dr.phyllis.y0ung

1 Running head: THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES

The Ethics of Elephants in Circuses

Dr. Christopher Foster

PHI103: Informal Logic

Ashford University

Annotated example for summative assessment

2 THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES

The recent announcement by Ringling Brothers and Barnum &

Bailey that the nation’s top circus would discontinue the use of

elephants in its circuses by 2018 has brought joy to some and

disappointment to others. It has also renewed an old ethical

debate about the use of animals in circuses, a tradition that has

been around for more than 200 years (Davis, 2015).

This paper will present a logical argument on one side of that debate, consider objections from the

other side, and ultimately defend the position that the use of these highly intelligent beings in the

circus is wrong.

These sentences

introduce the

topic in a way

that is designed

to capture the

reader’s interest.

This sentence provides a brief preview of the paper (as indicated in the instructions).

This sentence clearly states the thesis of the paper (the conclusion of your main argument).

My argument for this thesis goes as follows:

P1: Elephants are highly intelligent animals.

P2: Putting elephants in circuses requires them to live their lives in extreme confinement.

P3: Anything that requires highly intelligent animals to live their lives in extreme confinement is wrong unless it serves a purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.

P4: Putting elephants in circuses does not serve a purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.

C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is wrong.

Your English teacher may object if he or she sees your argument in non-paragraph form like this. However, logic teachers tend to love Standard Form because it makes your reasoning as clear as possible. In any case, presenting the argument for your thesis in Standard Form (with each premise and conclusion on a separate line) is a requirement of this particular (logic) paper.

This sentence is not an example of creative writing, but for logic purposes it is very clear!

3 THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES

Clearly state whether your argument is deductive or inductive here.

The next five paragraphs systematically defend the truth of each of the premises of the argument.

Notice that the first sentence of each paragraph clearly states the purpose of that paragraph. These are called topic sentences.

Clarifying the meaning of key terms within premises can go a long way to explaining the sense in which they are true.

This argument is deductive, since it intends to derive its conclusion

based upon the form of the reasoning used. The fact that it is

logically valid can be seen from the fact that the first and third

premises lay out two conditions for the extreme confinement of elephants being wrong. Premises one

and two state that those conditions are met, therefore the conclusion logically follows. Since the

argument is valid, if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion must be as well. Let’s examine

them one by one.

The first premise, that elephants are highly intelligent animals, is

widely known by those who have studied them. Scientific studies have shown

that they are able to independently discover novel methods to figure out how

to retrieve food, and they have recently been shown to be able to enlist the

help of other elephants in situations that require cooperation (Jabr, 2014).

The second premise, that putting elephants in circuses requires them

to live their lives in extreme confinement, is a sad truth known to those

who have investigated the matter. When not performing or being

transported, circus elephants are kept on a short chain that prevents them

from being able to move around or even lie down normally. This is what is

meant by ‘extreme confinement’: captivity so severe that the animal is

not able even to get proper exercise and stimulation. In addition to the

captivity, there have been many reports, and footage, of abuse of circus

elephants with bullhooks, electrocution, and other forms of cruelty (Nelson,

4 THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES

There is extra attention given to supporting the most controversial premise.

Because of the extra importance of defending the most controversial premise (often the moral one), a second paragraph is devoted to it here.

2011). However, in my argument, the extremity of the confinement alone is enough to entail that their

use in circuses is wrong.

The third premise makes a strong moral claim, yet it can be

defended. Given the intelligence of elephants, and given their natural

use of vast savannahs of space, life spent on a tiny chain will naturally

involve a tremendous amount of suffering. The stress of their

confinement is so severe that they develop “stereotypic behaviors” such as constant swaying back and

forth, indicating severe psychological distress (Wildlife Advocacy Project, n.d.). President of PAWS, Ed

Stewart, expresses it well:

Elephants should not be in captivity – period … The social structure isn’t correct, the space is not

right, the climate is not right, the food is not right … They are unbelievably intelligent. With all of

that brainpower – to be as limited as they are in captivity – it’s a wonder they cope at all. In 20

years I hope we will look back and think, “Can you believe we ever kept those animals in cages?”

(Jabr, 2014)

That level of suffering would seemingly require powerful justification.

The only remaining question in support of the premise may be

whether animal suffering should count morally as human

suffering does. In defense of the view that animal suffering requires

justification, I would point out that philosophers on both sides of the

animal ethics spectrum support a consideration of the basic welfare of

animals. The prominent anti-animal rights philosopher Carl Cohen reasons:

5 THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES

This is where we begin considering the best argument to the contrary, developed in the second paper.

Although animals do not have rights, it does not follow from this fact that one is free to treat

them with callous disregard. It is silly to think of rats as the holders of moral rights, but it is by

no means silly to recognize that rats can feel pain and that we have an obligation to refrain from

torturing them because they are beings that have that capacity (Cohen, 2001).

