I. In “Are Zoos Morally Defensible?” philosopher Tom Regan argues that non-human animals in fact do have rights and that therefore, zoos are not morally defensible. In this context, zoos will be defined as “a professionally managed zoological institution accredited by the AZA and having a collection of live animals used for conservation, scientific studies, public education, and public display (Regan 392).” Regan states that in previous times, animals were often regarded as lesser to humans, leading to the interests of humans forming “the center of the universe (Regan 393).” Throughout Regan’s paper, he explores both the utilitarianism viewpoint and the rights viewpoint of the morality of zoological institutions. Utilitarianism is the belief …show more content…
that “a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people (Merriam Webster).” Utilitarianism requires that we evaluate the interests of all involved equally with equal importance. Singer argues in his own work that we as humans “owe” it to animals to take their interests into account. Evaluating zoos in terms of the utilitarianism perspective is nearly impossible due to the fact that the perspective requires one to consider the interests of all involved. This includes zoo workers, visitors, and those “whose business or tax base benefits from having zoos” near them (Regan 394). Because a moral assessment cannot be accurately concluded until the interests of all are taken into account, the utilitarianism assessment of zoos seems to be nearly impossible. The rights view looks at non-human animals as “somebodies” rather than “somethings.” Similarly, to humans, their satisfaction leads to pleasure and their frustration leads to pain (Regan 395). Regan uses speciesism, prejudice or discrimination bases on species, to defend animals (Merriam Webster). While using the example of sexism to state that there is “no master sex” and racism to state that there is “no master race,” Regan uses speciesism to explain the nonexistence of a “master species (Regan 396).” To conclude his argument, Regan states that the utilitarianism argument is irrelevant due to the fact that the benefits of others do not matter if animals are not respected. However, Regan does point out that in some cases, temporary captivity may be in some animals “best interests” as long as their removal from the wild is temporary and that they are eventually reintroduced to their proper habitat (Regan 397). II.
The utilitarianism viewpoint is takes the interests of all individuals involved in various situations into account. Because of this inclusiveness, this viewpoint is likely to be viewed as unbiased because it does not favor one group over another. In the case of questioning the moral defensibility of zoological institutions, many individuals are involved. As stated previously, there are many affected by zoos aside from zoo animals themselves, including zoo workers, zoo visitors, and businesses that benefit from being located near zoos (Regan 394). Zoos provide workers with income that allows these workers to support themselves and their families. Without these jobs, many of the workers may struggle to find other jobs and may have a hard time supporting their current lifestyles. The many people that visit zoos each day would be deprived of the opportunity to learn about animals that they do not have the opportunity to see on a regular basis. Visiting the many animals in person may give one a new appreciation for the beauty of nature and its creatures. Many zoos house species that are either endangered or at risk of being endangered. These animals being held in captivity may actually be beneficial to many species because it can allow them to reproduce in a safe and protected environment. Additionally, the businesses that benefit from the presence of the zoos will likely lose profits with the loss of zoos. Many of these businesses will likely be forced to shut down, losing money not only for themselves, but also for the city that they are located
in. Despite the many benefits that zoos may provide to humans, they are severely detrimental to the lives of the non-human animals that are forced to reside in them. Due to the restrictions that zoos place on an animal’s natural behaviors, including “flying, swimming, running, hunting, climbing...,” many animals begin to display abnormal behaviors that can be destructive to both themselves and fellow animals (peta.org). Another claim that is often made is that zoological institutions often hold interest in saving endangered species from extinction. However, animals that have been raised in captivity are not capable of returning to the wild for many reasons. These reasons include the lack of survival skills, possible disease transmission to wild animals, and the fact that they often do not have a suitable habitat to reside in due to “human encroachment (peta.org). Animals in zoos are deprived of living their lives to their full extent due to the walls that they are confined in. According to Regan, it is irrelevant as to whether animals in zoos are treated with respect. The rights view proves that animals held in captivity by zoological institutions are being deprived of their basic rights, specifically the freedom that they should be entitled to. It is “morally irrelevant” for an individual to claim that zoos provide benefits to individuals that far outweigh the cost that they impose on animals.
Have you ever seen an animal sitting in a cage all alone with nothing to do. Well, zoos are trying to change that fact. They will allow the animals to live in an environment that is like their home. Many people don't realize this, but zoo are keeping and breeding these animals because they would not survive in the wild alone. In the three passages, ¨The Stripes Will Survive,¨ ¨The Zood Go Wild from No More Dodos,¨ ¨Our Beautiful Macaws and Why They Need Enrichment.¨ All of these articles present one claim, that is that the role of zoos is no longer to keep animal, but to protect them.
Animal rights have become a very serious issue here in the United States over the last few decades. One issue that has been discussed is whether or not zoos serve a good purpose or are they just a torture chamber for the animals. Locked up in small cages so people can yell at them and stare. Or are zoos the key to save our species in an ever growing human population. Rachel Lu, a philosophy teacher and senior columnist, writes the article, “Let’s Keep Zoos: Learning stewardship is a good thing.”, published April 18, 2014, argues that zoos are worth keeping. Rachel Lu uses her personal experiences to appeal to her audience that zoos are valuable to people especially young children because it gives them a perspective on nature.
Analysis of Argument for Ethical Zoos and How They Benefit Animals Due to the recent events in the Cincinnati Zoo, arguments have been sparked about the ethics of zoos. Most articles try to argue against zoos and closed environments, but there are those that still support zoos and the programs that they provide for endangered species. The argument “Zoos Are Not Prisons”? They Improve the Lives of Animals” focuses on the positives of animal enclosures and fights for support to keep zoos in business. The author, Dr. Robin Ganzert, ties examples of programs that zoos help create and what type of research is conducted in the zoos, to support his claims.
