Argument Against the Usage Of Animals In the Entertainment Industry Four walls,

Argument Against the Usage Of Animals In the Entertainment Industry
Four walls, bright colors, and popcorn leftovers. Day and night they train for the next act; sometimes they are well fed if their luck is still shining bright like the projectors above, and some other times they bare their bones to the audience. This is a reality that over 2,800 (accredited) animals face every day in zoos and aquariums in the United States alone, with an average attendance of 181 million people yearly (Abramovitz 3). Of course, the numbers presented increase if we consider other animals used in the entertainment industry, ranging from commercials, Hollywood, and circuses. Throughout history, animals have been featured in various forms of media (such as TV shows, movies, and sometimes even theme parks). At some point, they became a business that generated millions of dollars in revenue. This has led to various ethical debates over whether it is morally right to treat other living beings as nothing else but mere tools for amusement. While one side argues that it is okay to use animals for educational value if regulations are in place, the other argues that it is inherently unethical and morally wrong to continue maintaining such practices. Nowadays, this issue continues to be a topic that sparks a certain amount of controversy, but one thing cannot be denied: animals are sentient beings that can perceive and experience the world around them, therefore, using them for entertainment purposes is ethically and morally wrong. 
First it is important to understand that, generally speaking, the animal advocate movement is recent, with its roots taking place in 1866; the person who coined it was Henry Bergh, a social activist. His vision was a world where animals and humans could live in harmony (Abramovitz 1). During his time, he was ridiculed for having such nonsensical ideals, so much so that at some point a notable newspaper mocked his advocacy (Abramovitz 1). We can contrast Bergh’s experience with that of Martin Luther King Jr. because he too went against the grain (Abramovitz 1). Furthermore, thanks to Bergh’s advocacy, ASPCA was established (Abramovitz 3). Since then, ASPCA has provided care and support for hundreds of thousands of animals that have been abused, neglected, or abandoned (Abramovitz 3). In the modern age, the animal rights movement advocates against using animals for the entertainment industry for three main reasons: 1. exploitative profitable gain, 2. animals suffer greatly, and 3. laws are rarely reinforced (Abramovitz 3). 
On one side of the spectrum, some individuals do not seem to mind animals being used for entertainment as long as it is regulated with the welfare of the animals being priority; on the other hand, some individuals disagree with it entirely and wish to get rid of said practice completely. These debates are still ongoing, and both sides of the spectrum agree on one thing: as the dominant species, we human beings must take responsibility in regards to how we treat animals when it comes to satisfying our collective need for entertainment (Cataldi 3). The main thing that separates both sides is something referred to as “integrity” (Cataldi 5). In theory, integrity is thought out to be the ability to rationalize one’s own value as well as that of others; because humans have inherent integrity, it is no wonder that the opposing side claims that an animal without awareness of self, conscious experience, and a sense of morality should not be given rights of their own (Zuolo 7).
First, the ethical and moral implications of using animals as means for entertainment are ambiguous at best. It is theorized  The historical prevalence of such practices dates back to ancient civilizations like the Mesopotamian empires, where wild animals were confined and hunted for amusement. Throughout history, various forms of entertainment have exploited animals, including zoos, aquariums, marine mammal parks, circuses, rodeos, bullfighting, and the film industry. Despite claims of educational and conservational value, these practices often lead to the deprivation of animals’ natural habitats, freedom, and social relations. For instance, marine mammal parks like SeaWorld have faced criticism for their treatment of dolphins and orcas, leading to high mortality rates and deprived living conditions. Zoos have perpetuated a racialized hierarchy by confining humans and animals alike, while the film industry has a dark history of animal abuse, leading to the implementation of certifications ensuring animal welfare in modern productions. Even in contemporary times, animals used in entertainment are subjected to cruel conditions, as evidenced by reports of neglect and abuse by animal suppliers for television shows and films. The confinement of animals in unnatural environments often results in mental distress, as described by Phillipe Diolé, leading to behaviors indicative of psychological suffering. However, there are alternative forms of entertainment that do not exploit animals, such as holographic shows and animatronics, which provide a festive experience without causing harm. Despite the arguments presented in favor of using animals for entertainment, the evidence suggests that such practices ultimately compromise animal welfare and perpetuate suffering.
