Are Zoos Morally Defensible Analysis

The position that human interests form the center of this universe- our desires, needs, goals, preferences, and our love for one another-as opposed to animals or even God has long been held as true. Moral philosophers however have recently challenged this anthropocentric view. Presently, there is increasing debate over how we treat the natural world and those we share it with. In Tom Regan's essay, "Are Zoos Morally Defensible" Tom explains two arguments against anthropocentrism, utilitarianism and the rights view, to answer the question of the defensibility of zoos.
Regan begins his argument with the utilitarian perspective. Utilitarianism is utilized by considering the interests of everyone affected by our actions and giving each interest equal weight. Regan applies this theory to the moral defense of zoos wherein the economy and people's interests involved in zoos as well as the animal's interests themselves are all taken into account. However, it is, quite frankly, impossible to obtain this information and equally as impossible to attribute check marks and "x's" to each
Regan starts with the obvious problem with zoos: they compromise the freedom of animals. Regan believes that confining an animal is permissible if it is in the animal's best interest to do so. For example, if an animal is endangered confining it is justifiable as long as it is returned to the wild after the threat of predation is gone. However, this is not why zoos exist and operate today. Zoos are not being used to house animals that need to be protected but rather to serve a purpose to others. Since these animals are being treated as tools, models, and commodities their basic right to be respected is being violated. Therefore, the rights view provides a definite "no" to the moral question at