The issue that has been raging for over many years is if animals should be owned by humans. This mainly concerns zoos, private owners and other facilities that hold animals. The public saw this issue and wanted to address it. Big organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are the ones who are mainly active in this dilemma. The people who are also interested in this issue are those who fit into the category of any side of the argument. Other people and organizations, who are interested in this topic, are zoos or animal wildlife parks. People of the public were interested in this issue, which is why there so many organizations and debates for the issue of animal cruelty. Zoos also promoted interest for this issue in the public, due to the high amount of visitors. There are two main viewpoints in this argument and one in the middle of both. One side is for animal being kept in zoos, facilities or owned by humans in general. The other side argues that animals should not be kept by anyone because they are nobody’s to own. The middle ground between the two points of view believes that only some people and facilities are allowed to take care of animals (basically those who are qualified). The first point of view from this issue is the side that believes humans, zoos and other facilities should be allowed to keep animals. The places that captivate animals believe that they are doing a favor to the creatures. They believe that they are saving them from being killed by humans. They say that if they would not have taken in these animals they would have died in the wild. They say they’re giving them a fresh new start and a place to live without worry. For example, in this article they state that zoos try and h... ... middle of paper ... ...ans should be able to possess animals or not. One side of the scale believes that anybody can have animals. The other side of the scale believes that nobody has the right to have any animals. The middle ground or the middle of the scale believes that only some people should have the right to own animals. Each side has very good reasons for their arguments and points of view. Although some of these reasons are considered ridiculous by some certain people. The people who care about this should be almost everyone, because almost everyone has experienced visiting a zoo, animal abuse or even buying a pet. This issue is a huge deal to humans because there are so many animals and we have to figure out what to do with them and who is or who is not allowed to take care of them; Especially since humans have been diffusing all over the world, taking over animal’s environments.
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.
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
Throughout history, societies have been faced with many social issues affecting their citizens. Martin Luther King Jr, a civil rights leader for African Americans, was an advocate for the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that fought to undo the injustices African Americans endure by American society in the 1960s. Martin expressed his disgust with the social inequality among citizens when saying “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (PETA). Taking the prominent leader’s words into consideration, we should progress as a society by participating in the animal rights movement that strives to extend the same compassion, felt by Martin Luther King Jr, to all living things (PETA). Popular criticisms report that animals are inferior to humans because they are a source of food, but I will argue that they are victims of social injustice. Validity for my animal rights argument will come from individual and organizational expert accounts and by Bioethicist Peter Singer, Author Francis Fukuyama, New York Time’s Mark Bittman and also Animal Rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Animal Equality, to help prove my argument. Animals are silent victims who are loudly crying out for someone to stand up for their rights; rights that can no longer be disregarded by being overlooked. It is my belief that animals should be respected, and afforded ethical and human treatment by society instead of being looked at as a source of food. In a society where animals have no voice, it is everyone’s civic duty to participate in the animal rights movement and acknowledge animals as living beings, which...
Almost all humans want to have possession and control over their own life, they want the ability to live independently without being considered someone’s property. Many people argue that animals should live in the same way as humans because animals don’t have possession of their lives as they are considered the property of humans. An article that argues for animal rights is “The case against pets” (2016) by Francione and Charlton. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton are married and wrote a book together, “Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (2015). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers University and an honorary professor at University of East Anglia. Charlton is also a law professor at Rutgers University and she is the co-founder of the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Clinic. In this article Francione and Charlton mainly focus on persuading people to believe in animal rights but only focus on one right, the right of animals not to be property. The article is written in a well-supported manner with a lot of details and examples backing it up, but a few counter-arguments can be made against some of their arguments.
Lets start with zoos, where animals are kept in cages or large enclosures for public viewing. Millions of people visit zoos thinking the animals are happy, when in all reality they are miserable. You can try to replicate the animals enclosure to their natural habitat, but they can never replace their homes. An animals rights organization states, “Animals are often prevented from doing most of the things that are natural and important to them, like running, roaming, flying, climbing, foraging, choosing a partner, and being with others of their own kind,” (PETA). Although, zoos are said to ‘help’ these animals, they really are not, it is more a collection of different animals in order to show off to the audience and gain money off of them. People begin to believe it is okay to keep these wild animals captive and have their lives be controlled by someone else.
Zoos have been with us throughout our history, and can provide a good barometer of public beliefs and values at any given time. Therefore it seems necessary to explore whether in today’s society contemporary zoos are a means of educating and conserving or still seek to control and exhibit animal others for human benefit. In order to make this assessment there are a number of contributing factors. Firstly it is important to establish context by considering the history of zoos and looking at the changes from the early menageries to contemporary zoos who strive to be institutions of refuge for animals facing twenty-first century global challenges. This links into how the physical space of zoos has changed over time and whether these advancements have made any crucial difference to the welfare of animals. Following this conservation, education and scientific research will be explored in detail in order to assess whether they provide good enough motives for keeping animals in captivity. I will seek to argue that although attempts have been made to point zoos in the direction of conservation and education, in my opinion the concepts of dominance and human superiority are still at the core of modern zoos.