Furthermore, the conditions in which most animals live are inhumane and do not cater to their individual needs. Furthermore, the conditions in which most animals live are inhumane and do not cater to their individual needs. Research findings highlight the detrimental effects of zoo captivity on amphibians, reptiles, and large mammals like elephants. For instance, a study observed that amphibians and reptiles in zoos experienced more negative outcomes than expected, with some animals perceiving visitors as threats and exhibiting stress-related behaviors. Similarly, elephants suffer in captivity, with shorter lifespans, lower reproductive success, and higher rates of health issues such as arthritis and zoochosis, indicating debilitating mental trauma. Despite claims of spacious enclosures, the reality remains that even expansive zoo habitats are cages to animals accustomed to roaming vast distances in the wild. National Geographic describes the vastness of the San Diego Zoo, yet for wild animals, it’s merely captivity. Moreover, zoos exploit animals for human entertainment, showcasing them like commodities for public amusement, disregarding their natural behaviors and instincts. Physically, captivity leads to deterioration of joints, muscles, and overall health, while psychologically, animals exhibit trauma-induced behaviors such as pacing, self-harm, and attacks. This exploitation and confinement are inherently inhumane, akin to imprisoning a human without cause. Despite differing beliefs on animal sentience, the innate instincts of animals drive them to be wild, making captivity an affront to their natural existence. To uphold ethical principles and respect the innate freedom of animals, it is imperative to reject supporting industries that thrive on animal exploitation, including zoos, circuses, and aquariums. Animals, like humans, are born to exist in harmony with each other and fulfill their natural purposes—to be free.
Another reason why using animals for entertainment purposes is wrong is because doing so removes the animal’s freedom and ability to follow their instincts. Research done by primate expert Alexandra Martinez suggests that behavioral dysregulations occur among primates who are used for entertainment purposes (Martinez 8). In her thorough study, she observed that chimpanzees showed an increased level of anxiety and a higher risk of contracting health related problems (Martinez 10). Moreover, she offers a solution in order to halt the usage of live animals, and that is CGI. However, she acknowledges that the public is more likely to be interested in pressing play for movies that utilize real animals (Martinez 11). Evidence from McPherson (4) and Cataldi (9) suggests that animals have been exploited for entertainment purposes for centuries, entrenched in cultural traditions. For instance, in Indian culture, elephants are commonly used for transportation and tourism without much public objection (Cataldi 9). However, this longstanding tradition does not absolve the moral ambiguity inherent in exploiting sentient beings for human amusement. Elephants, renowned for their intelligence and sensitivity, endure significant stress and suffering in captivity (Cataldi 9). Despite historical precedents, the ethical imperative to prioritize the well-being of these innocent creatures cannot be overlooked. Furthermore, the proliferation of zoos and aquariums, as highlighted by the summary of research findings, underscores the pervasive nature of animal captivity for entertainment. While these facilities claim to serve educational and conservational purposes, they often fail to provide adequate living conditions that allow animals to exhibit their natural behaviors (Summary of Source). Sanctuaries, on the other hand, offer a more humane alternative, focusing on rescue, rehabilitation, and the replication of natural habitats (Summary of Source). In captivity, animals are deprived of their freedom and the ability to fulfill their instincts, leading to severe psychological and physiological problems (Summary of Source). This confinement can result in heightened aggression, self-harm, or even endangerment to visitors (Summary of Source). The exploitation of animals for entertainment, as cautioned by World Animal Protection, often leads to cruelty and suffering (Summary of Source). In light of these realities, the ethical and moral imperative to end the use of animals for entertainment purposes becomes clear. While tradition and cultural practices may have normalized such exploitation, the undeniable suffering experienced by sentient beings underscores the urgency of adopting more compassionate alternatives.
