The Importance Of Keeping Animals Captive In Zoos And Aquariums

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.

As the animal rights movement has developed and grown substantially in recent years, there has been an increased focused on the welfare of captive animals. A popular institution that has received much attention for keeping animals captive is the zoo. Because of this focus, zoos have responded by publicizing their positive benefits for existence in order to justify keeping these animals on display. Since the term “zoo” can have a wide variety of meaning and characteristics, it is important to define what constitutes a zoo in this essay. Zoos are defined as a facility in which animals are confined within enclosures, displayed to the public, and

Zoos across the world claim to be safe, suitable homes that replicate habitats of animals that are usually found in the wild. However, there is no possible way for wild habitats to be replicated well enough for animals in captivity to thrive, animals are often separated and withheld from living as they would in the wild. Despite their argument of being educational for visitors, the only thing they are teaching the public is that it is ok to take animals out of the wild and lock them up for their own enjoyment. Regardless of these claims, zoos are inhumane.

The issue on whether or not to keep animals in captivity has been debated heavily for a long time. With species such as the panda on the verge of extinction to mistreatment of marine mammals in theme parks such as Sea World, keeping wild animals under the care of humans has been a struggle and a highly controversial topic. Even though many people believe that animals should not be kept in captivity because humans are incapable of fully understanding and providing specific needs for wild animals, certain animals can be kept happy and healthy in captivity, and these animals are an important educational tool for teaching people of all ages about biology, biodiversity, and the ecosystems of the world.

As a child, many people would often go to the zoo or to the circus and see animals in real life. In circuses, animals would often perform tricks and stunts, dazzling the audience. In the zoo, people would often see animals in their native habitat, or what looks like it. Children were mainly amazed with the animals and were always exited to go see the animals. As the years go by, they start to realize that some of the animals are suffering and are being mistreated, especially in circuses. They see that the animals in zoos are depressed and lonely and the animals in the circuses are chained up. What is worse is that animals in laboratories are often treated very poorly; more poorly than what Americans treat prisoners and refugees. There have been many debates on whether animals should be held in captivity. Some groups believe that animals should not be held in captivity because they have the same capacities as humans. They believe that animals can feel emotion and have a sense of morality. Animals in captivity are deprived of their natural habitat and their instincts. Animals raised in captivity tend to rely more on humans compared to animals raised in the wild. They also believe zookeepers and trainers are putting themselves at risk when taking care of the animals. There have been many incidents including the death of trainers by animals, one highlighted by the movie “Blackfish” by director Gabriela Cowperthwaite. There are others who believe that putting animals in captivity is beneficial for not only the animal, but for humans as well. Humans get more jobs if more animals are put into captivity because there is an increase in the amount of people needed. Another benefit of keeping animals in captivity is that it could help save a species who is endangered and close to going extinct. Another benefit is that it helps increase the amount of food available because some animals are raised for food. Putting animals in captivity wrong unless they are being used for the animal’s benefits.

Since their very beginnings, zoo’s around the world have been at the forefront of ethical debates. Animal ethicists, animal liberationists and proponents of the land ethic raise considerable questions about the nature of zoos in a moral and ethical context. Drawing on animal rights claims, the questionable moral status of animals and the land ethic, this essay seeks to argue that zoo’s; a place in which wild animal’s are held in captivity, are inherently unethical. Though animal liberationists tend to include domesticated animals and agriculturally farmed animals, the scope of this essay will focus solely on the ethics of zoo’s and those animals within. Citing experts in the animal ethics

