Animal Rights Vs. Human Interest U1
1
Gordon
Tristan Gordon
Dr. Williams
Philosophy 216
December 11th, 2015
Animal Rights vs. Human Interest[U1]
A common debate in modern culture is the idea of granting animals certain rights and the extent of which rights to grant them. As simple as this question may be, the answer is very complex in nature. It would appear that in our modern society that these animals would be granted these rights, simply because the population has become so much more tolerable and moderate on issues in general than previously. The only issue with granting these animals these rights is the implications it puts on certain industries that may or may not be violating these animal’s rights in their current practices. An example of one of these institutions that may or may not be violating these animal’s rights is the institution of zoos, including gator farms, aquariums, petting zoos, and normal exotic animal zoos. I will argue that animals have certain rights, therefore the man made institution of zoos violates the rights of these animals and is not justified in practice.
One might are argue in favor of this claim by first stating an argument made my Tom Regan to establish that animals do in fact have rights in order to disprove the justification of zoos, as well as argue these animals have The Right to Liberty. Regan argues that the main question that it boils down to when it comes to animal rights is, “If any animals satisfy these requirements, they are subjects-of-a-life. And if they are subjects-of-a-life, then they have rights just as we do.”(Regan 53).To be clear, the animals that Regan speaks largely about here are mammals and birds. These animals are completely self aware, as it is easy to see the mind that lies behind their eyes. Take a dog for instance, they have memory because they know their name when it is called, they have perception as they can remember their owners face and smell, and finally they have memory as they learn tricks such as roll over or to retrieve. All of these ideas point to the conclusion that animals are in fact subjects of a life. If they are in fact subjects of a life, then they have equal inherent moral worth, meaning that they intrinsic value. This inherent moral worth affirms that they should have rights. When talking about which animals qualify for this, the evidence is in favor of mammals and birds as being subjects of a life. If these animals do in fact have rights, then the institutions of zoos are violating the rights of these animals by putting them in captivity.
Now that it has been established that these animals have rights due to the conclusion that they are subjects-of-a-life, the second part of this argument is the notion of The Right of Liberty that is enabled by having rights. These animals that live in these zoos have the right to liberty, which means they have an interest in freedom as wel as humans. In their natural state, these animals flourish. They are meant to be in their natural habitat, not in captivity. This view is affirmed by an article by PETA that states, “cages and cramped enclosures at zoos deprive animals of the opportunity to satisfy their most basic needs.”(PETA) The captivity that zoos employ violates these animals right to liberty because it keeps them caged, confined, and takes away their freedom against their will for the benefits of others.
One might object to such a claim by saying that the institution of zoos are necessary and beneficial because they are centers for education that foster much discourse and academic enquiry into the lives of those who visit. They harbor species of animals and habitats that most people would never get to see otherwise. Not to mention that these centers are often the sites for repopulation of endangered species that arein danger of going extinct. Therole that the institution of zoos serves is beneficial for many reasons. However there is also another component to this that has to do with its worth. These zoos are worth having around because they are beneficial to the majority of people who come and see them by making them happy as John Stuart Mill states, “that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness.”(Mill 1861, 323). They enrich the knowledge and education of those who come to learn and watch what they have to offer as well as enhance the human experience.
One might respond to such an objection by stating that the reality of this claim is untrue. Zoos are largely viewed as an educational institution, however this is a deceiving view of this institution. First of all, zoos are more than anything a business; therefore they will do what they have to do to make money. Whether that be getting too may animals, or getting too big of animals that do not fit the spaces they have because of the concept the bigger the better for ticket sales. Calling zoos educational is also a false claim because this includes gator farms and petting zoos which pretty much have no educational side to them at all, but rather they are just institutions for entertainment. In an article by the Captive Animal Protection Society they state that, “A US study found no compelling evidence for the claim that zoos and aquariums promote attitude change, education, or interest in conservation in visitors. The study authors urged zoos to stop citing a zoo-funded study, which claimed an educational benefit from visits “as this conclusion is unwarranted and potentially misleading to consumers.”(CAPS) This study shows that zoos in general are not viewed for their educational aspects, even if they have these aspects, the public views zoos for entertainment. A final notion to consider is the fact that zoos may be the place for repopulation for endangered species, however this is not the way things should be. In an article by Peta it is stated that, “Warehousing animals for life is not the way to save them from extinction. Their salvation lies in protecting habitats.”(PETA), meaning that the caged birthing process and the efforts put forth to repopulate endangered species should not occur in captivity largely because, “Returning captive-bred animals into the wild, is in most cases, impossible because animals who are reared in zoos are denied the opportunity to learn survival skills.”(PETA) Having said any of this, it is under the assumption that majority of zoos take part in this in the first place which is untrue as stated in an article in the Guardian saying, zoo owner Ben mee stresses the necessity of zoos to protect as many endangered species as possible, “Yet of the 51 mammal and bird species at his zoo only seven are classed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.”(The Guardian). In the grand scheme of things, the view of zoos by the public is a deceiving perception as these institutions are not what they say they are, they do not take care of these animals properly, and they do not serve the educational purpose that most people view them as having.