Such a view agrees well with the reasoning of pro-animal philosopher Peter Singer who states, “If a

being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration”

(Singer, 1989). Suffering, by its nature, has negative value, and as each of these philosophers point out,

the ethical relevance of suffering does not depend upon the species of the sufferer. Therefore, as the

premise states, if animal suffering does not serve an important purpose that outweighs the suffering, we

should conclude that it is unjustified and therefore wrong.

The final premise states that keeping elephants for circuses does not serve a purpose strong

enough to outweigh the suffering involved. It is clear that many people across the nation enjoy the

circus. However, how does their enjoyment compare against the suffering of the elephants? It should be

noted that many circuses operate without the use of animals. Acrobats, clowns, and other human

performers are capable of providing a riveting show without the captivity of animals. Given that the use

of elephants only provides some added measure of entertainment value to some people perhaps once a

year, and given the extreme suffering of intelligent animals from confinement all year, it does not

appear that their added entertainment value outweighs the tremendous suffering inflicted on these

highly intelligent beings.

Given the weight of the matter and its degree of

controversy, it is important to consider the best arguments on the

other side. In other words, why would an intelligent person disagree

with this argument? The most common response is that elephants in

6 THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES

Make sure to do a good and fair job of representing the best argument from the opposite side.

This is the required response to the objection. Make sure to address the key concern expressed by the objection to your argument.

circuses are not badly mistreated.

This objection is in fact it is the primary response given by the circus itself. Their website, titled

“Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant Conservation” refers to the Asian elephants

as “pampered performers,” and states “A positive, healthy environment is the foundation of training

elephants. Therefore, the cornerstone of all circus elephant training at Ringling Bros. is reinforcement

through praise, repetition, and reward” (elephantcenter, n.d.). Furthermore, the site indicates,

“Elephants at Ringling Bros. Are stimulated by all the exciting activity

around them, have time for play and social interaction with

other animals, and have a chance to use their physical and mental

skills every day.” If the animals are not mistreated and enjoy frequent

stimulation, then it seems to follow that the objection is misplaced or at least exaggerated.

In response to the objection we have to consider whether

the animals are allowed to roam free during the times in which

they are not performing, or whether their days are mostly spent on

short chains or in cramped transport vehicles. A year-long Mother

Jones investigation of the very elephants used by Ringling Bros.

showed that the latter is the case:

Ringling elephants spend most of their long lives either in chains or on trains, under constant

threat of the bullhook, or ankus – the menacing tool used to control elephants. They are lame

from balancing their 8,000-pound frames on tiny tubs and from being confined in cramped

spaces, sometimes for days at a time. They are afflicted with tuberculosis and herpes,

potentially deadly diseases rare in the wild and liked to captivity (Nelson, 2011).

7 THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES

There is a lot of latitude about how to wrap up your paper, but it is always a good idea to close with a restatement of your thesis.

This, combined with video footage of Ringling Bros. elephants in extreme captivity, shows that the

animals, in fact, do undergo prolonged periods of extreme confinement and suffer as a result (Kelly

RepublicansAgainstCruelty, 2013).

There are many important questions that remain to be

answered, such as whether this reasoning also entails the

wrongness of the confinement of other intelligent animals

like orcas, dolphins, and chimpanzees. It is also a good question of

whether the reasoning extends to farm animals raised in the

extreme confinement of factory farms. This paper, however, has made a deductively sound case for a

more modest conclusion: That the extreme confinement of elephants for mere entertainment is wrong.

8 THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES

References

Cohen, C. (2001). Why animals do not have rights. In The Animal Rights Debate (pp. 27-40). Oxford, England: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Davis, J. (March 7, 2015). A bittersweet blow for the elephant: Ringling Brothers will retire its elephants,

and an American tradition. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/opinion/sunday/ringling-brothers-will-retire-its- elephants-and-an-american-tradition.html

Elephantcenter (n.d.). Pampered performers. Retrieved from http://www.elephantcenter.com/meet-

our-herd/pampered-performers/ Jabr, F. (February 26, 2014). The science is in: Elephants are even smarter than we realized. Scientific

American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-is-in- elephants-are-even-smarter-than-we-realized-video

Kelly RepublicansAgainstCruelty (May 31, 2013). Ringling Bros circus elephant show – Ringling Bros and

Barnum and Bailey documentary. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cgPa38_msk

Nelson, D. (2011). The cruelest show on earth. Mother Jones. Retrieved from

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/10/ringling-bros-elephant-abuse Singer, P. (1989). All animals are equal. In T. Regan & P. Singer (Eds.), Animal Rights and Human

Obligations (pp. 73-86). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Wildlife Advocacy Project (n.d.). Tools of the circus trade. Retrieved from

http://www.wildlifeadvocacy.org/current/circus/tools_of_the_trade.php

Make sure you have a reference page in APA format.