“Before the early twentieth century, zoos would separate humans from the animals by using a series of moats. In the early 1900s, however, zoos “began displaying animals in realistic exhibits that mimicked actual habitats” (Gioielli, 2016, p. 1). Coupled with the more natural habitat is advancing care for the animals in captivity. More hospitals are being built for animals and better medicine is being created constantly. As a result of healthier and happier animals in increased popularity of animals in captivity. According to Carey (2016), “More than 10,000 zoos are now in operation worldwide . . . the central missions of zoos [are] not only to serve as attractions for recreation and amusement, but also to educate people and promote conservation . . .” (p. 2). Most people do not go to see animals in captivity for the sole purpose of entertainment, they also go to learn about the animals themselves. Both children and adults can learn about how to help protect endangered animals and their habitats. As a result, zoos and aquariums are continually gaining popularity. According to Gazert (2017), “Zoos and aquariums draw 181 million visitors per year in the United States--that’s over half the country’s population, and more visitors than the annual attendance of the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB games combined” (p. 2). Unfortunately, some zoos and aquariums have been known to abuse their animals. While this is not true of all zoos, but the reports of abuse have increased leading to more controversy. Because of this the idea of keeping animals in captive is harder to accept. Still, the sad truth is that animals may have to be in captivity in order to save their species. “A recent report from the World Wildlife Fund warned that without swift and substantial human intervention, over two-thirds of the world’s wildlife could be gone by the end of the decade” (Ganzert, 2017, p. 1). Predictions

Zoos across the world claim to be safe, suitable homes that replicate habitats of animals that are usually found in the wild. However, there is no possible way for wild habitats to be replicated well enough for animals in captivity to thrive, animals are often separated and withheld from living as they would in the wild. Despite their argument of being educational for visitors, the only thing they are teaching the public is that it is ok to take animals out of the wild and lock them up for their own enjoyment. Regardless of these claims, zoos are inhumane.

Freedom is everything to people, and animals alike. But animals in captivity are stripped from this. In SeaWorld and circuses, the animals are living their lives entertaining people and living their lives in cages or small enclosed pens. By keeping animals to remain in captivity people are taking away their freedom, forcing them to be used for entertainment, and not providing animals with the proper care.

For many centuries, zoos have served as a way of both educating and entertaining various audiences around the world. However, many ethical and moral concerns have arisen recently regarding the manner in which the animals in these facilities are treated. Zoos disregard the rights of animals because the audiences and employees treat them poorly and animals are unable to thrive in the small enclosures. Journalist Michelle Carr is correct in her claim about the harsh reality of zoos. Even though authors Leslie Kaufman and John Pickrell are accurate when they claim that many zoos serve as educational and conservational institutions, this does not excuse the fact that zoos take advantage of animals in order to make money.

The topic of the treatment of captive animals in both zoos and aquariums is one of high controversy. It is argued that the capturing and breeding of wildlife, holding them in captivity may present them with unnecessary risks. This however is dependent on the species of animal.

Going to the zoo when you were a kid is one of your best memories, riding the Zoo Jeep through the safari, walking through the cave of bats, and seeing an elephant for the first time. In recent debate, zoos have become a controversial issue as Animal Rights Activists have started to strongly oppose zoos and the captivity of wild animals. One of main arguments from both sides is whether or not zoos purpose is to educate, research, conserve, and entertain. The article “Last Chance for Animals - Zoos”, argues against the ideas of zoos by rejecting the claims of conservation, education, and research. In the article “Zootopia - Animal Welfare, Species Preservation and the Ethics of Captivity”, the argument of zoos creating a positive atmosphere

In part II and III, Singer explains that using animals for experiments are inhumane. He also states”, would the experimenter be prepared to experiment on a human orphan under six months old, if it were the only way to save many lives?" I agree if an animal "can't suffer” then a baby under the age of one "can't suffer" either. Also, the statement "animals are not self-conscious and are there merely as a means to an end. An end is a man." I agree that he is getting at that humans do not have any duties to animals, therefore it is fine to treat them any kind of way. But, I do not agree because animals do suffer. Singer points out that species and races are somewhat similar. He says, "if you replace race with species..." meaning does a black person suffer just like a white person. Just because an animal is not a human, they still have feelings. I also agree that it does not matter if it is an unhuman or human, everything that breathes can suffer. Yes, the way Singer asserts this topic was a good way to help outline what King was protesting and fighting for. Yes, everyone has feelings and it does not matter what you look like, everyone should have equal

There are different opinions on the subject matter. Some people support the rights of animals to the extent, that they find it extremely cruel to keep them in captivity, comparing it to imprisonment, whilst others say captivity of animals is essential to their further existence and well-being. Many neutral analyst on this debate topic have pointed to the fact that acting in accordance to moral and emotional notions is not the most ideal approach on such a complicated and ambiguous problem such as this. Rather the important question that should be emphasized upon, is what manner of living would be most beneficial for animals?

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.