The Moral Impermissibility of the Exotic Animal Café

CBEL Report Volume 2, Issue 2

Regular Article

The Moral Impermissibility of the Exotic Animal Café

Isabella Braga(Rollins College and Kansai Gaidai University)
Abstract:
The moral standing and rights of animals have been widely debated in the field of bioethics, with scholars such as
Peter Singer and Shelly Kagan diverging on how, why, and to what magnitude animals’ rights should be
acknowledged. However, these debates have not yet adequately addressed the welfare of a growing population ofvulnerable animals within wild and exotic animal cafés. This paper addresses the issue of animal rights in a wild
animal café context, with an emphasis on Singer’s principle of equal consideration of interests. Specifically, in thispaper, I will examine the intrinsic harms of animal cafés, their negative externalities, and the moral standing ofthese animals, to show that wild animal cafés are impermissible in their current form. This paper argues that animal
cafés’ harms violate the rights of animals, and thus warrant tightened regulation and, in the case of wild and exotic
animal cafés, potential closure. In conclusion, this paper, by closely examining the moral status of animals in thewild and exotic animal café context, sheds new light on the oft-neglected issue of animal rights protections in cafés.

Keywords:
Animal rights, moral standing, animal welfare, animal café, principle of equal consideration of interests

I. Introduction
On September 14, 2019, I visited a bird of
prey and rodent café. As one of many international
students on a school-initiated trip, I knew little aboutanimal cafés, and entered with fanciful expectations.
Foolishly, I imagined a Harry Potter-esque owl
sanctuary where birds were free to fly, feed, andinteract with visitors.
My ignorance was short-lived. I witnessedlines of birds chained to posts, rodents of every type incages barely large enough for their bodies, and a falcon

with a minuscule enclosure he could escape only when
visitors paid to watch him perform tricks. The owls’
legs were rubbed raw by their chains; they huddledaway from visitors amid the din of daytime activity at
odds with their nocturnality, and one especiallydistressed bird tried for ten minutes to fly away, to noavail. There was a visible frustration in the flaps of his
wings. His chain bound him to his roost.
This café is not an anomaly. It is a single
representative of a growing movement of exotic animal
cafés throughout Asia. Touting the emotional and1

CBEL Report Volume 2, Issue 2

Isabella Braga

psychological benefits of close-quarters non-human

We will begin with the comparison of theanimal interaction, these cafés are appealing to people

philosophies of two leading animal rights bioethicists.

who

the

Inarguably one of the most renowned philosophers

commitment of ownership. However, the captivity andalive, Peter Singer argues that valuation of humankind

treatment of animals in these cafés pose myriad ethicalabove other species is a form of speciesism (Singer

concerns, not just because of direct harms to the1974, 107). He purports that much like the unjust

animals themselves. Negative externalities of these

discriminations rooted in racism, misogyny, andcafés subsume the environment, other animals, andhomophobia, our degradation of animals is an arbitraryhumans themselves – particularly when the featured

misapplication of rights. Singer states that humans

animals include wild, non-domesticated species suchshould not be exclusively valued just because theyas owls, otters, and raccoons. Wild animal cafés

belong to a species; rather, they should receive

exacerbate

alternative

deference based on their interests, or their abilities toeconomies, and create rising demand for the adoption

suffer (Singer 1985). For example, a gorilla may notof the featured animal; the latter in turn fuels the wild

have advanced rational capacities, but it has notions ofanimal trade and destruction of these animals’ habitats.

social relationships – and insofar as it has interests andFurthermore, these harms are at odds with the alleged

may suffer, these interests must be taken seriously.

intentions of the cafés, which are seemingly to increase

Thereinappreciation for the animals, provide human contact

consideration of interests. The latter serves as anwithout ownership, and encourage conservation efforts.

undergirding justification for Singer’s animal rights

desirecontact

poachingwithanimals without

practices,fuel

In this short paper, I will provide an analysis

we

have

Singer’s

principle

of

equal

framework (Singer 1990).

of animal rights as applicable to animal cafés, for the

Of course, one could rebut that rationality

purpose of showing that the captivity of non-must confer notions of rights, because the being mustdomesticated animals in animal cafés is morally

be able to conceptualize her interests. A naturalimpermissible. First, I will present an animal rights

response to this rebuttal would be to point to members

ethic as applicable to the animal café setting. Then, Iof our own species with reduced rational capacities,

will connect the practices of animal cafés to Petersuch as the elderly, the mentally disabled, and infants.