Considering the many challenges animals face in the wild, it is understandable that people may be eager to support zoos and may feel that they are protective facilities necessary for animal life. In the article “ Zoos Are Not Prisons. They Improve the Lives of Animals”, Author Robin Ganzert argues that Zoos are ethical institutions that enrich the lives of animals and ultimately protect them. Statistics have shown that animals held in captivity have limited utilitarian function resulting in cramped quarters, poor diets, depression, and early death for the animals thus, proving that Zoos are not ethical institutions that support and better the lives of animals as author Robin Ganzert stated (Cokal 491). Ganzert exposes the false premise in stating
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
The difference between right and wrong is not always perfectly clear. A long-standing part of cultures across the world, zoological and animal parks have been around for hundreds of years. While in the past concerns and issues regarding the ethical problems zoos seem to impose were less prominent, in recent times the rise of animal rights activist groups and new generational values have influenced the way people view these parks. Critics believe that zoos are an unnatural habitat for animals and force them to live in captivity, having a negative impact on their health. Yet, there are still many remaining who fully support zoos, citing business and educational reasons. Some supporters even acknowledge the ethical problems zoos face, but choose
Armstrong, Susan Jean, and Richard George Botzler. The Animal Ethics Reader. London ;New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. Print.
There are many places where people can go to see live animals such as aquariums, zoos, and safari parks. A pleasant way to define a Zoo is to call it “an establishment that maintains a collection of wild animals”. (Google def) Another way to say that is a facility in which animals are “enclosed in cages for public exhibition”. I believe zoos are ethical; however, changes need to be made to eliminate problems I have discovered. In this argumentative essay, I will be arguing the ethics of zoos and certain problems that need to be addressed that people are not aware of. Zoos are great places to take the family out for the day to have entertainment; however, problems such as captive breeding, length of life, and animal stress need to improve.
... Without these zoos, many animals such as the tortoises, American alligator, and the bald eagle would no longer exist. These zoos provide food, shelter, and the opportunity to recreate their species once more. Without zoos, many of these animals would have become extinct and many endangered animals argue that zoos are the perfect place to start a new life. With animal rights activists, scientists, parents, and animals being on different sides of the argument, this debate will continue.
This does not change it as zoos are here as conservation and education; we are here to save the animals, and make more people aware of the situation at hand. I believe that we shouldn’t turn our heads or back to problems that zoos are suffering, going through misunderstanding or beliefs of what others say. This means propaganda, misinformation, or organizations; for example, PETA, should not matter on what actions we are to make. We have a job to do for these animals, and this world; because if we don’t take that first leap, then we have not just lost the fight but we have lost the
Since approximately 1250 B.C., ancient Egyptians had created and practiced the capture and display of animals in what are now known as zoos (Fravel). Records describe such exotic animals as birds, lions, giraffes, and tigers in captivity (Fravel). Since then, zoos have continued to entertain millions with the exciting chance to view exotic animals up close and personal. Even in ancient Greece, exotic animals were on display in fighting arenas, and in enclosed viewing areas. Originally in America, zoos were just created so that royalty and the wealthy could flaunt their exotic animals to the public (Leolupus). Today, with species threatened and habitats disappearing worldwide, zoos are serving a new purpose other than the mere exhibition of animals – conservation. (Fravel). When you think of a zoo, you either think of a fun, entertaining place that provides close-up and exciting exhibits of wild animals that you would otherwise never get the chance to see, or a place where people keep suffering, unhappy animals captive just for entertainment and display. However, despite whichever view you hold, and despite the stereotypes, some zoos have evolved to serve alternative and helpful purposes. Although some zoos face controversy due to allegations such as lack of space and quality care, neglect, and cruelty, some zoos have programs specifically designed to help and protect animal species. For example, these zoos have programs that help such conservation efforts as breeding.
“It is estimated to be 50 times more expensive to keep an elephant in a zoo than to protect sufficient natural habitat to sustain that elephant and many other animals.” (CAPS, Sad Eyes & Empty Lives- The reality of zoos) Indeed, only if the billions of dollars that spent on building a zoo are optimized to preserve habitats and animal welfare, can our grandchildren still have a chance to see more rare animals by their own eyes.
Most people think that zoos protect animals, but it can clearly be seen in the records provided by the Times that the zoos are doing the exact opposite of protecting animals. The American zoos, including the accredited ones, have led to the near demise of elephants. As if that alone isn’t enough to prove that zoos are cruel and unfair, there are many professionals and experts who gravely look down upon zoos too. Delcianna Winders, director with the PETA foundation, said “Renowned oceanographer Jean-Michel Cousteau reported that...
Animals are used for people 's entertainment or own benefits, but the question is what benefits do they get? Do they even get any? This paper tells about the things animals go through to help or just entertain us in life. For example the tiny cramped places animals are forced into. If the animals don 't perform well in zoos or circuses a lot of times they simple won 't feed them. The owners beating them for nothing. Lastly experiments on them and they can not even defend themselves. Animals should not be used for human benefit. Using animals for any kind of entertainment or experiment can be considered against the law especially if they are put in poor conditions and harmed. Animals have rights that should be taken seriously. Animals also have
Supporters of zoos argue that they help to conserve endangered species, but in fact they are not very good at this. Even the world famous panda-breeding programme has been very costly and unsuccessful. Also, zoo life does not prepare animals for the challenges of life in the wild. For example, two rare lynxes released into the wild in Colorado died from starvation even though the area was full of hares, which are a lynx’s natural prey.