The Morality of Zoos

The word zoo is a fairly broad term. Zoos atomic number 18 most commonly thought of as an attr affection rather than a fuddleds for education. More importantly, they argon rarely associated with the survival of the clement race. While zoos are a form of entertainment for the public and a taxable industry for the government most of them do in fact research the animals they gull in their captivity. This research can be beneficial and life saving for piece and if it were non for this testing, we would not exhaust many key vaccines that we have today. For the sake of this paper the term zoo can be apply to all animals in captivity.This includes those for entertainment, medical testing, and rehabilitation/protection. Tom Reagan wrote on if zoos are lessonly defensible, but include all of the previously listed forms of captivity under the title of zoo. He argues that zoos are immoral because of rights ground principles however, he fails to see the implications of assuming that a nimals have equal rights to humans. Although his conclusion is false, it is morally wrong and unnecessary to financial backing an animal in captivity purely for public amusement and financial gain. Reagan presents two views in proving the wickedness of zoos.First is the utilitarian standpoint which claims that the suffering of animals being in captivity far outweighs the suffering of humans had the animals not been in captivity. The second view is the rights based principle, which is that animals have rights and should not be in captivity. He sides with the last mentioned of the two theories, deciding that the utilitarian view fails to asses all of the components of human suffering without zoos. He claims that animals morally have rights to freedom and respect thus making it immoral for humans to take this away from them.The real incumbrance in his supposition though, is how he proposes the moral rights of animals. He claims that they have rights because of their awareness to th eir existence and therefore cognition of suffering and pleasure. However, although animals are aware, they are not conscious of cause and effect. They dont see the righteousness behind suffering, they just instinctually avoid it. To ascertain that they have the same rationalization powers as humans do on deciding if their actions are ca using pleasure or pain, is to give their awareness too overmuch credit.A good paper to prove this point, is Carl Cohens Do Animals Have Rights? In it he responds to Regans theory that animals have rights. Cohen decides that Regans biggest error is associating two different versions of the broadly used term inherent protect to formulate his conclusion. Regan claims that because animals have inherent value they are moral agents and should not be used in a fashion that makes them less important than humans. However, Cohen says that just because they have inherent value it does not mean they are moral beings.Surely because they feel pain it is immoral to cause them to suffer needlessly but this does not give them the same rights as humans. Animals live in an amoral world without respect or knowledge of separate living things rights. Since they are unaware of morals and rights, it seems absurd to hold them to the same moral standard as humans. It would appear past that when deciding on the moral legitimacy of zoos, it would be do to separate human rights from the natural laws that animals live by. The natural world is based on survival.Animals kill some other animals to survive and out of instinct. House cats torture their prey before killing it, and bears eat their prey alive. Animals act without the knowledge of other living beings having a right to life because it is not a matter of rationalization for them. They do not see the suffering of other animals as a moral issue because they are incapable of grasping such a concept. Because we as humans do have the ability to apologise we also have the responsibility to avoid cau sing harm and suffering to other living things.However, humans need to survive too, and if it means keeping animals for medical testing then this should not be looked at any differently than a wolf attacking a human so as to not starve. Animals already use other animals as tools for survival and if this is the case as it is in medical testing, then captivity should be allowed. Same goes for animal rehabilitation and protection from extinction. Although wildlife preserves are more elevated for most animals in this case, even a small enclosure zoo could be in that particular(a) animals best interest concerning its health.Small enclosures and preserves can also give humans carve up on insight into the daily routines of animals so as to better protect them from extinction. What is inhumane and immoral however, is using zoos for monetary gain and personal entertainment. Through evolution some animals have become accustomed to human interaction and unnatural surroundings. Those that ar e not, however, should not be put in captivity for no reason. Thats why we have house pets.