The next argument in favor of the notion that the institutions of zoos violate the rights that these animals have is the idea that these animals have the right to nutrition, the right to life, and largely Regan’s argument, which is the right not to be tortured. These institutions treat the animals they contain horribly. One of the problems they have according to PETA is mental issues as, “physical and mental frustrations of captivity often lead to abnormal, neurotic, and even self-destructive behavior, such as incessant pacing, swaying, head-bobbing, bar-biting, and self-mutilation.”(PETA). This sounds a lot like the problems mentally that prisoners develop that are incarcerated for a long period of time. For these animals, it can be even worse because some are born in captivity and never experience any other kind of life. Regan argues that we ought to treat similar cases similarly, so in the context of torture and inhumanity, if we as humans only violate someone’s right to freedom and right to not be tortured when they are convicted of crimes and put in jail, then why are we okay with doing the same thing to animals who may have never done anything violent in their whole lives? Zoos cannot provide sufficient space for the animals they obtain as CAPS states, “Zoos cannot provide the amount of space animals have in the wild. Tigers and lions have around 18,000 times less space in zoos than they would in the wild. Polar bears have one million times less space”(CAPS). The cramped spaces they shove these animals into foster mental disability and forced stress and anxiety. These animals generally suffer in these zoos as CAPS states, “Lions in zoos spend 48% of their time pacing, a recognized sign of behavioral problems.”(CAPS) The last aspect of zoos that proves the inhumane nature of this institution is the issue with animals dying prematurely due to stress and malnutrition as CAPS states, “African elephants in the wild live more than three times as long as those kept in zoos…40% of lion cubs die before one month of age. In the wild, only 30% of cubs are thought to die before they are six months old and at least a third of those deaths are due to factors which are absent in zoos, like predation”(CAPS). The overwhelming amount of evidence lies in favor of the notion that the institution of zoos violates the right of animals to not be tortured.
An objection to such an argument could be that animals in captivity are actually happy with their place in this world. Of course there will always be those zoos that do things incorrectly, but that doesn’t mean that all of them treat animals unjustly or any more harsh then nature would treat them in their natural habitat. In a debate between Will Travers of Born Free Foundation and conservation biologist Dr. Andrew Marshall, the question of the happiness of animals comes up and Dr. Marshall responds, “Most animals in zoos are happy.”(Psychology Today). This view is probably a minority view, but nonetheless a conservation biologist wouldn’t just say such a thing on CNN without some evidence to back it up. In nature, daily life is a battle between finding ample food and water and well as keeping yourself alive from predatorial pressure. In captivity, these variables are taken out of the equation as they always have some food and water with the absence of predatorial pressure since most zoos separate such species. The key is that nature is a rough place as well that has natural selection constantly as play, predatorial pressure, and the need to find food and water. Zoos are not all bad institutions, as with anything in this world, you will always have your bad apples but some institutions do things right and do not violate these animals right not to be tortured.
A response to this objection could be that it is absurd to argue nature as even almost being the same as this captive environment. Having these animals separated may make things safer on them as individuals, however population control becomes an issue in these smaller environments since there is no predatorial control that ill foster bad gene selction and a weak animal population, as well as a generally decreased exposure to biodiversity. This is harmful to the chemistry between animals and the relations that they may build. Nature itself may be very dangerous but there is a reason it is called, “nature”. It is the way things are without interruption or intervention. Nature contains predatorial pressure that yes creates stress alike to the stress created in captivity, but every species on earth that walks outside is potentially prey, even humans. So with this argument, take the mindset of Regan and treat similar situations similarly and ask yourself are we supposed to just all barricade ourselves in institutions like prisons and segregate ourselves because it is more advantageous to the longevity of our life?The answer is no because longevity of life is irrelevant if the life is void of freedom and filled with mental and physical torture. The institution of zoos violates these animals rights and should not be in practice, rather they should be replaced with efforts to restore natural habitats and keep these animals in nature where there rights and not violated.
Overall, the institution of zoos is something that has existed for generations. The common thought of most people in our society is as a means if education, totally overlooking the reality of the situation. These right bearing animals are constantly being subjected to abuse, malnutrition, premature death, overpopulation, and incarceration in insufficient spaces for their size. The reason for this is these institutions are businesses at their core who hire and employ a staff, buy and trade animals, sell gifts in the gift shop, concessions at the door, as well as an admission fee. If this institution is truly strictly running as an educational outlet, then this would not be the case. America is always looking for new ways to make money, and the unfortunate part of this situation is, that money dictates everything. An example of this can be found in the malnutrition and insufficient space comes from a lack of funds to buy appropriate amount of food and build a bigger cage. These businesses and our society as a whole over look the violation of these animals right as long as their needs are served and they are making money. The correct alternative lies in supporting the movement to preserve their habitats rather than trying to recreate it in a closed environment for our spectator society to view at their pleasure. The rights of these animals in the institution of zoos are constantly violated, therefore these institutions should not be justified in their practice.
Works Cited:
Mill, John Stuart. 1861. “Utilitarianism”. In Social and Political Philosophy, edited by James P. Sterba, 334-339. California: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
“The safest place for an animal is its natural habitat—not a zoo”. The Guardian.The Guardian News and Media Limited. 20 September 2010. Web. 10 December 2015.
“Animal Rights Uncompromised: Zoos”. Peta.People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.n.d. Web. 10 December 2015.
“Most Animals in Zoos are Happy: Really?” Psychology Today.HealthProfs.com. 7 September 2012. Web. 10 December 2015.
“10 facts about zoos”.Caps.Captive Animals Protection Society. 3 March 2010. Web. 10 December 2015.
Regan, Tom. Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights. New York, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.n.d. Print.
[U1]Grade: 95