s world, that in fact the conditions of captivity are as benign as possible. Ken strongly disagrees – destroying an animal’s habitat and then locking the creature up cannot possibly be the better alternative. Animals are innocent victims that do not deserve to be held captive. John adds that those in prison for minor crimes often do not actually deserve to be in prison, and that people have a level of dignity, freedom, and autonomy that animals do not possess. Ken says that were animals released, they could have that freedom and autonomy.
John and Ken introduce guest Lori Gruen, Professor of Philosophy, Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and Environmental Studies at Wesleyan University and Editor ofThe Ethics of Captivity. John first asks Lori what got her thinking about the moral differences and similarities between human and animal captivity. Lori explains that her work with captive chimpanzees in a cognition research center in Ohio led her to animal rights activism. At the same time, she was asked to teach Political Philosophy in prison and began thinking about the similarities and differences between human and animal captivity. John then asks Lori what the point of combining human and non-human captivity is, and Lori explains that there are degrees of captivity; some animals fare better than others in captivity. By studying the two in a combined manner, we can learn about animal and human well-being. Ken wonders whether the two systems of captivity might not be too different to compare, but Lori insists that in prisons, dehumanization is legitimized, that prisoners are often compared to animals as a means of devaluation.
Ken接着问Lori，动物和人类之间的差异在道德上是否重要，Lori解释说，人们被囚禁会以各种方式受到伤害，包括被拒绝做他们通常会做的事情，吃他们通常会吃的东西，以及其他日常行为。肯举了一个圈养蠕虫的例子——这和圈养一个人是一样的吗，还是有一条分界线?Lori将痛苦因素考虑在内，并谈到了在这个案例中哲学和伦理反思的重要性，但她也提到，她感兴趣的是问题更清晰的情况。然后话题转向黑猩猩，它们的栖息地正在被破坏，这意味着如果它们被释放到野外，它们将会死亡，洛莉考虑到栖息地破坏导致的道德困境。
John and Ken welcome audience participation and discuss concerns such as caring for animals in captivity and growing attached to them before realizing the animals had been stripped from their parents. The status of zoos and sanctuaries and whether they are harmful or beneficial is discussed, as is whether captivity can offer protection for individuals who have low cognition levels.
