Zoos have been a common attraction for hundreds of years. People like to see things they can't experience every day. It is convenient to go to one place and witness the true beauty of wildlife without ever being in danger or stepping out of your comfort zone. However, with the modern age of technology, zoos are becoming bigger and bigger. Bigger zoos mean more animals and not always more space. The animals that primarily reside in zoos are exotic creatures that come from all over the world and are equipped to handle very different climates. When they are placed in zoos, they all have to deal with the same small spaces and the same climate. Putting animals in zoos is equivalent to locking a human being in a 25-square-foot room with limited climate control, toilets, limited space to properly bathe, and inadequately provided meals. In other words, a zoo for an animal is basically a prison for a human. Zoo corporations hold animals hostage and pretend that everything is fine, when in reality a great injustice is being committed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayMost people agree that animals have rights. Normal individuals do not torture animals for fun and do not treat them cruelly. There are now laws that protect wild life and domestic animals from those who wish to harm them. However, this is where the law ends. Most don't see the problem in going to zoos or large institutional zoos like the Detroit Zoo. Why? Why do people agree that it is wrong to torture and hurt an animal, but don't see a problem with keeping an animal locked in a cage or pen? Many believe there are positive outcomes for zoos. For example, zoos can be used for conservation. If a species is endangered due to poaching, lack of natural resources, or slow reproduction rate, some animals are kept in captivity to preserve the species (Bostock, 2003). However, where do we draw the line? Humans have obligations towards animals. The conservation of a species is important, yes. However, it is important not to push conservation too far. Keeping animals in captivity essentially takes away their entire reason for existing. The animal is no longer in its natural habitat and has no control over its movements. Zoos take away their freedom to travel great distances to hunt for food. Their mating pool is severely limited and they no longer have the power they once had in the wild. These creatures are autonomous in their own right. Animals may not be able to communicate like humans do, but they have their own language and way of life that is natural to them. Keeping them prisoners means depriving them of freedom. Even if the autonomy and rationality of animals are questioned, humans can still be judged by how they treat wildlife and domestic animals. Dale Jameson wrote in his article “Against Zoos” that “…someone who, for no good reason, removes wild animals from their natural habitats and denies them freedom is someone whose heart deserves to be judged harshly” (Jameson) . arguing that zoos are important is for entertainment. Now, this doesn't sound so terrible in itself, does it? However, when thought about rationally, it is cruel to even think about it. The fact that wild animals exist in zoos only so the zoo owner canearning money and providing an eventful afternoon for bored citizens is abhorrent. Some also argue that animals are not sentient and therefore have no rights or moral status. Yet animals are sentient. Being a sentient being means being able to experience positive and negative awareness (Wilson). Scott D. Wilson wrote in his article “Animals and Ethics” that animals have direct moral status for three reasons. Reason one: a sentient organism has moral status. Reason two: animals are sentient. Reason three: Since organisms are sentient and have moral status, and since animals are sentient, this means that animals have moral status. There are many different animal rights advocates. Right-wing animal rights activists are those who have the most radical views on animal rights. They believe that animals have the right to life, the right to freedom, the right not to be used for food, the right not to be placed in cages or enclosures, the right to a clean habitat, the right not to be used in research, along with the same recognized rights to human beings (Beauchamp, 2011). Zoos violate almost all of these rights. For starters, their habitats may not always be clean. How should zookeepers clean enclosures when there are still wild animals inside? To attempt to do so would be to place those individuals in mortal danger. Then, when it is necessary to clean the pens, the animals are placed in the pens. It is unethical to put a wild animal, large or small, in an enclosure. But it is necessary to do so so that their "habitat" is cleaned. Putting them in pens violates their right not to be confined. It's actually a lose-lose situation. Do the keepers keep the pens dirty so that they are not confined in a small space, or do they confine them in a small space so that they can have a clean environment? There is no morally correct answer here. So why do it? Why keep these beautiful creatures under control in the first place. Another way people justify the existence of zoos is by studying animal behavior. Zoos offer a great way to monitor animals 24/7. Their mating habits can be monitored, as can their eating habits and their limited social circles. However, is this information really authentic? Given that their environment is carefully constructed, their food is hand-selected by breeders, and their mating habits are practically forced upon them, can this information really be scientifically accurate? Animals in the wild hunt for their own food, in their own environment. They can migrate from one place to another in search of food and water. As a result, their diet and surroundings may be constantly changing, whereas in the zoo everything is the same. Sure, the zookeeper might select a different meat, vegetable, or fruit to give to the animals, but that's not the same thing, is it? Additionally, their mating habits are not natural in a zoo because there is a limited selection for these animals to choose from. In nature they can do whatever they want whenever they want. Social circles are also more authentic in nature. The hierarchy can be chosen and respected while in the zoo this is not really the case. Captive animals are also prone to health problems. Many times, when an animal is brought to a new enclosure, it becomes physically injured (Wickens-Drazilova, 2006). Along with physical health, due to population density, diseases and infections are also more likely to spread more quickly. All these factors eliminate the need to keep animals in captivity in order to/