A Criticism of Tom Regan's Argument

Drawing on animal rights claims, the questionable moral status of animals and the land ethic, this essay seeks to argue that zoos; a place in which wild animal’s are held in captivity, are inherently unethical, because they violate the ethical and moral standard in which animals have a claim to. Citing experts in the animal ethics field, this essay will be supported by firstly establishing that animals do in fact have “animal rights” and similarly, that they have a claim to a moral status relative to that of humans. Following this, this essay will show that the animal rights, which zoo animals are privy to, allows us to set an ethical standard on which humans have a duty to treat animals, especially when held in captivity. Analyzing this ethical standard with which me must treat zoo animals, we can deduce that zoos are in fact not ethical in nature and in practice.

Zoos, rehabilitation institutions, and many other environmental centers provide opportunities for the public to witness animals that cannot be seen on a daily basis. Whether to keep animals in captivity is morally hard to decide, especially for me personally. In the essay, “Against Zoos,” by Dale Jamieson, he writes about the positives zoos provide, and then reiterates them; making positives turn into negatives. Jamieson makes statements about humans being superior over animals, and how we should not be thinking that we are better. We tend to take a lead role over other species, because of our “higher intelligence.” That should not mean that we treat wildlife as if they are something lower than us. In more ways than one, we as humans are

“Some people talk to animals. Not many listen thought. That’s the problem.” - A.A. Milne. I feel that this means some people command the animals to work, while not understanding what the animal also wants or needs. In the debate, “Are Zoos Bad News?”, written anonymously, the author reports the ethical and unethical reasoning between zoos. This came after the attack on three victims. In my opinion, the existence of zoos should endure seeing that it educates people, zoos can alter the behaviour of people to animals and zoos promote wildlife conservation.

To answer this complex question, philosophy professor Bryan Norton poses some additional concerns relevant to this issue. He notes that if in fact keeping these animals in captivity is ethical, then we must also discuss what specifically humans want to conserve (Norton 15). Is it limited just to animal species, or can it extend to populations, ecosystems, and natural processes? If we simply identify wild animals, then we must ask ourselves if we are preserving a wild species if the animals themselves are forced to spend their lives in captivity? He mentions a common analogy used among zoo professionals who refer themselves to a modern day Noah’s ark, preserving each species by removing individuals for conservation. If zoos represent a sanctuary from extinction, then we must also address if there will ever be a natural habitat to reintroduce the animals into, or if they be forced to remain on the zoos “Ark” indefinitely (Norton 16). Though the work of various ethical scholars and philosophers may not be able to provide a concrete answer to all of the respective questions, I will discuss the concept of reintroduction when analyzing the third argument of this essay.

According to Tom Regan, a moral statement cannot merely be right of wrong. These statements are based off facts and are in no way true or false.they are much more complex than the basic true or false , right or wrong. He believes that a "single individual is only one voice" (47.)and one voice cannot determine whether an action or thought is right or wrong. However, neither can the voice of many, "questions of moral right and wrong, in short cannot be answered by taking a vote and seeing what the majority favors " (48).

She claims that while zoos are not necessary for education, the “educative message delivered by zoos is, at best, distorted and, at worst, damaging to the cause that the zoos purport to champion—that is; the conservation of species.” Because she does not consider the educational opportunities and programs that zoos and zoological parks can offer, so her opinion on these establishments is unfavorable. However, by offering a wide variety of programs and opportunities, zoos create a unique experience for their visitors. If the animals are under proper care, there is no reason for society to believe that zoos are “cruel and

Zoos are internment camps for animals, and it should be shut down because of all the mistreatment and bad effects it has caused on animals. These bad effects and mistreatment can be summarized to three major points, which are:

