Zoos are locations that are set aside for the purposes of offering opportunities of people viewing animals. In this context, Zoos is oriented in such a way that, animals that are of interest to the public are reared so as to quench the desires of the same public. According to Regan’s theory on the rights of Animals, the right that is directed towards animals is oriented along cartoons of rationality. In essence, his works justify the existence of Zoos. He also dictates that, animals such as gazelles that are placed in the zoos do not have rights that can be equated to rights that are advocated for people. However, I am of the view that a more detailed look into these instances leads to a revelation of the position occupied by the Zoos along unjustified lines. In this regard, a study of the relevance of zoos upon the appreciation of parameters that dictate morality is at the interests of my study (Regan). I essence, morality, dictates that equality because, moral principles identify all animals as equal. In essence, this phenomenon lays an instance that is relevant in identifying the relevance of Regan’s theory in the study of Zoos.
Regan dictates that animals such as Lions and Apes do not have the relevant aspects that qualify the ability of them being referred to as equals to other beings. In this context, the other beings phenomenon strictly pinpoints to human beings. However, I am of the position that the zoos are not justified because, animals apart from human beings, do not exist to serve human demands as Reagan denotes. As a matter of fact, Reagan failed to identify that animals are autonomous in position. Instances of animals depending on humanity does not feature anywhere in as far as their existence is concerned. In the same way, human beings have their lives to live; other animals should not be taken for granting. Labeling of other animals as objects is manifested in the events that follow what Zoos entail.
Zoos violate rights of animals to mix freely and participate in matters that center their lives. Instead of obeying the other animal’s rights, individuals who trade in the parameters that are along the zoo environment fail to regard the fact that the animals exercise normal instances as established below; animals feed and breathe. There is no any cogent reason to bring on board to justify that they are inferior to human beings. When an animal is taken to the Zoo so as to entertain other human beings, it is true to say that such directives reduce chances of the animals having a position that is morally acceptable. Regan failed to acknowledge all factors that support the operations that center stage operations of animals.
Zoos are not established along morality aspects. They are an anathema to efforts that are directed towards bringing equality in the society. In this context, the instances of equality are overlooked by the Zoos. In essence, Regan’s fallacious theory is the foundation that holds the positions that have been held by people who center stage the events that follow the establishment and development of Zoos. In other words, there is a big difference between animals in the Zoos and those that are left to freely live their lives.
In conclusion, Reagan’s postulations are not substantial in what they stand for. At the same time, the establishment of Zoos is not morally acceptable.
Works Cited
Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2013.
