[Class Title]
Introduction
It is common to see people using animals for sports and entertainment. Examples of sporting events that use animals are horse racing, cockfighting and many others, while zoos and circuses are among those who keep animals for entertainment. While most people enjoy these events and public display of animals, there are those who believe that such activities are unethical and morally wrong. There are, at least, four major reasons why people should not use animals for sport and entertainment. These are violation against nature; violation against the sensitivities of other people; cruelty against animals; and violation of animal rights.
Violation Against Nature
Keeping animals in containment for reasons other than the preservation of an endangered specie, is a violation of its natural niche. Animals that are being used in sports or entertainment are being deprived of their natural habitat (BBC). This practice does not only harm the animal that is being kept, but also the ecology of the environment where they are suppose to reside. There is a consensus among environmental experts that the loss of biodiversity negatively impacts the environment (Cardinale et al. 61). Some animals that are being kept at zoo, such as lions, tigers, eagles and many others, for example, are apex predators and plays a crucial role in the food chain. Their capture for entertainment purposes endangers the environment because there is no one to check the proliferation of other species. The full impact of these practices to the environment is difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, its effects are already felt as evidenced by the gradual extinction of some species while other species becomes more invasive (Cardinale et al. 61).
Violation Against the Sensitivities of Other People
Mutual respect towards the sensitivities of other people is also one of the major reasons why people should stop using animals for entertainment or sports. This view is based on the ethical principles of contractarianism. Contractarianism is the concept that individuals are motivated to act morally “first because we are vulnerable to the depredations of others, and second because we can all benefit from cooperation with others” (Cudd). This concept can be thought of as a motivation that drives people to act morally because they do not want to hurt other people’s feelings. Proponents of contractarianism wanted to maximize their self-interest. For the same reason, they avoid engaging in activities that conflicts with other people’s sensitivities, such as using animals for sports and entertainment, because doing so is counterproductive to the maximization of their self-interest.
Animal Cruelty
One of the most compelling reason why people should stop using animals for sports or entertainment is because doing so subjects the animals into unnecessary cruelty. Among the major proponents of this view are animal rights activists, who believe that animals should also be respected and afforded with rights. In his article, ‘The Case for Animal Rights,’ animal rights activist and philosopher, Tom Regan argued that all activities that involves the exploitation of animals is unacceptable and immoral. According to Regan, the root cause of animal exploitation is the belief that animals are expendable human resources (Regan 337). With this perspective in mind, it becomes easy for people to ignore the pain, loneliness and death of animals. The belief that animals are resources is also the same reason why people does not feel any pity or remorse in keeping animals in captivity; making them fight to death for entertainment or making them perform silly tasks in fear of being punished. However, placing one’s self on the shoes of these animals would certainly change people’s perspective. As argued by Regan, it is not because animals are inferior compared to humans, which gives humans the right to do anything they want to do with them. For Regan, “Cruelty in all its guises is a bad thing, a tragic human failing” (Regan 340).
Violation of Animal Rights
Just because animals could not understand contracts and is not a recognized citizen of a particular country, it does not mean that they could not gain rights. As argued by Regan, accepting this line of reasoning would also mean that human children, who does not have the capacity to understand and sign contracts, are not entitled to rights as well (Regan 339). But such is not the case. Consistent with the philosopher, John Rawls’ principles of justice, rights are being afforded equally to all human beings regardless of their racial, physical or intellectual status since it is the only way to administer rights in a just manner (Rawls 10). A similar concept applies to animals. It is not because they differ in physical trait or intellectual capacity as compared to humans, which makes them unable to attain rights. On the contrary, justice demands that animals, because of their disadvantaged disposition, should be protected. Justice demands that animals are also entitled to rights and these rights should also be respected.
Conclusion
Under no circumstances should animals be used for sports or entertainment purposes primarily because it goes against nature; it violates the sensitivities of other people; it is cruel; and it violates their rights. Like humans, animals needs to live in their natural environment. They, too, have a life. They also feel pain and emotions. Animals, therefore, should be respected and protected from exploitation and abuse.
Works Cited
BBC. “Ethics Guide. Animals for Entertainment.” 2014. Web. 21 Jan. 2017.
Cardinale, Bradley J. et al. “Biodiversity Loss and Its Impact on Humanity.” 2012. Web. 21 Jan. 2017.
Cudd, Ann. “Contractarianism.” 2012. Web. 21 Jan. 2017.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1999. Print.
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights*.” The Moral Status of Animals. N.p., 1985. Web. 21 Jan. 2017.