The first modern zoo to be founded was in Vienna, Madrid and Paris in the eighteenth century and later on in London and Berlin in the nineteenth century. The first zoo to be established in America was in Philadelphia and Cincinnati in the 1870s. In today’s America there are thousands of zoos. Humans like to be entertained regardless of how they are being entertained, whether that is walking through the park, watching a show, listening to music or simply going to the zoo. There are truth behind zoos that many don’t see, for example, many zoos don’t show the death rates that many zoo animals have after being transported from their natural habitants or the experiences that the zoo keepers provide to the animals being kept in captivity. To what extent are we okay with animals being tortured or being aware that animals are being killed just so humans can be entertained? While there are benefits to keeping animals in captivity, scholars agree that there are more negative effects that are damaging to the animals. The purpose of zoos can be more than just keeping animals in captivity and creating significant health or mental problems, zoos also can have a positive outcome, zoos can help keep endangered animals safe from others who are trying to kill them for what they are worth. Jamieson explains and gives one example of when people started putting animals in captivity. The Romans is the example that Jamieson uses, the Romans “kept animals in order to have living fodder for games.” Jamieson continued to explain how over the years the use of animals historically grew in popularity and how the idea continued to “thrive until at least the eight century.” Jamieson also mentioned that keeping a large amount of animals showed who had power.

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Regan states that instead of viewing animals as existing solely for human disposal, or as having value only because they retain the same feelings of pain and satisfaction humans do, we should consider animals as

Regan effectively presented his notions, reinforced by legit factual evidence, lecturing all likely parts, whereas Rose built his thoughts on facts and examples solely from research and science and that made him that much less credible and it made his arguments narrow. Rose's statements and ideas can be effortlessly weakened rather than Regan's arguments, because there are definitely potential doubts about his biasedness, and also his arguments are just really narrow. Though Rose made some very solid points in his essay, he could have been a lot more effective, and Regan’s essay contains just about everything and talks about the obvious wrongs that the rest of us cannot and should not

The topic of zoos and whether or not they’re humane have quickly become one of the biggest controversial topics in the past twenty years. There is not much of a ‘middle’ perspective in this debate, rather people tend to lie on two completely opposite ends of the spectrum when displaying their beliefs pertaining to the zoo debate. I chose to research this topic because though I have strong beliefs, I think that, on this matter specifically, people often jump to a certain side without any prior research or actual education on the subject. I think that it’s important to understand both sides of the argument of zoos before sustaining a side. Another reason why I chose this topic was to moreso educate myself and to make sure that the knowledge I

People have the power to protect nature but this capacity and knowledge are founded on the inherent decisions that direct them to their objectives. In The Zookeeper’s Wife story, man has done what is unconditionally and adversely inhuman to animals. Animals are to be treated just as having similar intensity to life as human beings if not with similarity with human beings.

Animals: Not for Hire Like every other child, I would always feel so excited when my parents would bring me to the zoo and let me see how cute, gentle, and frightening different kinds of animals are. However, don’t you ever wonder how these animals see us? Stripped from their homes where they can be free and continue to do their roles, these animals are mistreated, depressed, driven to insanity, and are prone to sickness while in captivity. Wild animals who are kept in areas solely for the purpose of viewing is morally and ethically wrong.

Some people agree that animals should be kept in the zoo. They said it would be safer for the animals and they won’t be extinct. The amount of possibilities of them dying, shot by hunters or any other reason, still higher than the chances of their survival. Food and shelter are provided, medicine, and their breeding is being controlled. And many of the wild animals in zoos are ones that are on the endangered list as their amounts are rapidly diminishing. Letting them loose and returning them to the wild is not necessarily a safe option. (Mylot, 2007) In fact, zoo can be one of the educational studies for children and people who are interested with animals. Zoo is the only place that we can have an opportunity to see animal’s life really close and sometimes we can touch them. Zoos also provide lots of information about certain animals, children can have chance to get out of the classroom and learn so they can see natural beauty from different species of animals. Even children can see them from discovery channel but that’s really different if you see animal in real world, for an example, if you see crocodile, snake or shark in the movie, maybe you won’t afraid than you see the real one. According to Tudge, (1992, p.56) Zoos are the place where people can study animals and their habitat, even scientist don’t need to go

Given that over five million animals are kept in zoos and aquariums around the world, ethical questions about keeping animals in such environments should be given serious consideration (Garner 2005: 140). In this essay, I shall evaluate the practice of keeping animals in zoos and aquariums from a utilitarian perspective, an approach which I will offer reasons for adopting. In doing so, I will reflect upon what it means to be held captive in such institutions, before critically analysing two principal justifications that are used in support of zoos and aquariums. Namely, that they provide worthwhile benefits in terms of education, and wildlife conservation. But first, I will consider the moral status of animals, and make a case that animals are indeed deserving of moral status, which should prompt us to carefully consider whether we can justify keeping them in zoos and aquariums.