The Ethics of Animal Captivity

In the United States, there are more tigers in captivity than in the wild worldwide (“Captive Animals.,” n.d.). How can removing or robbing an animal from its natural habitat be justified in any way? Zoos across America rationalize this action and their simple existence in a variety of ways, none of which are rooted in absolute legitimacy. Animal captivity, specifically in zoos, raises a controversial debate centered around animal ethics and rights. The examination of zoos and their practices begins with an investigation of animal rights and equality at the fundamental level. Zoos claim to have their purpose rooted in ideologies such as education, conservation, scientific research, and entertainment. While some of these may appear to be of immense benefit, the whole story has not been told. Moreover, zoos exist mainly for the human benefit rather than that of the animal, and these powerless creatures are the ones who end up suffering. The bottom line? Zoos are unethical and animals should not be removed from their natural habitats and placed in captivity. Captivity is a form of cruelty, and it needs to come to an end