Animal Rights and the circus

Word Count: 644

“Thirty million Americans a year go to circuses with animal acts,” a stony-faced Peter Jennings told his ABC News audience on December 19, “and the issue of how well or how badly circus animals are treated is a very old one.”

So began the evening news story about Mark Geble, a famous animal trainer for the Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus who is being charged with animal cruelty after he allegedly used a traditional elephant training tool, called an ankus, to gouge a nickel-sized puncture in an elephant’s skin. Animal rights groups are crying foul, attempting to link this incident to what they believe is a much larger problem.

For its part, the circus claims that after the animal was hosed down, the mark simply went away, suggesting that the charges are much ado about nothing. “They’re trying to drive a further agenda…a political agenda, that would remove animals from circuses,” said Catherine Ort-Mabry, a spokeswoman for Ringling Brothers. As Peter Jennings has rightly suggested, the issue of “how well or how badly” circuses are treating their animals is indeed an old one, and certainly makes for good television. But that doesn’t mean a criminal court is the proper venue for addressing such concerns.

Tens of millions of Americans go to the circus each year, and animals play a vital role in the performance. For all the controversy, it is clear from the register receipts that the training techniques of animal handlers meet with public approval. Right or wrong, people just aren’t as repulsed by these practices as some believe they should be. If, after “dozens” of animal cruelty investigations and endless hidden-camera exposes`, audiences still haven’t turned against these traditional circus acts, then perhaps it is a dead horse the animal rights crowd ought to stop kicking.

Another factor in desperate need of resolution in today’s culture is the issue of “animal rights” itself. Animals do not have rights. The entire concept of rights is an invention of man’s rational faculty, a moral concept that denotes the requisite conditions under which human beings must be allowed to live, if they wish to do so, according to their nature. In order for this to take place it is often necessary that men and women use animals, like other resources around them, to accomplish their ends. This can be for food, clothing, and yes, even entertainment.

Those who claim rights for our four-legged friends have certainly done an excellent job of persuading legislators to pass anti-cruelty laws, but they’ve done so only by exploiting people’s basic sense of kindness. After all, no one likes to see an animal mistreated. It is a far stretch, however, to equate the kind of social disapproval that we demonstrate when someone is doing something we don’t like to an absolute moral principle upon which criminal law is based.

Though the proverbial cat is already out of the bag, the codification of such a thing as “animal rights” could potentially lead to consequences that all but the most careless rat-lover would find dire. Certainly if merely gouging a nickel-sized hole in an elephant’s shoulder is the act of a criminal, then hunters should be charged with murder, road kill is manslaughter, and owning a dog an act of involuntary servitude. These examples can easily be dismissed as absurd, but remember that once upon a time a man who didn’t feed his cows was only considered a fool.

In any debate about animals the legitimate parameters should always be understood. Animals are property, not entities deserving of legal status. Laws are meant to protect people. If animal rights activists are unhappy with the training methods used by circuses, or even the use of animals at all, they are more than welcome to continue using public pressure to try and persuade them to change. Until then, the show must go on.

Scott McPherson is a writer for The Objectivist Center (www.objectivistcenter.org). The Objectivist Center is a national not-for-profit think tank promoting the values of reason, individualism, freedom and achievement in American culture.

This editorial comment has been produced and distributed by The Atlas Society. If you would like to reproduce or publish this piece, you may do so provided you include the biographical information found on this page.

For more information, please contact The Atlas Society.

If you are distributing this piece electronically, the following text must be included after the selection: