Animal Rights, By Tom Regan

Anderson’s “Orca Behavior and Subsequent Aggression Associated with Oceanarium Confinement” states that, “a fundamental refocusing of our relationship with orcas is warranted, in favor of a new era characterized by mutual friendship, understanding, and much greater appreciation of these remarkable creatures than has been the case to date” (Anderson). In 1961, the practice of capturing wild orca whales to use for entertainment and educational purposes in amusement parks began; however, the captors knew little about the social complexity and strength of orcas. During this time, investors saw this magnificent animal as the proper investment to allocate revenue during the boom of amusement parks. After nearly forty years of orca captivity, researchers begin to unravel the nature of orca whales, and scientists now raise the question of if these powerful and intelligent mammals belong in captivity. Captors argue that captivity provides insight on a species is nearly impossible to study in the wild and promotes respect for the species. Activists and scientists plead that due to scientific data it is senseless to hold captive such a highly intelligent animal. Although activists and scientists create a convincing argument against orca captivity, millions of people flock to see orcas in captivity proving that

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.

In the essay “Marine Parks”, Bill Daly The Power of Critical Thinking. 3rd Lewis Vaughn and Chris McDonald. Daly’s main claim is that marine parks, housing dolphins, whales, seals, and other marine mammals, have become a contentious issue. He explains the views of these problems set out to prevent the necessity of theses harsh institutions. Bill gathers a variety of different arguments from other people that argue on the critical issue of having marine parks open or closed; many arguments, for and against, maintaining such parks, range from the economic and scientific value of such places, to the cruel and in-necessary conditions the mammals are forced to endure. Below I intend to present a couple such arguments and introduce some critical evaluations, explanations, and my personal opinions.

Director Gabriela Cowperthwaite in the documentary, Blackfish (2013), argues that captivity triggers aggression in killer whales. Cowperthwaite supports her argument by demonstrating shocking footage and emotional interviews to present a convincing case against keeping these animals in captivity and for human entertainment. The author’s purpose is to show the problems that are caused by captivity in order to aware the audience that keeping killer whales in captivity affects their behavior mentally and physically. The author writes in resentful tone to Sea World, the people who visited Sea World, and those who were present during the killer whale incident. Gabriela Cowperthwaite argues that keeping killer whales in captivity at SeaWorld affects their mentality due to how they are being treated. She makes this argument by applying pathos, ethos, and logos.

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.

According to Gallup.com a third of Americans want animals to have the same rights as people. The Animal Bill of Right implies that animals have the right to be free from exploitation and cruelty, It also prohibits laboratory animals to be used for research. Animals will also have healthy diets and medical care. It will also provide them with an environment that satisfies their needs. I do not believe we need a Bill of Rights for animals. This would not only be extreme but it will affect human culture, medical research, and cost of food

For several years, Americans have been visiting amusement parks, like SeaWorld and Six Flags, to observe large animals like orcas, also known as killer whales. These whales are quite difficult to view in the wild, but can now be seen for a simple fee. Orcas are known to be one of the smartest mammals. They are friendly, and this has caused people to take advantage of them. For the past sixty years, people have brought these massive creatures into their aquariums to make a profit from their exhibitions. Often, without considering the orcas' quality of life. While kept in captivity, killer whales are forced to do many tricks they normally wouldn’t do in the wild. Over the years, there have been numerous controversies regarding killer whales

“If you love something, set it free.” This is a quote that has circulated for years, and nowhere else is it more applicable than in SeaWorld’s parks. Trainers and corporate alike claim a deep love for the animals they keep captive, but in recent years, the topic of holding orca whales in captivity has become more controversial than ever before. The CNN documentary “Blackfish” brought the conditions Seaworld provides for its orcas to the public eye in a way that had not been done before, which led to much public outrage. The containment of orca whales for educational and entertainment purposes has, in almost every way, been brought into question. Ranging from the physical and psychological damages they experience, the issues in their family structures, and the dangers that their human trainers experience, orca whales are not fit to be kept in captivity.

