A Moral Question - Circus Animals

[JSmith]

The question really comes down to not our own personal view, but Jehovahs.  Human views can range from one extreme to another.  

 

In clothing some go to one extreme of being too revealing, while others, especially in middle eastern countries, go to the opposite extreme of covering every inch of a womans head and body.  Humans have warped a balanced and moderate view in both directions.  Just because Jehovah rejects the immodest styles does not mean he approves of the ultra conservative.

 

Likewise, I believe the same is true when it comes to animals.  There are some who go to the extreme of abusing them in terrible conditions.  There are also those at the opposite end of the spectrum that raise animals on a pedestal to the point that they are viewed as near equals to humans with the same rights.  

 

I believe this too is worldly and unbalanced  thinking that is not in line with Jehovahs view.  

 

Jehovah has accepted animal sacrifices from Abel on.  He approved of the killing and eating, not only of animals but even their young, such as lambs.  Animals have been used as a source of labor from the beginning.  The wonderful variety we enjoy among animals is due, largely, to inbreeding them.

 

These are all things that -  in varying degrees - different people might find objectionable or even offensive in modern times.  Yet in all these cases Jehovah allowed or even encouraged.

 

So the point Ive tried to make in this thread is - just because some have mistreated and abused animals in zoos or circuses (captive "domesticated" animals are sometimes abused as well) does not mean the idea of keeping and even training animals for entertainment is immoral in Jehovahs eyes.

[GrumpysWife]

Nice thoughts. 

[Thesauron]

The question really comes down to not our own personal view, but Jehovahs.  Human views can range from one extreme to another.  
 
In clothing some go to one extreme of being too revealing, while others, especially in middle eastern countries, go to the opposite extreme of covering every inch of a womans head and body.  Humans have warped a balanced and moderate view in both directions.  Just because Jehovah rejects the immodest styles does not mean he approves of the ultra conservative.
 
Likewise, I believe the same is true when it comes to animals.  There are some who go to the extreme of abusing them in terrible conditions.  There are also those at the opposite end of the spectrum that raise animals on a pedestal to the point that they are viewed as near equals to humans with the same rights.  
 
I believe this too is worldly and unbalanced  thinking that is not in line with Jehovahs view.  
 
Jehovah has accepted animal sacrifices from Abel on.  He approved of the killing and eating, not only of animals but even their young, such as lambs.  Animals have been used as a source of labor from the beginning.  The wonderful variety we enjoy among animals is due, largely, to inbreeding them.
 
These are all things that -  in varying degrees - different people might find objectionable or even offensive in modern times.  Yet in all these cases Jehovah allowed or even encouraged.
 
So the point Ive tried to make in this thread is - just because some have mistreated and abused animals in zoos or circuses (captive "domesticated" animals are sometimes abused as well) does not mean the idea of keeping and even training animals for entertainment is immoral in Jehovahs eyes.

It's the abuse that's in question here. I've not heard of any circus where the animals are doing top notch. Elephants, for example, are herd animals and not to be caged in one by one or two by two. They need large areas to roam, and the circus just cannot provide this.

[JSmith]

2 hours ago, Thesauron said:

It's the abuse that's in question here. I've not heard of any circus where the animals are doing top notch. Elephants, for example, are herd animals and not to be caged in one by one or two by two. They need large areas to roam, and the circus just cannot provide this.

I dont think anyone disagrees that abusing any animal is wrong.

 

What I think is in question is what constitutes abuse in Jehovahs eyes?

 

Just because an animal has one behavior in the wild and another when in the keeping of humans does not automatically constitute abuse.

 

Dogs are pack animals when left on their own.  So is its owner abusing them if they have only 1 dog?  Feral dogs like to kill and eat meat.  Is the owner being abusive if they feed their pet dry dog food?  Feral dogs like to run free over a territory.  Are owners that cage their pet so they can come with them on trips abusive?

 

You could ask similar questions regarding pigs or horses.  A pig that gets out of its pin goes feral remarkably quickly and even undergoes a physical and tempermental transformation.  Does that mean we are abusing it by keeping it in a pin?  Wild mustangs travel in highly organized hierarchal groups (there is a wild mustang preserve not far from home.  Wild mustangs are VERY different from a tame horse) so is it abusive for people to keep only one or two horses and ride them?!

 

The list can go on and on.  Wild elephants behave as you mention.  However, many elephants in India and SE Asia have been tamed and trained to work for people for centuries. They live in very close proximity to their human "family", sometimes in very tight quarters.  Most circuses Ive been to, the elephants are only caged while traveling (again, like dogs), and let out when they arrive at their destination.

 

Many animal rights organizations have declared that any animal that is forced out of its "natural" state is being abused.  I just dont agree.

