Keeping Animals in Zoos is unethical

Excellent. I will get right into rebuttals.Pro claims that humans are animals, and therefore, animals have all the rights that we assign to ourselves as humans such as life and liberty. If true, this would certainly disallow keeping animals in zoos. However, it is clear from Pro's sources that he is only referring to the term "animal" in the biological sense, which totally ignores the philosophical/ethical distinctions between humans and animals. The moral significance (i.e. rights) of any given entity is determined by observing the characteristics that distinguish that entity from the rest of the amoral universe. In the case of human beings, the first and foremost distinguishing characteristic is *personal autonomy*-- our ability to utilize our rational faculties to choose our own actions and control ourselves, totally free of external influence. This inherent self-ownership that comes with personhood logically entitles us as humans to natural rights such as life and liberty. While some higher classes of animals may have varying degrees of limited autonomy, animals in general are only morally distinguishable in that they can feel pain and some forms of pleasure. This limited distinction naturally grants them very limited moral significance, justifying only the most rudimentary rights, such as 'the right to not be needlessly harmed'. It is for this reason that we do not consider anything morally wrong with a predator/prey relationships in nature or pest control in residential areas-- animals simply do not have the same rights that we do. Hence, Pro's contention fails. We cannot logically condemn keeping animals in zoos on the basis that it violates human rights... animals don't have human rights. In order for Pro to sustain this contention, he must show that keeping animals in zoos violates *animal* rights, which have been shown to be quite minimal.Now, Pro does sort of does this by claiming that keeping animals in zoos is akin to jailing innocents, which could be interpreted as a violation of an animal's right to not be needlessly harmed. However, conditions in zoos are not *nearly* as harsh as Pro makes them out to be; in fact, I will attempt to show that zoos have a neutral, if not beneficial, effect on their contained animals. The first thing was must note is that Pro's description of zoos is factually inaccurate-- In general, conditions in modern zoos are actually very accommodating to the animals: "Zoos have improved significantly in the last 4,000 or so years. Gone are the old steel-bar enclosures and cold cement cages. Most zoos these days use natural-looking barriers like moats or ditches to separate animals from people, and have mini-habitats that resemble the animals’ natural environment... Zookeepers now understand that many animals, such as monkeys, bears, and elephants, need engaging activities to prevent boredom and mental deterioration." (http://www.globalanimal.org...)There are, of course, a few zoos which do not treat their animals well, and as a result, animals tend to frequently try escaping from such zoos. However, such zoos are far from being the majority, so their unethical zoo-keeping practices does not render the general practice of keeping animals in zoos to be unethical. There are plenty of organizations like the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) which specifically make it their goal to "guide, encourage and support the zoos, aquariums and like-minded organisations of the world in animal care and welfare, environmental education and global conservation." (http://www.waza.org...)Given that the conditions of zoos is actually pretty decent, there is solid logic and evidence to support the notion that, from an animal's point of view, life in zoos compared to life in the wild is actually very similar, if not *better*. From the novel Life of Pi (pg. 19-23):"Well-meaning but misinformed people think [wild] animals are 'happy' because they are 'free'… The life of the wild animal is simple, noble, and meaningful, they imagine. Then it is captured by wicked men and thrown into tiny jails. Its 'happiness' is dashed. It yearns mightily for 'freedom' and does all it can to escape. Being denied its 'freedom' for too long, the animal becomes a shadow of itself, its spirit broken. So some people imagine. This is not the way it is. Animals in the wild lead lives of compulsion and necessity within an unforgiving social hierarchy in an environment where fear is high and the supply of food low and where territory must constantly be defended and parasites forever endured. What is the meaning of freedom in such a context?"Animals are territorial. That is the key to their minds. Only a familiar territory will allow them to fulfill the two relentless imperatives of the wild: the avoidance of enemies and the getting of food and water. A biologically sound zoo enclosure- whether cage, pit, moated island, corral, terrarium, aviary, or aquarium- is just another territory, peculiar only in its size and in its proximity to human territory. That it is so much smaller than what it would be in nature stands to reason. Territories in the wild are large not as a matter of taste but of necessity. In a zoo, we do for animals what we have done for ourselves with houses: we bring together in a small space what in the wild is spread out… A house is a compressed territory where our basic needs are can be fulfilled close by and safely. A sound zoo enclosure is the equivalent for an animal… Finding within it all the places it needs- a lookout, a place for resting, for eating and drinking, for bathing, for grooming, etc.- and finding that there is no need to go hunting, food appearing six days a week, an animal will take possession of its zoo space in the same way it would lay claim to a new space in the wild… it will behave the same way within its enclosure as it would in its territory in the wild… Such an enclosure is subjectively neither better nor worse for an animal than its condition in the wild; so long as it fulfills the animal’s needs, a territory, natural or constructed, simply is, without judgment.” All of the above has its basis in legitimate scientific research on animal behavior: "[T]erritorial behaviour, in zoology, the methods by which an animal, or group of animals, protects its territory from incursions by others of its species. Territorial boundaries may be marked by sounds such as bird song, or scents such as pheromones secreted by the skin glands of many mammals. If such advertisement does not discourage intruders, chases and fighting follow... Territorial behaviour is adaptive in many ways; it may permit an animal to mate without interruption or to raise its young in an area where there will be little competition for food. It can also prevent overcrowding by maintaining an optimum distance among members of a population." (http://www.britannica.com...)"While mating opportunities represent the most highly-prized resources that animals may compete for, there are many other examples where individuals come into conflict over access to a limited resource. In addition to mates, animals may compete over ownership of food and shelter or territories containing these resources." (http://www.nature.com...)With the factual validity of the LoP quotation established, it becomes clear that its conclusion is true: at the very least, zoos generally have no negative effects on the well-being of its animals. CONCLUSION: Animals can not be said to have the same rights as human beings-- even the most advanced ones have rather minimal rights, and containment in zoos does not even come close to violating those rights; rather, I have shown that modern zoos have anywhere from a neutral to a beneficial impact on the animals living in them.The resolution is negated!