There is ample proof that animal rights are not upheld. There are a number of drawbacks to using animals in entertainment and athletics. These effects have sparked conversations and debates about animal rights, particularly the use of animals in entertainment and sports. The phrase "animal use" refers to a number of activities and forms of entertainment. (Hughes 321). Elephants, tigers, dolphins, and many other exotic creatures are used for entertainment. These animals are mistreated in order for them to function and act as expected. (Regan 7). Mistreating an animal for one's own gain or profit is unethical. Additionally, many people would accept that watching animal act for entertainment is fun. This paper seeks to examine whether to use an animal in sports and entertainment is justifiable and ethical. The paper further investigates whether it is ethical to use animals in sports and entertainment. Animals have rights, and humans should be ethical enough to stop using animals for sports and entertainment for various reason.
The first negative impact of animal use in sports and entertainment is that animals are part of the distinctive species which human being should not take them out of their habitat so that they can entertain people (Waters 107). These animals should be removed out of their habitat only when human beings have good intentions of treating them or giving them medical assistance if they are hurt or sick. The implication is that animals should not be used in sports and entertainment because it is hard to know when they are affected mentally and emotionally. Besides, animals in sports and entertainment have no opportunity to defend themselves. For instance, when certain animals fail to perform as they are expected of, some of the trainers harm or physically overwork them, so that they can play accordingly. These animals, who do not act quickly, can also get physically abused from their trainers. Moreover, these coaches can take their anger out on such animals.
However, the pro animals in entertainment argue that using the animal in a show is morally reasonable if the animals do not suffer and experience proper treatment. They claim that the reason why animals exist is to benefit human beings. Waters supports claims that people feel euphoric after watching animals fight (107). Similarly, opponents of animals in all types of entertainment and sports argue that should be banned. They assert that animals like human beings have stress, fear .pain as well as exhaustion. It implies that the animal usage for the amusement of people, whether hunting them to make them perform to us or rather for sports and entertainment, it is demeaning for both the animals and individuals (Hughes 321). We should be responsible enough to use our authority over them to abuse such animals for our right (Breslin 297). Therefore, using animals in sports and entertainment can be termed as the highest level of misuse of our great responsibilities of protecting those animals. We brutalize our nature and animals.
Also, those who support the use of animals in sports and entertainment argue that every culture throughout the historical time have used the animals for sports and entertainment (Kopnina, & Cherniak 368). This dates back from the Roman periods when the chariots races and games were used to the modern day circuses, hunting as well as racing. We have the responsibilities to use these animals. Further, they argue that the only thing that should be banned is if we show cruelty to animals (Waters 107). However, if there is no element of cruelty that is shown towards the animals then using them is sports should not be taken negatively. Finally, these proponents assert that if animals are used to entertain human beings in a manner that not mistreatment or cruelty is done to them, then we should embrace the culture.
The second negative impact is that dogs and horses have always been exploited to the advantage of human beings. These animals have been used so that human can have the desire for gambling (Jones 469). It means that the safety and the welfare of the animal come second after people are being entertained. It is tough to convince that these animals enjoy these races. Unfortunately, if these animals fail to win these races or earn a competition on, in general, they may be subjected to torture, mistreatment and even slaughtered. They may also be neglected entirely. Moreover, horses may also be compelled to participate in risky sports that involve contacts of polo whereby collision, as well as a hard quick movement, puts the animal under risk to its life. It is opposed to their riders how can decide to participate in such games.
Other views of the proponents of the animal use in sports and entertainment assert that there is the need to strike a balance between animal welfare as well as human pleasure and entertainment. They argue that the views on animal use are too way unbalanced (Jones 467). If the animals are not satisfied, then they would not perform well. They say that the pleasure these animals shows before and after completion will tell everyone about the welfare of these animals.
The third negative impact is that circus is one area where human beings have the opportunity to abuse animals. In this field, animals are trained to act some tricks while using whips, sticks or even electric rods (Kopnina, & Cherniak 367). Also, animals such as tigers and lions are caged under a small place they are not used to. The truth is that circus does not have the capacity to provide the adequate natural home for these wild animals. Further, these animals are made to travel the longer distance in such squalid environment to an extent they end up being physically as well as mentally sickened. Equally, those who supports circus argue that it is from this circus that the children began to love animals (Beirne, & South 55). They argue that animals can enjoy performing and forms the close relationship with the audience and their trainers.
The fourth negative impact is that it is barbaric exploitation of animal for our personal pleasure. They claim that in every fight a bull dies at the end. Before these bulls die, they undergo severe injuries and pain. Unfortunately, the defeated bull if not slaughtered gets mistreated and eventually killed. So, if there much such entertainment in a day then how many bull are prepared to injure, kill or abandon. On the other hand, those who support bullfighting claim that the opponents of this activity are insensitive to differences in culture as well as being faithful to the spirits of sports (Kopnina, & Cherniak 363).They argue that bullfighting remains to be part and parcel of the traditional Spanish culture and tradition which should be shown respect to just as slaughtering animals is accepted by many people. Bullfighting depicts symbolically that exist between beats and human beings. Finally, the supporters of bullfighting assert that since these Bulls would eventually get slaughter, so it should not matter how it is killed. Therefore the manner in which these animals die in the fight is what the opponents of this activities term as inhumane (Beirne, & South 55).
In addition, the animals are not exploited in the free natural environment without interference from human beings (Jones 467). On the other hand, those who oppose the ban of the animal use, argue that the animal enjoys participating in these games, they further argue that they are given fair treatment before and during the games (Jones 467). Additionally, they argue that its natural to use animals is sports and games since it is part and parcel of our cultures. This implies that if we are cultural sensitive as well as appreciating other people culture, then we should not oppose bullfighting among other animal use in sports and entertainment.
In conclusion, it is important for human beings to observe the rights and welfare of the animals. If our entertainment is going to harm the animals, then we should seek for another means of entertainment rather than risk the life of the animal for our selfish gains. Animals deserve peace and calmness in their natural environment. In my view, animals should not be sued in entertainment because first we animals must gate hurt or mistreated during these games. Second, it is hard to tell whether these animals have consented or o not. We are not sure whether they are happy or not. As most studies have revealed, these animals get emotional as well as physical abuse. Since we have higher thinking than the animals, we should protect them and treat them well. For instance, we should get animals out of their natural environment only if we want to help them medically in case they get sick or hurt.
Works Cited
Beirne, Piers, & South, Nathan. "Animal Rights, Animal Abuse and Green Criminology." Issues in Green Criminology 12(2007): 55-83.
Hughes, Peter. "Animals, Values, and Tourism—Structural Shifts in UK Dolphin Tourism Provision." Tourism Management 22.4 (2001): 321-329.
Jones, Robert C. "Animal Rights is a Social Justice Issue." Contemporary Justice Review 18.4 (2015): 467-482.
Kopnina, Helen, and Cherniak, Brett. "Cultivating a Value for Non-Human Interests through the Convergence of Animal Welfare, Animal Rights, and Deep Ecology in Environmental Education." Education Sciences 5.4 (2015): 363-379.
Regan, Tom. Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.
Waters, James. "Ethics and the Choice of Animal Advocacy Campaigns." Ecological Economics 119 (2015): 107-117.
