Are Zoos Morally Defensible Analysis

The position that human interests form the center of this universe- our desires, needs, goals, preferences, and our love for one another-as opposed to animals or even God has long been held as true. Moral philosophers however have recently challenged this anthropocentric view. Presently, there is increasing debate over how we treat the natural world and those we share it with. In Tom Regan's essay, "Are Zoos Morally Defensible" Tom explains two arguments against anthropocentrism, utilitarianism and the rights view, to answer the question of the defensibility of zoos.
Regan begins his argument with the utilitarian perspective. Utilitarianism is utilized by considering the interests of everyone affected by our actions and giving each interest equal weight. Regan applies this theory to the moral defense of zoos wherein the economy and people's interests involved in zoos as well as the animal's interests themselves are all taken into account. However, it is, quite frankly, impossible to obtain this information and equally as impossible to attribute check marks and "x's" to each
interest and determine which options are best. Therefore, among utilitarian critics, including Regan, this theory requires information that we as humans cannot obtain. It also prohibits us from forming an accurate moral assessment until everyone's interests have been accounted for and weighed equally. To put this view into perspective Regan includes the example of a sexual abuse case of a child. Obviously we consider the child's interest but according to utilitarianism we are also required to include the molester's interests. Since it is ludicrous to even suggest that we consider the molester's interest or give it any weight the theory of utilitarianism is erroneous. Regan, however, agrees with the latter view proposed: the rights view. Animals are not only a part of the world but are also aware of it- and what happens to them. They are not simply "somethings" but "somebodies." The fulfillment of their biological, psychological, and social needs brings pleasure and their frustration and abuse sources of pain. They also experience the greatest of harms and loss: death. Given these two fundamental principles that animals and humans share, Regan concludes that we are equal. This completely negates the view of anthropocentrism. Human beings have independent value and to dishonor this value- treating humans as tools, models, or commodities- is to violate the most basic of human rights: the right to be respected. Therefore, it is implied that animals have independent value and share this right and deserve the same respect we give to fellow humans. Insisting upon this belief, Regan reasons that these animals do not exist to serve us- just as women do not exist to serve men, blacks to serve whites, or the poor to serve the rich. Bottom line, there is no master sex, race, or class. In the same respect there is no master species. According to the rights activist, the questions required by utilitarianism to conclude an answer to our moral question are completely irrelevant if animals in zoos are not treated with respect.
Regan starts with the obvious problem with zoos: they compromise the freedom of animals. Regan believes that confining an animal is permissible if it is in the animal's best interest to do so. For example, if an animal is endangered confining it is justifiable as long as it is returned to the wild after the threat of predation is gone. However, this is not why zoos exist and operate today. Zoos are not being used to house animals that need to be protected but rather to serve a purpose to others. Since these animals are being treated as tools, models, and commodities their basic right to be respected is being violated. Therefore, the rights view provides a definite "no" to the moral question at
hand. Like Regan, I believe the rights view provides a better answer with better reasoning behind it. However, there are things that I do not agree with. Yes, I agree that humans and animals share in the greatest of loss and harm: death and I believe that animals should be treated with respect but I would not go so far as to say that there is no master species. From the Christianity point of view, "…rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground…I give…for food." (New International Version, Genesis 1.28)." This explicitly justifies us killing them as part of our nourishment. Based on this, humans are the master species because of our privilege to kill, but this does not grant us the right to exploit wild animals. As Lyn White, a prominent animal rights activist in Australia, put it, "[our] greatest ethical test we're ever going to face is the treatment of those who are at our mercy.” So far, we have not been kind. Animals deserve respect and freedom because, "like us, [they] are living souls. They are not things. They are not objects. Neither are they human. Yet they mourn. They love. They dance. They suffer. They know the peaks and chasms of being. (Kowalski 143)." Captivity inhibits their instinctual behaviors, not to mention their emotional and psychological state. These animals clearly express their tress and depression and it is heartbreaking to see what humans put these beings through simply for our own pleasure and enjoyment. I could argue that zoos are educational but honestly I can easily Google the same information on an African Lion that I learn from the paragraph on the plaque outside it's exhibit. Animal Planet or National Geographic provides a better insight to the habits of any given wild animal compared to a pacing lion (a proven result of stress) in a 1,200 square foot (permanent) exhibit which equals .03 acres; temporary enclosures start at 300 square feet- the equivalent to .007 acres. This is compared to the entire African Savanna that free lions roam. There, they coexist with other animals and live normal lives whereas in zoos they are isolated and often lonely. There are not meant to be nor were they created to provide an "educational" experience for humans. In my opinion, they are to be regarded with a sense of fear and awe. Many of these animals are capable of killing a man with one strike or bite while still having their rituals and mannerisms unique to their kind alone. Ultimately, the only creature on earth whose natural habitat is a zoo would be a zookeeper. Endangered animals should be on a large wildlife reserve where they still maintain a good deal of freedom but are safe from predation. However, if by some miracle zoos were to just shut down tomorrow, the existing animals in captivity would not survive if they were returned to the wild- especially those who were born in captivity. This very fact proves that captivity is not humane. These animals did nothing to deserve their fate and therefore do not deserve a life behind bars or in a cage. They deserve the respect to just live and be the wild animals they were created to be. As I hope I have made very clear, there are things far worse than death.