Response to Mary

In Mary's blog post she prompted the question of animal use based on necessity versus animal exploitation. I decided to respond to this question of when human behavior crosses that boundary because I find it a very difficult question to give a clear cut answer.

I am not sure that I agree with the editors of the book in saying that zoos fall under the category of animal exploitation. I have little knowledge of how animals are treated in zoos but I have never personally witnessed animals being mistreated and the employees of the zoo appear to have a great respect for the animals. I would rather not see animals in cadges, but as long as those animals are being treated with the respect and care that they deserve as sentient beings then I do not think we can consider them as being "exploited." I suppose this is where Mary's question truly comes into the picture. Animals are in zoos for human necessity of some kind. We study those animals through science and in turn have a better understanding not only of those animals but of how our actions affect them and their habitats. Keeping animals in zoos is often the way that humans protect endangered species (even if they are endangered as a result of our actions). The point that I am trying to reach here is that humans and non-human animals occupy this planet together and I find it better to understand one another through study than to perpetuate human arrogance simply to avoid putting some non-human animals in cadges. As much as I cringe to say it, the term "necessary evil" comes to mind.

My personal values prompt me to say that any treatment of an animal that causes that being a distress or pain is exploitation. My reason for choosing vegetarianism for myself is based on that principle. I find it an element of human arrogance to use animals as if they are lesser beings than ourselves simply because we have the power to do so. Of course, as we addressed in class, animal exploitation by humans cannot be defined simply by saying because we can, we do. Here I will look to the example of Bull Riding. Being from the South, I know several people who ride bulls and treat the animals very fairly and even love them as one might love a pet. The animals are caused no physical pain whatsoever. However, the entire sport hinges on the bull's emotional distress and anger. I find it repulsing that witnessing an animal's panic and rage is a sport, a family event even. If it were a person in the ring, we would be appalled that people enjoyed watching such a thing. This is where I think the humans cross the line from necessity to exploitation. There is no scientific knowledge being gained from this practice. It is done at the expense of the animal simply for human pleasure.

My question for this blog is when does gaining scientific knowledge regarding non-human animals cross the line from necessary to unethical? In other words, how far should humans go for information about animals?