Animal rights is the viewpoint that animals have rights corresponding to the way humans do. Animal cruelty is a worldwide social problem that is multidimensional. Animals are generally abused in four major areas: factory farms, in the clothing trade, in laboratories, and in the entertainment industry (PETA.org). Factories often conceal their harmful acts to avoid animal welfare laws imposed by the government. In a household, people isolate or physically abuse their animals, which can also be linked to family abuse. Laboratories experiment on animals for products and treatments, but animals are faced with frightening conditions for long periods often killing those experimented on. In entertainment, animals suffer after being domesticated for our amusement in the forms of media, amusement parks, or facilities (McPhedran). With the help of animal rights activist groups, animal cruelty is conflicted with ideology that animals are titled to their own lives—free of suffering.
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.
Zoo’s enclosures and parks have been around for quite a while now, and it is the duty of the public to go to these parks to explore a new world and experience the “true” animals. People are attracted to new experiences and to learn about exotic animals and see them in their “natural” habitat, or so owners try to present zoos to the public in that way. The seller ideas to get the public to continue to go to the zoos is gaining new exotic animals that you wouldn’t normally see around your house or near civilization. As stated by DeLuca and Slawter-Volkening, zoos are used to “bringing a taste of wilderness” to its public (3), trying to give a false reality of the wilderness. Later in the same article, they stated that “fundamentally zoos exist to amuse people…..animals are reduced to actors in the play/world created by humans for humans” (DeLuca and Slawter-Volkening 4). This statement shows that humans do in fact enjoy the “fake” over the real, and that animals are only objects or toys used to amuse the people.
Even though some zoos have an endangered species exhibit with the intention of protecting and rehabilitating animals, many do not do an adequate job of protecting the animals. Zoos have been harmful to the very animals they have sworn to protect. Animals in captivity often suffer from anxiety, boredom and other severe issue related to prolonged confinement. Most animals are unable to thrive in small enclosure with unnatural weather and climates. For example elephants are known to walk as far as 30 miles per day, but the association of Zoos and aquariums only require a space the measures $0 feet by 45 feet, which is about the size of a three car garage, to house these large animals. (peta.org) the drastic difference in the amount of space their allowed ...
Animal rights have unequivocally been a major concern amongst humans for some time now. Animal rights are based on the notion that non-human animals should be allowed to live freely: free from abuse and suffering, as humans are. The extreme issue amongst humans is whether or not non-human animals have the capacity for rationality to deserve such equal consideration. When examining the issue of animal rights, one may have come to question one’s psyche on whether or not animal rights are ethical.
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.
Rights possession simply means that their holders have certain important, basic interests that impose on their duties on others” (Animal Rights Without Liberation, 2). This theory is the most neutral, middle ground argument in the animal rights debate. Cochrane supports this theory by stating, “Contrary to the skeptics, rights can indeed be sensibly ascribed to animals. After all, it does not matter that animals themselves cannot respect or claim rights; all that matters is that they possess basic interests that ground certain duties on our part. Furthermore, and contrary to the proponents, animal rights do not require all animals to be set free from being used, owned, and exploited by human begins” (Animal Rights Without Liberation, 2). Detracting the arguments of both supporters and those who oppose animal rights and combining the two arguments together create the middle ground of the animal rights
By 1908, there were 185 anticruelty organizations promoting and stimulating public awareness of humane treatment of animals (Pearson 3-4). Early nineteenth century anticruelty reformers maintained that abuse of children and animals would affect the “character and habits that would shape him or her for life” (Pearson 90). Zoo Animals Public awareness and response to modern zoo settings are but one example of a growing trend in evaluating protection of animal rights in respect to humane treatment. To illustrate, great debate amongst animal rights activists regarding the proprietary of housing elephants in zoos has led to two diverse responses from zoos.
There has recently been a lot of dispute between those who believe in animal welfare and those who believe in animal rights. Most farm animals today are raised in confinement on huge manufacturing systems that are more like factories than farms. Animal welfare is based on the belief that animals can contribute to humans by providing us with food, work, and entertainment. It also ensures that humans who work with animals follow those moral obligations to provide the animal well-being. Animal rights on the other hand is based on the belief that animals should have the same or similar rights to humans. Animal rights activists believe that humans have no right to use animals at all, no matter how humane their operations are.