Keeping Animals Captivity Is Not An Option

More than a million different kinds of animals inhabit the earth. The exact number is not known, for new kinds are continually being discovered. They live in the seas, from the surfaces down to the black depths where no ray of sunlight penetrates. Animals can be domesticated or left in the wild where they truly belong. However, as time passed by, nowadays, animals are endlessly being exploited and fought for around the globe. Different opinions from different countries and races have divided to defend to defend their views and make a stand. This issue about the animals’ welfare should be taken more seriously until we find the right answers.

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”.

It is said that in order to protect the wildlife, we need to be educated about the wildlife that inhabits our planet. As humans, and the superior species on Earth, we put exotic animals, aquatic and terrestrial, in zoos or aquariums where people can go to see them to learn more about them in order to protect them. It just so happens that by putting these animals into captivity, we are causing more damage to them, just as damage is occurring in the wild and more species are becoming extinct. Animals should not be held in captivity; it does not save them from going extinct, but helps kill them off.

Throughout history, humans have utilized nonhuman animals for the benefit of mankind. This tendency increased as civilization developed, and presently, necessitated by staggering population growth and technological progress, human use of animals has skyrocketed. We eat them, we breed them, we use them as test subjects. Some people have begun to question the ethics of it all, sparking a debate on animal treatment and whether or not they have rights. In a paper on the subject, Carl Cohen lays out his definition of rights, explains their relationship with obligations, and uses these ideas to present the argument that manifests clearly in his piece’s title, “Why Animals Have No Rights”. THESIS

There are significant arguments on both sides of the issue, but the real issues are keeping the animals in captivity, keeping them alive, keep the cycle of life continuing to grow and produce all that nature intended. Many believe for the purpose of learning more about ourselves as humans with have the right to explore our possibilities with the similarities of those of the mammal species. Theses people argue for the acceptable need for capturing the animals in the wild and keep them in a protected environment, there are several points to stated and generally cited. Theses include:

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.

“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites, or women created for men” (Walker). Blackfish: Going Beneath the Surface The idea of animals being under the dictation of humans is morally wrong. Animals are not to be kept in captivity for whatever reason it may be.

First of all, there should be a ban on the possession of wild animals because they can be mishandled. In the first article, it states, “Domestication is not something that happens in one or two generations: it takes hundreds or thousands of years” (Lewis 104). When in the hands of private individuals, the animals themselves suffer. These animals do not adjust well to a captive environment, for they require special care, housing, diet

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

The state of Florida should ban animals in captivity because the animals are mistreated in the zoos and they don't live their life like how their supposed to live it in the wild.

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

Humans have always had a complicated relationship with non-human animals. This relationship has always benefitted the needs of humans, with little consideration for animals’ needs. Some animals are tortured for entertainment, some are butchered for food and others are taken from their habitat and family, and forced to be pets for humans. These are all examples of the ways humans have exploited animals for their own satisfaction. Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us” describes the complicated relationship that humans and animals have, and how difficult it is to determine what is ethical when dealing with animals. Jonathan Safran Foer makes a similar observation in his essay “The Fruits of Family Trees” of the ethical issues in the

Animal rights are an important topic to discuss and review. The trouble is the vast diversity of how people see humans and animals and how they are different and yet the same. Animals are in every aspect of our lives in how they are utilized to make our lives easier, to sustain us, or as a pet. Unfortunately, the line of animals and humans blurs as the widely known belief that we are a derivation of an animal and we should treat them as we would ourselves. This viewpoint, however, can be taken to an extreme as we see pets that can be pampered quite a bit. Relating back to the four authors in our text, there is considerable controversy on how animals should be treated. While some interesting positions arise with the various authors, to

Both “Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce” by Mark Sagoff and “All Animals Are Equal” by Peter Singer seem to ignore a fundamental defining characteristic of animals, namely their level of domestication. These two essays’ assumptions and exclusions inspired me to think more about domestication. Partially through the process of brainstorming and outlining my arguments, I read “Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair” by J. Baird Callicott, which at the very least dealt with domestication, but I found that his version of the land ethic dealt with wild animals better than with domesticated animals.

Did you know that sheep where the first known animals to have been domesticates as a source of food? This occurred in the Middle East and the proof lies in the high proportion of bones of one-year-old sheep discarded in what it now northern Iraq. Not long after, the goat followed and these two animals become the standard animals of the nomadic pastoralists, tribes that move all year long with their flocks that were guided by the availability of fresh grass. Soon, cattle and pigs are domesticated, in more settled communities. The purpose behind herding or keeping animals such as sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs is to provide needs of man. For example, they produce dung to manure the crops. Once the animals die, they provide leather and wool for garments, horn and bones for sharp points (like needles or arrows), fat for tallow candles, and hooves for glue. However, the first and main reason behind the keeping and herding of these animals is to secure a regular supply of fresh meat. Worldwide, there are about 100 different animal species kept by humans for multi-purpose use. The utilization and keeping of livestock has always been an important part of human activity, but there are still a few cultures that do not use the services and products of animals. Now, more so than ever, the discussion of whether animals should be kept for human consumption, and other uses, has been intense, and two of the strongest voices in this debate are animal