The practice of holding animals in captivity (particularly in zoo contexts) is barbaric, and should be prohibited as a practice. The proposed research paper will utilize an ethical argument to advocate against the keeping of animals in captivity. The primary goal of the research paper will be to argue for this belief, not as a call to take specific action against it.
This argument falls into the category of an ethical argument as it is mostly based around the importance of the welfare of defenseless creatures against a far superior and controlling force (i.e. humanity). Therefore, the main conceptual core of the argument is that animals should not be placed in zoos because it violates certain ethical principles which will be elucidated further in the paper itself. I am highly motivated to discuss this issue because of my sincere care and desire for the safety and protection of animals, and my own personal distaste for the way animals are commonly treated in zoos.
Zoos are an important and highly valued cultural institution of the civilized world, and so this argument is especially high-priority as it would change a fundamental aspect of our civilization, particularly regarding the welfare of animals. This argument will be important for anyone whose life is affected by a zoo, whether they be people who attend zoos on even an intermittent basis, as well as animal-rights advocates. The argument against keeping animals in zoos will contribute greatly to the larger conversation of how we interact with the animal world and nature as a whole.
My argument will be supported by several points. First, I will argue that wild animals are intended to be out in the wild. A Time article from Michael Lemonick will be used to support this argument by noting examples of animals who suffered and died inherently from the experience of being held in captivity. Secondly, I will argue that conditions in zoos are awful, thus making it ethically wrong to subject animals to such conditions. Sources from the Humane Society (primary source) and the book Zoo Animals: Behaviour, Management, and Welfare will be used to support this argument by noting the objectively inadequate conditions in zoos, which often lead to the examples cited in the first point. Thirdly, I will argue that the conservation efforts of zoos are ineffective, based on a National Geographic source (publication) that notes that few zoos are able to successfully integrate animals back into the wild, hampering their ability to survive and thrive as a species.
Anticipated counterarguments to my thesis will likely include the educational value zoos provide in teaching people about these animals, as well as the controlled situations that often keep endangered animals safe when placed in captivity and the possibility of simply giving animals better living conditions. However, it is hoped that, with the support my points will have, these counterarguments will be successfully dispelled. My conclusion will state that, despite the educational value of zoos, there is no ethical reason to keep animals in captivity unless under the strictest context of preserving them from endangerment or extinction. Zoos merely serve to keep animals in captivity under terrible conditions, which can often lead to sickness, death, and even the extinction of the species at hand, while offering not nearly enough educational value to justify the substantial risks taken.
Works Cited
Fravel, Laura. “Critics Question Zoos’ Commitment to Conservation.” National Geographic,
Hosey, Geoff, Melfi, Vicky, and Sheila Pankhurst. Zoo Animals: Behaviour, Management, and
Welfare. Oxford University Press, 2013.
Human Society of the United States. “Health Dangers at Petting Zoos and Fairs.” Human
Society.org. December 17, 2009.
Lemonick, Michael D. “Who Belongs in the Zoo?” Time. June 11, 2006.