Singer’s principle of equal consideration of interests,

There are a number of ways the anti-Singer objector

to argue that wild animal cafés must be abolished andcould respond, but it is likely he would indicate thatdomesticatedregulated.

either one’s membership in the human race and/or

Ultimately, this argument will present and further the

one’s ability to be or to have been fully rational wouldcase for increased animal rights in the Japaneseconstitute access to rights. This said, the pro-Singer

commercial setting.

response would be extremely simple: what does

animal

cafés

must

be

rational capacity have to do with moral significance?
In other words, it seems as if humans affirm theII. Philosophical Conceptions of Animal Rights

consequent when they claim that one must be rational
to have interests. Given that many animals seem to feel

2

The Moral Impermissibility of the Exotic Animal Café

CBEL Report Volume 2, Issue 2

suffering but lack full rationality, a trait exclusive toother words, a chimpanzee is more important than ahumans, it looks as if humans chose their defining

goldfish. Such a theory seems to resolve many of thecharacteristic as a boundary to exclude animals.

concerns of the principle of equal consideration of

Ironically, if we as humans were to utilize ourinterests; these include the potential impossibility ofrationality, we would find ourselves questioning theresource allocation to different species’ protections, as

circularity of our logic – because insofar as rationality

well as the (mistaken) notion that a Singer-esque ethic

is a superfluous standard inconsequential to one’s

necessitates veganism. Yet the hierarchical view alsoability to feel degraded, it is irrational to cite theseems to work counter to our intuitions. For example,

reduced mental capacity of animals as justification forshould a thirty-year-old man take priority over a baby?

their degradation. It is not even as if rationality confers

Have the elderly depreciated in worth? Even more,

a greater ability to suffer. As Singer indicates, a lack ofshould we prioritize the desires of higher-functioning

rationality may exacerbate suffering. Singer argues:

animals over mentally disabled humans? Some might

Sometimes animals may suffer more because of
their more limited understanding. If, for instance,
we are taking prisoners in wartime we can explain
to them that while they must submit to capture,
search and confinement they will not otherwise beharmed and will be set free at the conclusion of
hostilities. If we capture a wild animal, however,
we cannot explain that we are not threatening its

argue that the baby might be given deference based on
its potentiality to be rational; others might argue thatthe young, the old, and the disabled bear legitimacy
solely due to membership in the human species, whose
average members have rational capacities. On his part,
Kagan justifies rights for the impaired via “modal
personhood—the fact that such severely impaired
humans could have been people” (Kagan 2018, 8).

life. A wild animal cannot distinguish an attempt

Yet while Kagan’s hierarchical ethic is

to overpower and confine from an attempt to kill;appealing to the utilitarian, it fails to show why thethe one causes as much terror as the other. (1985.)

bright-line for interest prioritization would lie in

By the same vein, even in the absence of higher
intellectual capacities, an animal can care, love, andrationality, as opposed to the ability to suffer. To suffer
implies a deprivation, a reduction in hedons and spikein dolors, constituting a bright-line as intrinsic assuffer.

utilitarianism itself.
Onemight contrast this view with ahierarchical view of animal welfare. Shelly Kagan is aforemost proponent of such a framework, arguing that
we must give deference to beings in proportion to their
cognitive capacities (Kagan 2018, 5-7). This hierarchy
is based on mental faculties, meaning that the interestsof a reasoning human being would take priority overany non-human animal, and that these animals would
be given priority in terms of their mental faculties. In

III. Animal Welfare in the Café Setting
In animal cafés, the principle of equalconsideration of interests is violated systematically.
This is not to say that the concept of an animal café isharmful, but rather that the practices of cafés infringeon animals’ wild natures, and inflict undue suffering
where, with proper regulations, there could be none.

