Should It be Illegal to Use Animals for Sports and Entertainment?

Susan Jean Armstrong. The student of animal ethics. 2003. Psychology Press.

The most recent and relevant study on both theoretical and practical facets of animal ethics is collected in this book. Sections devoted to theories on animal ethics, animal capacities, the specifics of primate consciousness, the wildlife ethics, use of animals in entertainment, and the animal rights movement are among those where reviews of the literature are arranged. To ensure that the reader is conscious of all pertinent information regarding the topic of animal welfare, the pertinent facts are presented in an understandable and logical way. Cavalieri, Paola.“For an Expanded Theory of Human Rights.” The Animal Ethics Reader (2003): 30-2.

In this article, the Italian philosopher Paola Cavalieri argues that the framework of the human rights has to be expanded to include all living beings because of animals possess goals and desires. The deontological theory presented in the article is based on disapproving the hierarchical scale of values that approves of sacrificing one group of beings for others. The society has to be reorganized to stop viewing animals as tools for people’s use.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York, N.Y: New York Review of Books, 1990. Print.

The book by Australian philosopher Peter Singer is the founding statement of the animal liberation movement first published in 1975. In this book, Peter Singer expressed his belief that the rights of animals should be protected because they can experience suffering. In this book, Singer introduced the term “speciesism” to a broader audience. The advocacy of the animal rights in the book is based on the Utilitarian philosophical idea of the greater good, which, according to Singer’s belief, equally applied to animals and humans.

Essay

The animal involuntarily involvement in sports and human entertainment traces back to the mankind’s ancient history because people started using animals as soon as they learned how to interact with them. Current areas of entertainment in which animals are widely used include horseriding, circuses, zoos, aquariums, dogfighting, bullfighting, etc. Sports in which animals are used vary from those approved by the Olimpic Committee (equestrian) to highly controversial traditional sports (bullfighting). All in all, animals constantly faced challenges caused by their involvement in abovementioned activities. Given that the fact that animal has rights is accepted, the use of animals for the purpose of human entertainment should be limited and later eliminated.

The use of animals in sports and entertainment is a direct result of speciesism, a belief that simply being a human being is the reason for people to have greater rights than animals do. In 1975 fundamental research on animal rights titled “Animal Liberation,” Peter Singer describes speciesism as “a prejudice or bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species (Singer 7).” When people are faced with a difficult moral choice that involves an animal and a human, they would most probably react in a speciesist way and choose the safety of a human. Pure speciesism is the most radical form of speciesism that is convinced that the most trivial belief of a human being is more important that the vital needs of other species. The belief that animals can be used for sports and entertainment is the embodiment of the idea of pure speciesism because neither entertainment nor sports can be considered vital needs of human beings.

Keeping animals in captivity for the purpose of sports and entertainment is wrong because it treats the animal as a mean to achieve the need of a human being, while the animals should be considered the means in themselves (Cavalieri 25). Moreover, the animals used in sports and entertainment are not treated with the respect they deserve due to being living creatures. The right of animals to live in freedom is also violated when they are used for the purposes of entertainment. Animals who are used in sports and entertainment are usually deprived of their natural habitat. For many animals, including many types of primates, maintaining the social structure they have when living with other animals of their species is a factor important for their survivor and mental health (Armstrong 93). Animals held in captivity are deprived of maintaining social structure. The performances expected from animals in circuses and during the sports events are foreign to their natural behavior in the wild. Hence, it burdens the animals with an excessive stress, leading to serious problems with physical and mental health. It is a common occasion that the show in which the animal participates involves cruelty, such as bullfighting or rodeos. The cruelty may be so strong that it results in the death of the animal, such as killing the bull in the culmination of a bullfighting match. Speciesism is the reason for bullfighting to be still accepted by a large part of society though there has been a positive dynamic of acknowledging the cruelty of the action, resulting in it being banned in several regions of its native Spain.

In addition, the animal can face cruelty even if the nature of the entertainment it is involved in does not require cruel methods. Hence, animals in sports and entertainment are commonly abused by their trainers. Cruelty can also be found in the way the animal is kept or transformed from one place to another. Though there have been a worldwide activist campaign aimed at banning the use of animals in circuses, the ban on the use of all species is currently limited to Austria, Greece, and Cyprus. The way the animals are used in circuses does not correspond with their natural habits. For instance, tigers are known to have a natural fear of fire but are still used in circus numbers with fire hoops.

One of the counterarguments commonly used to disapprove of the agenda towards animal liberation in entertainment is the belief that animals have no consciousness and the arguments to the contrary are mere speculations. The scientific approach that animals do possess consciousness currently prevails over the arguments that claim otherwise. Furthermore, the studies that argue about the lack of consciousness in animals mostly involve the use of rodents for the experiments. The entertainment industry, on the other hand, is known to use high-functioning animals, such as primates, dolphins, horses, dogs and lions. The studies on cognitive and mental abilities of these animals are certain in their arguments that these animals have remarkable cognitive abilities. The animals in the entertainment industry are specifically chosen for their cognitive abilities that make it possible for them to entertain people. This fact devaluates the application of consciousness counterargument to the use of animals in the entertainment industry.

Overall, using animals in the entertainment industry and sports provides a large opportunity for abusing them and violating their rights regardless of the specific form of entertainment. The fact that animals in the entertainment industries are chosen for their cognitive abilities is a proof of the ability to suffer and possess consciousness. Using the Utilitarian argument, it can be argued that the entertainment purpose is not valid enough to put the lives of the living beings at risk.

Works Cited

Armstrong, Susan Jean. The animal ethics reader. Psychology Press, 2003.

Cavalieri, Paola. “For an Expanded Theory of Human Rights.” The Animal Ethics Reader (2003): 30-2.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York, N.Y: New York Review of Books, 1990. Print.