Adding onto this, is animal suffering not enough of an explanation of why it is inherently wrong? It is a well-known fact that animals have been used for entertainment purposes for millennia (McPherson 4). It has been a tradition for various cultures; for example, in Indian culture using elephants as a means for transportation is a customary practice that the average citizen does not bat an eye for (Cataldi 9). Elephants are also used for entertainment purposes like tourism (McPherson 5). Of course, just because it is a common practice that does not justify the ambiguous morality that it carries. Elephants are sentient beings (that are also extremely intelligent) and it has been proven that they undergo a tremendous amount of stress due to these practices (Cataldi 9). Does tradition outweigh doing right by these innocent creatures? Adding onto this, is animal suffering not enough of an explanation of why it is inherently wrong? “Animal welfare” is sometimes misused as a synonym for “animal rights,” but in practice, the two worldviews can sometimes be at cross purposes. From an animal rights perspective, nearly every human use of animals is morally suspect, but animal-welfare thinkers take it as a given that animals of all kinds do exist in human care, for better or worse, and focus on how to treat them as well as possible. Bergh, a pioneer in animal welfare, made a case that the infliction of prolonged pain and distress upon sea turtles bound for the soup pot was illegal as well as immoral. As with other “mute servants of mankind” providing labor, locomotion, meat, or milk to human beings, the turtle was entitled to be treated with compassion. But when Bergh hauled the ship’s captain in front of a judge, the defense argued (successfully!) that turtles were not even “animals,” but rather a form of fish, and thereby did not qualify under the new animal-cruelty law that Bergh succeeded in passing earlier that year. The turtles would have assumed a tranquil, passive demeanor under such conditions, perhaps making it possible for the ship’s crew to believe that the creatures weren’t suffering. But there is every reason to believe they were. Evolution has equipped the marine turtle for a life afloat, with a large lung capacity filling the space beneath the shell, to enable long dives. When the turtles were on their backs, the weight of their organs would have put pressure on these lungs, forcing their breathing to become deliberate and deep. Recognition of pain, in particular, is considered a primordial sense, essential to the survival of animals on every limb of the evolutionary tree. One way to think about her reasoning is through the lens of “the five freedoms,” a rubric that animal-welfare thinkers have long embraced to consider all the different obligations that humans have to the animals in their care. They are: the freedom from hunger and thirst; the freedom from discomfort; the freedom from pain, injury, or disease; the freedom to express normal behavior; and the freedom from fear and distress. The facility may have seemed to be offering their tortoises a consensual choice, but it was more accurate to see it as heavy-handed operant conditioning, which lured them into submitting to human contact with the promise of a biscuit. In scenarios involving domestic animals, a documented comfort around humans is a sign of positive treatment, but when it comes to wild animals, the goal is the opposite: to acclimate them as little to human contact as possible. Another way of putting it is this: Biscuits might make a desert tortoise “happy,” insofar as we can even imagine what that means, but happiness isn’t ultimately what humane treatment is about.
 Those who disagree with the notion of using animals for entertainment purposes argue that it has been tradition for millennia (and/or has cultural significance). For instance, proponents argue that the circus, a centuries-old art form originating in Britain, has historical importance and should be preserved in its traditional form. Philip Astley, the founder of the modern circus, began this entertainment spectacle in London over 250 years ago, establishing a tradition that has endured through the ages. While contemporary circuses like Cirque du Soleil have demonstrated that animal-free performances can thrive, proponents argue that there is still value in preserving the traditional circus model, which includes a blend of human and animal acts. They contend that well-run and regulated shows can maintain the essence of entertainment in its purest form, honoring the historical legacy of the circus.it is essential to critically examine the historical context of animal captivity and entertainment. While traditions may have normalized the use of animals for entertainment, historical accounts reveal a darker reality of abuse and neglect. Ancient Egyptian menageries, for instance, were not only displays of power but also sites of exploitation, where animals suffered due to a lack of veterinary knowledge. Similarly, the popularity of animal sports in the Middle Ages did not necessarily ensure the well-being of captive animals. Instead, it often led to instances of cruelty and mistreatment, underscoring the ethical dilemmas inherent in animal entertainment. Therefore, while cultural traditions may provide historical justification for the use of animals in entertainment, they do not absolve us of the responsibility to critically evaluate and challenge these practices in light of evolving ethical standards and scientific understanding
Another explanation is that animals receive good treatment and their wellbeing is top priority. In contrast to the assertion that using animals for entertainment is ethically and morally wrong, proponents of animal-based entertainment argue that animals receive good treatment and their wellbeing is a top priority. This perspective aligns with the ethos of ethical animal tourism, as emphasized in the source “Ethical animal tourism demands our attention and consideration.” The source underscores the importance of prioritizing the well-being of animals, preserving habitats, and promoting responsible tourism. By choosing reputable establishments and supporting conservation efforts, proponents believe it is possible to create a harmonious balance between our desire to connect with wildlife and our commitment to their welfare and conservation. They argue that by promoting education and respecting animal welfare, ethical animal tourism can thrive, benefiting both animals and humans alike.