3

CBEL Report Volume 2, Issue 2

Isabella Braga

Under Singer’s animal rights position, the situation isabuses such as minuscule enclosures, improper

akin to that of factory farming – deplorable notnutrition, dehydration, harsh handling, and lack of

because of the consumption of meat, but because of

medical care (McGee 2018). Additionally, animals areexcessive unnecessary harm. While it may be better for

subject to excessive human contact, often during hours

the individual, economy, and environment to embracecounter to their natural sleep schedules. For example,

veganism and vegetarianism, it is not so ethicallythough cats are nocturnal, cat cafés typically operate

problematic to consume meat from free-range animals

with daytime business hours; consequently, the cats are

killed painlessly (Francione 2003, 5-6). By the same

subject to sleep deprivation. These practices constitutevein, if we cannot amend society’s desire to have theseharm to the animals, whose health is jeopardized foranimal cafés, then we must amend our practices suchcommercialization.

that we reduce suffering.

However,withproperregulation

andWhen analyzing these cafés, one must draw aenforcement, there is no reason why the domestic

distinction between domesticated animals and non-animal café could not maximize benefits for both

domesticated animals. A domesticated animal belongs

animal and human. Indeed, some animal cafés shelter

to one of seven species: dogs, cats, horses, pigs, cows,

rescue animals exclusively, allowing visitors to adopt

sheep, and goats (Blue-McLendon 2016). Thesethe “employees”; others donate proceeds to animal

species have been bred and conditioned by humans toshelters. These cafés have the potential to provide

conform to a domesticated lifestyle. Every otherimmense psychological benefits to humans while

animalnon-saving the lives of animals in one fell swoop. To

domesticated category, we must distinguish between

achieve this, though, we must gather a government

wild and exotic animals. A wild animal is non-panel of veterinarians, bioethicists, and lawmakers,

domesticated and indigenous to the region at hand,

who may review each domesticated species’ necessary

while an exotic animal is non-domesticated and non-and sufficient conditions for maximum welfare in a

indigenous. Just because an animal acts tamely doescafé. This panel must establish uniform guidelines for

not preclude it from non-domestication (Blue-each species’ treatment in their respective cafés – be

McLendon 2016).

they dogs, cats, or even small rodents. Theseisnon-domesticated.

Withinthe

To reduce suffering, it is unavoidable thatexotic and wild animal cafés must no longer be legal.
If an owl cannot fly, sleep during the day, or interact

guidelines must be specific, enforceable, and created in
the best interest of animals; for insofar as they suffer,they bear moral validity within our society.

with others of its kind, it is being forced to act in a

For non-domesticated wild animals, the case ismanner contrary to its wild nature. This is noteven more dire. We must first subsume the abuses

necessarily

animals.

from the domesticated animals’ captivity – otters, owls,

Domesticated animals within cafés suffer not by theirand other wild animals are subject to similar

captivity intrinsically. Rather, they suffer because of

malnourishment,

the conditions of their captivity. They suffer because of

medical neglect, and sleep deprivation (International

4

a

given

for

domesticatedcaging/chaining,

manhandling,The Moral Impermissibility of the Exotic Animal Café

CBEL Report Volume 2, Issue 2

Organization for Animal Protection 2017; World

species, spelling danger for all other species in the

Animal Protection 2019). Unfortunately, the harms

affected regions, including humans. This processagainst them are compounded, and there are no

serves only to fatten the wallets of poachers, breeders,regulations which may render exotic cafés appropriate.

and the crime syndicates facilitating them both.

Firstly, it is impossible for a wild animal to haveproper handling or enclosures in a café context.
Resources, limited space, and human interaction
jeopardize their health and manifest a harmful stateBill Travers coined as zoochosis. This is the obsessive,abnormal, and impulsive behavior typically seen in zoo
animals as a result of captivity (Born Free Foundation2020). Note that this is most poignant in wild species
whose natural states are perverted in captivity.
Zoochosis subsumes behaviors such as pacing,bobbing,

biting,over-grooming,

self-mutilation,

vomiting, and playing with or consuming fecal matter.
The condition is linked to disruptions of natural
behaviors and environments; the latter impairs the
brain

and

forcesanimalstodevelopcopingmechanisms (Mason 2006, 327-339). A café context,
much like a zoo, is not equipped to provide animals
with appropriate care. Thus, we see the exhibition ofzoochotic behaviors in wild animal cafés (Reuters2017).