 

Just because an animal has a certain behavior in the wild does not make all other situations they find thenselves in because of humans abusive.  Many animals can live perfectly happy, contented lives in the company of humans very different than what they would live in the wild.

 

That doesnt mean that abuse doesnt happen.  Of course it does and some circuses in the past have had very bad track records of this.  I personally would avoid supporting those.  But just because some do doesnt make the concept immoral.  And just because an animals behavior is different in captivity than it is in the wild does not automatically signal abuse.

 

This is all just my opinion of course.  Anyone whose conscience struggled with these issues probably should not attend.  Im just pointing out some alternate reasonings since you did ask.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by JSmith

[Hope]

Well said, Jeromie! 

[Thesauron]

I dont think anyone disagrees that abusing any animal is wrong.
 
What I think is in question is what constitutes abuse in Jehovahs eyes?
 
Just because an animal has one behavior in the wild and another when in the keeping of humans does not automatically constitute abuse.
 
Dogs are pack animals when left on their own.  So is its owner abusing them if they have only 1 dog?  Feral dogs like to kill and eat meat.  Is the owner being abusive if they feed their pet dry dog food?  Feral dogs like to run free over a territory.  Are owners that cage their pet so they can come with them on trips abusive?
 
You could ask similar questions regarding pigs or horses.  A pig that gets out of its pin goes feral remarkably quickly and even undergoes a physical and tempermental transformation.  Does that mean we are abusing it by keeping it in a pin?  Wild mustangs travel in highly organized hierarchal groups (there is a wild mustang preserve not far from home.  Wild mustangs are VERY different from a tame horse) so is it abusive for people to keep only one or two horses and ride them?!
 
The list can go on and on.  Wild elephants behave as you mention.  However, many elephants in India and SE Asia have been tamed and trained to work for people for centuries. They live in very close proximity to their human "family", sometimes in very tight quarters.  Most circuses Ive been to, the elephants are only caged while traveling (again, like dogs), and let out when they arrive at their destination.
 
Many animal rights organizations have declared that any animal that is forced out of its "natural" state is being abused.  I just dont agree.
 
Just because an animal has a certain behavior in the wild does not make all other situations they find thenselves in because of humans abusive.  Many animals can live perfectly happy, contented lives in the company of humans very different than what they would live in the wild.
 
That doesnt mean that abuse doesnt happen.  Of course it does and some circuses in the past have had very bad track records of this.  I personally would avoid supporting those.  But just because some do doesnt make the concept immoral.  And just because an animals behavior is different in captivity than it is in the wild does not automatically signal abuse.
 
This is all just my opinion of course.  Anyone whose conscience struggled with these issues probably should not attend.  Im just pointing out some alternate reasonings since you did ask.
 
 
 
 

Sorry, you misunderstand the question. There is no question about whether or not abuse occurs at the circus. This is known. The question is whether it is morally right to go to the circus despite this. In a similar manner, if or have good reason to suspect that the animal that ended up in your sausage wasn't treated well, is the sausage worth that price? Is it morally right to eat THAT meat? Not us it morally right to eat meat. Also, I am not saying that training an animal to do a trick is necessarily wrong.

[JSmith]

8 hours ago, Thesauron said:

Sorry, you misunderstand the question. There is no question about whether or not abuse occurs at the circus. This is known. The question is whether it is morally right to go to the circus despite this. In a similar manner, if or have good reason to suspect that the animal that ended up in your sausage wasn't treated well, is the sausage worth that price? Is it morally right to eat THAT meat? Not us it morally right to eat meat. Also, I am not saying that training an animal to do a trick is necessarily wrong.

 

If I knew a company that made sausage was mistreating animals, I would stop eating sausage from THAT COMAPANY.  I wouldnt stop eating sausage altogether.  It wouldnt make eating any sausage immoral.

 

Likewise if I knew a circus from a particular company was known for allowing their animals to be mistreated, I wouldnt go to circuses by THAT COMPANY.  But that doesnt mean I swear off all circuses.

 

However, all of your questions have intimated that ALL circuses are immoral and should be sworn off BECAUSE they are a circus.

 

I disagree with some of the reasonings you've given for why that is.  I dont feel that everything that radical animal rights activists view as abuse is viewed as abuse in Jehovahs eyes.

 

But this is my own personal opinion.  Everyone should follow their own conscience in the matter.  No ones life is any less rich by not going to the circus.

[Tcvancoops]

I'm a vegetarian...for all reasons

[Brother_Bliss]

8 hours ago, JSmith said:

Everyone should follow their own conscience in the matter.

 

And that's really what it boils down to. A person's choice to go to a zoo or circus is a conscience matter (who ever thought we'd have to say this about a zoo or circus, lol) and is not up to another brother or sister to tell us if it is right or wrong.