Furthermore, it is argued that granting human-like rights to all sentient beings would create possible conflicts. Granting human-like rights to all sentient beings would create possible conflicts, as argued by proponents of a nuanced approach to animal rights. A source by an animal lawyer with over 30 years of experience underscores the complexity of extending human-like rights to animals. The source emphasizes the challenges in defining and applying concepts like dignity to all sentient beings. It highlights the variability across animal forms of life and questions whether a coherent account of animal dignity is feasible. The source suggests that attempts to ground the moral considerability of animals and their rights should rely on alternative normative resources rather than the idea of dignity alone. Furthermore, the source reflects on the diversity within the field of animal law, which encompasses various subspecialties, each with its focus on different aspects of animal welfare. Despite the ongoing efforts to use the law as a tool to benefit animals, the source implies that a blanket extension of human-like rights to all sentient beings may not be practically feasible or ethically sound.
Last but not least, one of the main and strongest arguments in favor of using animals for entertainment purposes is the fact that it offers conservational and educational values to the public (McPherson 6). This is true because some non-profit zoos do offer exceptional value towards conservational goals (McPherson 9). Furthermore, this argument also backs itself up with the claims that animals are well-treated and, in instances where they must perform (be it for advertisements, circus, big screen, etc.) they enjoy doing as instructed (Oliver 1).  That said, most of these claims and studies are often affiliated/sponsored by organizations that would suffer great financial losses if more strict regulations were to be put into effect (Abramovitz 3). The reality is that most zoo companies are for profit and offer little conservation value (Abramovitz 3). Adding to that, most zoos do not meet the requirements to keep their animals in healthy physiological (and psychological) conditions (Cataldi 7). “The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to sustain it.” 
In conclusion, the moral and ethical concerns regarding the use of animals in the entertainment industry raise major concerns because of its negative impact on overall animal welfare. It is an inherently problematic practice, and no amount of traditions can justify the harm that hundreds of thousands of animals have gone through. With all of this in mind, it is vital to understand that it is our responsibility as the dominant species to take care of the integrity of the beings we share this planet with. “Justice too long delayed is justice denied.” 
 
 
Works Cited  
Abramovitz, Melissa. “Thinking Critically: Animal Rights.”, 2018. ProQuest; SIRS Issues Researcher, https://fresno.idm.oclc.org/login?qurl=https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2260273481?accountid=37936. 
Bennett, Elizabeth. “Animal Rights.” Global Social Issues: An Encyclopedia, edited by Christopher G. Bates and James Ciment, 1st ed., Routledge, 2013. Credo Reference, https://search.credoreference.com/articles/Qm9va0FydGljbGU6MzE1MzQ5Mw==?aid=237003.
Brandt, Christian. “Ethical Animal Tourism: A Guide to Responsible Wildlife Encounters.” Giving Getaway, 13 Nov. 2023, givinggetaway.com/ethical-animal-tourism/. 
Cataldi, Suzanne Laba. “Animals and the Concept of Dignity.” Ethics & the Environment, vol. 7, no. 2, Sept. 2002, p. 104. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.fresno.idm.oclc.org/10.2979/ETE.2002.7.2.104. 
Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, blogs.law.columbia.edu/uprising1313/files/2017/10/Civil-Disobedience-by-Henry-David-Thoreau.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2024. 
Greenwell, Phillip J., et al. “The societal value of the Modern Zoo: A commentary on how zoos can positively impact on human populations locally and globally.” Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens, vol. 4, no. 1, 13 Jan. 2023, pp. 53–69, https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg4010006. 