The case of the rising otter café is a perfectillustration of the harms of cafés featuring nondomesticated, wild, and exotic animals. Otters havegained social media traction due to visual andbehavioral similarities to domesticated house-pets.
Unfortunately, demand for their captivity has led to thepreviously described feedback loop of harm – cafés
inspiring demand and in turn fueling illicit practices
such as poaching and exotic breeding, which only
grow with otter cafés’ increased popularity (World
Animal Protection 2019). Poaching of young otters
spells the deaths of their mothers, who die defending
their young, as well as the collapse of their ecosystems,
which die in the absence of otters’ key environmentalroles. Once in captivity, it is impossible for the otter’s
needs to be sufficiently met; because it is wild, theotter requires vast space to hunt, socialize, and play. If
its lack of space were not enough, in some cafés, otters
are painfully de-toothed to protect café visitors, and aremanhandled by employees; one snapshot depicts an

Moreover, wild, exotic, and non-domesticatedotter gripped by its throat (World Animal Protection

café animals must either be poached or bought from2019). They are then forced to interact with humans

illegalthan

for unduly long shifts contrary to their natural rhythms

quenching visitors’ desires to interact with exotic

of sleep. Because they are wild animals, they in turn

animals, their presence in cafés inspires further

suffer from zoochotic effects.

alternative

economies.

Andratherdemand for poaching, as markets open for theseanimals’ adoptions; this in turn incites more cafés,more adoptions, and a terrible feedback loop of
poaching, bottoming out in the endangerment of thesewild species (Kerr 2017; World Animal Protection2019). As these animals’ presence in the wild things,

In

responsetothisargumentation,areasonable interlocuter might object that captivity
minimizes animal suffering even within cafés, as it ispreferable to dangers present in nature, such aspredation, disease, and starvation. One might argue
that if we are to truly consider the animal’s utility, thenthe environment suffers with the removal of keystone5

CBEL Report Volume 2, Issue 2

Isabella Braga

exposing it to the dangers of the wild is sufficiently

with an enormous cage where it can burrow to its

worse than harms incurred within a café. However, I

heart’s content without a snake or bird in pursuit –rebut this objection on two grounds.

have we solved the issue? Perhaps for the mouse. But

Firstly, we cannot conflate safety with lack ofsuffering. A non-domesticated animal, wild or exotic,

not every animal is as small or easily accommodated.
This leads me to my second point.

is genetically, physiologically, and psychologicallyMy second rebuttal to the objection rests on

inclined to live in its natural environment – dangers

the grounds of feasibility. It is simply not feasible toincluded. This is what distinguishes it from aaccommodate the needs of wild and exotic animals indomesticated animal. A caged owl’s safety from aan animal café. To properly accommodate the birds ofbobcat does not justify nor outweigh the harms of its

prey alone, a café would need a veritable arena for a

captivity, because in its captivity, its very nature has

simulated forest with simulated hunting. The same

been subverted. This subversion can constitute what is,would be necessary for raccoons. For otters, a café

as per the definition of zoochosis, a form ofwould need all of that, as well as a large body of water.

psychological torture. The latter is only avoided when

At that point, it is not a café, it is a nature preserve.

the animal lives in a manner consonant with its

While animal cafés can affordably accommodate dogs,

physiological inclinations. For an owl, this means

cats, and small household mammals like hamsters,

flying, hunting, and sleeping nocturnally. Evolution

wild and exotic animals simply cannot satisfy theirhas provided the owl with means of avoiding predation,

natural functions in the café setting. Therefore, without

and these behaviors, too, are part of its natural

fulfillment of these natural functions, what the café

inclinations. Exposing animals to those dangers is notprovides in baseline safety is outweighed by theas much an offense as it is a part of natural life.

physiological and psychological harms of subverting

Additionally, captivity may be a barrier to natural

the animals’ biology. In sum, harms exist for thedangers, but it fundamentally interferes with theanimals in both captivity and the wild. In the animal

animal’s ability to express its own nature, and thiscafé, they are unavoidable, restrictive, and adverse tosafety in and of itself can induce suffering. For

the animal’s nature; in the wild, they are avoidable,

example, a mouse’s burrowing behavior aids it not justnatural, and an aspect of the animal’s nature. The latterin habitat-building and transportation, but also in theis far preferable.

avoidance of predation; the animal does not question
why it has this behavior, only feeling that it must
express it. When we put that mouse in a cage, it can no

IV. Conclusion

longer tunnel as it would in the wild. In the wild, those

There is a solution to the concern of animaltunneling behaviors would have saved its life, but incafés, but it is not a light enterprise. To combat thecaptivity, when the natural environment has been

powerful economic forces pushing for the cafés’removed, these compulsions do not dissipate. Rather,survival,

the unnatural environment induces stressors unto thegovernmentally supported team of experts must gather

animal. Now, let us say we provide that single mouseextensive research on the care appropriate for domestic

6

government

actionisimperative.