“An Animal’s Place” written by, Michael Pollan is an article on rather animals should have the same constitutional rights as humans. Pollan explains in the article that, “Zogby poll found that fifty-one percent of Americans believe that primates are entitled to the same rights as human children”. Pg. 362 meaning, people want to stand up for how animals are being treated in factories. More and more animals are treated like they are machines and not animals. Pollan goes on to explain how he went to a few of the animal factories in the United States, to see how they operate. We found he was displeasing. They cage thousands of hens and pigs to the point that they become depressed. They start producing less and some resort in eating cannibalizing.

In recent years, animals in captive environments such as zoos and theme parks have grown more controversial. The literature I have reviewed focuses on a particular group of animals in captivity, cetaceans. Cetaceans include whales, dolphins, and porpoises. The literature includes a range of themes, from their unique level of intelligence to why they may mentally and physically suffer in captive environments. However, it all connects to how and why these animals live and behave differently in captive environments than their wild counterparts.

In this paper, I will discuss and analyze Randall L. Eaton’s proposition that a naturalistic aquarium is a better option for cetaceans than the aquariums we have today attempting to show that his arguments for this alternative are sufficient. I will focus on orcas in specific and why Eaton believes a naturalistic aquarium would benefit them more than what they are being held captive in today, i.e. improved social needs, health benefits, as well as better living standards all together. Arguments against Eaton’s beliefs will arise including, but not limited to, the ocean being much too highly polluted for this type of aquarium, the ethical concerns regarding responsibility, and those supporting this type of alternative do not realize how costly and hard this will be to achieve. I will address these arguments and find that even after they are brought up, Randall L. Eaton’s naturalistic aquarium argument is a sufficient alternative and surpasses the doubts listed above.

The idea of animal rights has been around for centuries. Even decades ago, people were taking action for the welfare of animals. Marc Bekoff and Ned Hettinger share this idea all the way back in 1994 when they said that there is evidence that scientist are concerned with animal welfare by acknowledge that they use the guidelines in place to protect animals during research, in order to have their work published (Bekoff 219). Guidelines are the basis for the moral and ethical treatment of animals. Each person may have his or her own standard, but having a standard among the entire population ensures the welfare of the animals. Unfortunately, these standards are not at a level to where the animals are being protected. Many animals in captivity are treated in ways that would shock the average person. Orcas for example, are starved until they do the desired task (Cowperthwaite). This form of operant condition can lead to success, but often leads to resentment and hostility towards the trainers.

Nowadays, People are more and more exploiting and handling animals as if they are some kind of resources. Some people view themselves are the most important beings on the planet, so everything can be done in order to ensure their survivals such as carnivorous eating and testing on animals. However, some considered this as humans violated morality, as animals have their own lives, have feelings and families as human posses. Therefore, in this essay, philosophers such as Tom Regan, Carl Cohen and Mary Anne Warren express their own individualistic approach on the subject of moral ethics and whether or not animals have rights related to John Stuart Mill.

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan emphasizes his philosophy on animal and human equality. After reading further into his work, he illustrates a societal system that belittles animals and their significance to our own existence. Regan conceptualizes that animals won’t have real rights unless we change our beliefs. We need to acknowledge a problem. After identifying the issue, we must recognize that there is a need for change in society. In addition, he also reiterates the importance of the populace changing the way they view animals. The way society views animals will create a snowball effect that will influence politicians to also believe in animal rights.

Everyday individuals attempt to utilize a argument to influence individuals on a certain point which intrigues them or they are attempting to demonstrate to the world the true importance of something. In "Animal Rights,Human Wrongs." writer Tom Regan discuss shows us how whales and many different animals are murdered on Earth utilizing his knowledge, records he observed and even realistic accounts of how some of these creatures are tormented and slaughtered by people. In his arguement he utilizes clear example of ethos because of his subtle descriptions and facts in light of his encounters. Another supporting detail in his arguement are the terms logos and pathos in which he utilizes these to clarify observer records and facts of what is done to the creatures and he uses meetings of other individuals to give descriptions on how all killings happen.