Honsberger, Laetitia, and Katharina Woermann. “The Challenge of Using Wildlife for Human Entertainment.” The Considerate Consumer, June 2020, www.considerate-consumer.com/animal-considerate-entertainment. 
Kim, Hemi. “Animal Entertainment: Why Is Using Animals for Entertainment Wrong?” Sentient, 25 Oct. 2022, sentientmedia.org/animals-in-entertainment/. 
Khan, Mariam & Balieva, Gergana. “KEEPING WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY -TRADITIONAL ENTERTAINMENT OR MODERN CONSERVATION APPROACH?” TRADITION AND MODERNITY IN VETERINARY MEDICINE, 2021, vol. 6, No 2(11): 109–116 6. 109-116. 
Martinez, Alexandra, et al. “The Use of Live Action, Animation, and Computer-Generated Imagery in the Depiction of Non-Human Primates in Film.” Animals (2076-2615), vol. 12, no. 12, June 2022, p. 1576. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.fresno.idm.oclc.org/10.3390/ani12121576. 
McPherson, Douglas. “Circus Animals – 10 Reasons The Show Must Go On.” HuffPost UK, HuffPost UK, 2 May 2015, www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/douglas-mcpherson/circus-animals-10-reasons_b_6768110.html. 
Nande, Seema. “From Spectacle to Compassion: Rethinking Animal Ethics in Entertainment.” Jeevoka, 19 May 2023, jeevoka.com/from-spectacle-to-compassion-rethinking-animal-ethics-in-entertainment/s. 
NA. “Animals in Zoos Bored and Miserable, Study Finds.” Freedom for Animals, 4 Aug. 2023, www.freedomforanimals.org.uk/news/animals-in-zoos-bored-and-miserable-study-finds. 
NA. Letter from Birmingham Jail, www.csuchico.edu/iege/_assets/documents/susi-letter-from-birmingham-jail.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2024. 
NA. “Benefits of Animal Training.” United Parks & Resorts, seaworld.org/animals/all-about/training/benefits-of-animal-training/. Accessed 15 May 2024. 
Oliver, Daniel. “Animal Rights Cause Faces Extinction.” Human Events, vol. 51, no. 16, 28 Apr. 1995, p. 15. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9505092369&scope=site. 
Schatz, Amy,, et al. An Apology to Elephants
Wagman, Bruce. “Representing ‘Rocky Raccoon’: Animal Law by the Beatles.” Litigation, vol. 50, no. 2, Winter 2024, pp. 16–19. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=175633111&scope=site. 
Wasik, Bill, and Monica Murphy. “How Do We Know What Animals Are Really Feeling?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Apr. 2024, www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/magazine/animals-welfare-science.html?searchResultPosition=1. 
Zuolo, Federico. “Dignity and Animals. Does It Make Sense to Apply the Concept of Dignity to All Sentient Beings?” Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, vol. 19, no. 5, Nov. 2016, pp. 1117–30. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.fresno.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10677-016-9695-8.  
Essay 3: Research Paper
6-8 pages, 200 points
For this essay, choose an issue related to social justice that you care about and write an argument
for a particular position. Note, it would be best to choose something current, and it must be an
issue about which reasonable people can disagree.
Grading Criteria/requirements
• Is the essay at least 6 full pages with the proper margins, spacing, and font? (MLA
format)
• Does the writer have a strong thesis which clearly expresses the position?
• Has the writer sufficiently explained the issue being discussed?
• Has the writer incorporated at least 1 quote from “Civil Disobedience” and at least 1
quote from “Letter from Birmingham Jail”?
• Has the writer incorporated at least 4 sources from the library databases, and are those
sources integrated and cited correctly according to MLA format? This includes a Works
Cited page. Note: you can use additional sources such as documentary films or credible
websites.
• Has the writer used an appropriate tone and avoided logical fallacies?
• Has the writer supported his/her argument with strong evidence and reasoning?
• Has the writer addressed opposing views?
• Is the paper organized with an engaging introduction, unified and logically ordered body
paragraphs, transitional elements, and a satisfying conclusion?
• Is the writing clear? Has the writer avoided awkward sentences and unnecessary words?
• Is the essay relatively free from errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation? (Note: I
will mark papers down considerably for these kinds of errors.)