Analysis Of Peter Singer Arguments Against Animal Captivity

Philosophers against the use of Animal Captivity

I will now provide arguments against the use of animal captivity. Firstly, I will use Peter Singer, who I believe delivers the strongest argument against animal captivity. Singer is a consequentialist who argues for animal rights and the position that animals should not be held captive. Singer reminds us that humans are animals but language makes us overlook this. As a utilitarian and hedonist, Singer looks towards the end result, where like human beings, other animals choose pleasure over suffering. Singer regards interests of consciousness rather than self-consciousness. Therefore since animals are conscious beings and animal captivity causes pain and suffering, it is wrong. Robert Garner

As Regan himself states, ‘I believe that the philosophy of animal rights is the right philosophy.’ (Ryder, 1992, p.55) Proving how strongly he feels on the subject. Similar to Singer, Regan was central in ‘providing intellectual justifications for granting a higher moral status to animals.’ (Garner 1997, p.1) Other animals do not deserve to be treat as inferior to human beings because having a point of view betokens having fundamental rights. This includes the rights not to be made to suffer, not to be confined and not to be killed by human agents. Animals have rights as beings with an interest in respectful treatment. Unlike Singer, Regan directly states he is against the use of animal captivity when he writes, ‘the philosophy of animal rights calls for an end to the capture and training of wild animals, for the purposes of entertainment.’ (Ryder, 1992, p.60) As SeaWorld, many wildlife parks, zoos and circuses exploit animals as a means of entertainment for money, Regan argues they must be brought to an end as it is against their rights as living, rational and autonomous creatures. Kalof and Fitzgerald clear up Regan’s claims in their book ‘The Animals Reader: The Essential Classic and Contemporary Writings’ when they state ‘the position he articulates in his writings is that animals, like humans, have moral rights, and treating them as if

In his book, ‘Dependant Rational Animals’, MacIntyre aims to answer why is it important for us to attend to and understand what human beings have in common with members of other intelligent animal species. MacIntyre rejects Aristotle’s biological teleology, which argues that only human beings have the ability to speak and reason and therefore our telos is to develop that reason. This is highlighted in his book when he states - ‘by distracting our attention from how much we share with certain other animal species, puts itself at off both with older Aristotelian modes of thought and with modern postDawiniam evolutionary naturalism.’ (MacIntyre, 1999, p.11) Here, MacIntyre is asserting that we overlook our similarities to other animal species due to theories such as Aristotle’s, which can now be regarded as out-dated as scientific developments allow us to know a lot more about different species. This idea has parallels with that of Singer, who we have seen also believes human characteristics such as language make us overlook our similarities with other animals. In ‘Dependent Rational Animals’ MacIntyre shows it is not human beings alone that have the ability to speak and reason. For example, dolphins can also do these things. MacIntyre dedicates a whole chapter of his book to the intelligence of dolphins, showing how important this is to his argument. He declares their ‘ratio of brain mass to body mass