Animals and Ethics: Should Animals be Granted Rights?
Historically, humans have acted as the dominant species of the planet, as we possess moral and intellectual capacities beyond any other animal. Recently, however, this centuries-long tradition has been challenged by the views that animals are indeed capable of a reasonable sense of morality and intellectual abilities. As such, several groups have formed to advocate for the extension of basic moral rights to said nonhuman beings. Naturally, groups have formed that hold an opposing opinion. These groups believe that animals do not think, feel, or reason as we humans are capable of. Anti-rights groups believe that humans, as intellectually superior beings, are entitled to treat animals as is …show more content…
This primary argument against animal captivity is based on the philosophical view that all consciously aware beings are inherently entitled to enjoy certain rights and privileges, just as humans are. So, many pro-rights groups firmly contend that animals cannot be held captive in zoos, laboratories, or any other facilities because it violates their unwritten yet fundamental right to freedom (Evans). Yet others choose to emphasize on a more practical matter, which concerns the physical welfare of animals and how captivity can prove to be detrimental to their health. Facilities that hold animals captive, zoos in particular, are often labeled as cruel and unethical in that animals are being held against their will and for the amusement of people. Not only that, but many point to the fact that some zoos treat their animals with neglect and abuse through their keepers. It is enough that mistreatment stems from ignorance, but animals in zoos are intentionally being subjected to largely inadequate living conditions. Such conditions include cramped cages, pens or tanks, irregular and unbalanced diets, unsanitary living quarters, and lack of access to medical treatment. These environments visibly impact the animals that are forced to endure them. Animals are often led to endless pacing, rocking and swaying, and general restlessness in their confinements. Then they …show more content…
A substantial detriment to living in the wild is the need to endure the ever-increasing occurrence of habitat loss and all of its complications. Animals whose habitats are being diminished must work harder and for longer periods of time to find smaller quantities for food. Prey can no longer live off the habitat, predators cannot be sustained with no prey, and so all species suffer. Natural occurrences, too, adversely affect animal populations. Droughts, fires, floods, and freezes all have the potential to not only kill off vast numbers on animal populations, but the effects are further intensified as they also leave the land uninhabitable for subsequent generations of animals. And so, it would be reasonable for zoos to make an effort to house some of the animals affected by events out of their control, or at least to provide for them and protect them until all of the extreme circumstances of living in the wild have been
Historically, humans have acted as the dominant species of the planet, as we possess moral and intellectual capacities beyond any other animal. Recently, however, this centuries-long tradition has been challenged by the views that animals are indeed capable of a reasonable sense of morality and intellectual abilities. As such, several groups have formed to advocate for the extension of basic moral rights to said nonhuman beings. Naturally, groups have formed that hold an opposing opinion. These groups believe that animals do not think, feel, or reason as we humans are capable of. Anti-rights groups believe that humans, as intellectually superior beings, are entitled to treat animals as is …show more content…
This primary argument against animal captivity is based on the philosophical view that all consciously aware beings are inherently entitled to enjoy certain rights and privileges, just as humans are. So, many pro-rights groups firmly contend that animals cannot be held captive in zoos, laboratories, or any other facilities because it violates their unwritten yet fundamental right to freedom (Evans). Yet others choose to emphasize on a more practical matter, which concerns the physical welfare of animals and how captivity can prove to be detrimental to their health. Facilities that hold animals captive, zoos in particular, are often labeled as cruel and unethical in that animals are being held against their will and for the amusement of people. Not only that, but many point to the fact that some zoos treat their animals with neglect and abuse through their keepers. It is enough that mistreatment stems from ignorance, but animals in zoos are intentionally being subjected to largely inadequate living conditions. Such conditions include cramped cages, pens or tanks, irregular and unbalanced diets, unsanitary living quarters, and lack of access to medical treatment. These environments visibly impact the animals that are forced to endure them. Animals are often led to endless pacing, rocking and swaying, and general restlessness in their confinements. Then they …show more content…
A substantial detriment to living in the wild is the need to endure the ever-increasing occurrence of habitat loss and all of its complications. Animals whose habitats are being diminished must work harder and for longer periods of time to find smaller quantities for food. Prey can no longer live off the habitat, predators cannot be sustained with no prey, and so all species suffer. Natural occurrences, too, adversely affect animal populations. Droughts, fires, floods, and freezes all have the potential to not only kill off vast numbers on animal populations, but the effects are further intensified as they also leave the land uninhabitable for subsequent generations of animals. And so, it would be reasonable for zoos to make an effort to house some of the animals affected by events out of their control, or at least to provide for them and protect them until all of the extreme circumstances of living in the wild have been