AThe Moral Impermissibility of the Exotic Animal Café

CBEL Report Volume 2, Issue 2

animals in a café context, and devise guidelines as wellFree, 2020.

as a method for their enforcement. These guidelines

https://www.bornfree.org.uk/zoochosis

must include standards for nourishment, housing,Francione, Gary L. 2003. “Animal Rights Theory andhealthcare, visitor interaction, work versus rest time,

Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance.”and handling. Furthermore, this team must determine

Between the Species 13, no. 3: 1-30.

how to transit to a society free of exotic, non-https://doi.org/10.15368/bts.2003v13n3.5

domesticated, wild animal cafés, such that theInternational Organization for Animal Protection. 2017.

currently captive animals are not harmed, and so that

“Japan, stop abusing animals in the cafés –there is not a significant economic blow tosend a letter of protest!” OIPA, 2017.

communities

https://www.oipa.org/international/japan-stop-

reliantoncafébusinesses.

A

recommended path would be the transfer of animals toappropriate nature preserves, with buyouts andabusing-animals/
Kagan, Shelly. 2018. “For Hierarchy in Animal Ethics.”

stimulus packages allocated to former wild animal café

Journal of Practical Ethics 6, no. 1 (June): 1-

owners. Of course, the recommended framework for

18. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3202735

this panel is the business of another, more extensive

Kerr, Millie. 2017. “Conservationists get their talonsout for Japan's owl cafés.” The Guardian,essay.
Ultimately, our ambition must be to conduct
ourselves in a morally praiseworthy manner. We must
reduce the suffering of our animal counterparts; wemust restore wild animals to their environments; andwe must invest in the mitigation of harms done unto
them. If we are to respect animals’ moral worth, then
the wild animal café will be a thing of the past – andthe owls will once again fly free.

January 3,
2017.https://www.theguardian.com/environme
nt/2017/jan/03/conservationists-get-theirtalons-out-for-japans-owl-cafés
Mason, Georgia. 2006. “Stereotypic Behaviour in
Captive Animals: Fundamentals and
Implications for Welfare and Beyond.” In
Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals
and Applications to Welfare, edited by
Georgia Mason and Jeffrey Rushen, 325-356.

References:

Wallingford: CABI.
McGee, Oona. 2018. “Cat Café Mocha in Tokyo shuts

Blue-McLendon, Alice. 2016. “Exotic, Domesticated,
and Wild Pets.” College of Veterinary
Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M
University, March 10, 2016.
https://vetmed.tamu.edu/news/pet-talk/exoticdomesticated-and-wild-pets/
Born Free Foundation. 2020. “Stereotypic Behaviourin Captive Wild Animals: Zoochosis.” Born

down after cats die from feline parvovirus
outbreak.” Japan Today, August 9, 2018.
https://japantoday.com/category/national/catcafé-mocha-in-tokyo-shuts-down-after-catsdie-from-feline-parvovirus-outbreak
Reuters. 2017. “Owl cafés in Japan draw ire of animal
safety activists.” Global News, March 2, 2017.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3282953/owl-

7

CBEL Report Volume 2, Issue 2

Isabella Braga

cafés-in-japan-draw-ire-of-animal-safetyactivists/
Singer, Peter. 1974. “All Animals Are Equal.”
Philosophic Exchange 5, no. 1: 103-116.
https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/
vol5/iss1/6---. 1990. Animal Liberation. New York: New York
Review of Books.
---. 1985. The Animal Liberation Movement.
Nottingham: Old Hammond Press.
World Animal Protection. 2019. “Cruel pet otter craze
fuelled by Japanese otter cafés and social
media.” World Animal Protection, May 23,
2019.
https://www.worldanimalprotection.org/news/
cruel-pet-otter-craze-fuelled-japanese-ottercafés-and-social-media(Accepted March 12, 2020)8