The
Ethics of
Animal Circuses
By
Dr Elisa Aaltola, Research Fellow in Moral Philosophy
The use of non-human animals in circuses raises
serious moral questions. These will be analysed below
via basic moral considerations often employed in the
academic field called ‘animal ethics’. These are: 1) the
welfare of animals, 2) the value of animals, and 3)
understandings concerning animals.
Welfare
An often stated principle in ethics concerning animals
is that the welfare of animals ought to be respected.
Hence, we should refrain from causing them
unnecessary physical or mental suffering, and we
ought to promote their welfare where possible. Three
factors are particularly relevant: freedom from
unnecessary suffering, freedom to express basic
species-specific traits, and the fulfillment of basic
needs. In practice, this means that animals ought to
be treated kindly and in accordance to
their capacities and needs: they should
have enough room for movement and be
offered adequate nourishment and
shelter, their social and other cognitive
needs ought to be respected, they
should be guarded from physical and
mental pain and stress, and so forth.
which lead to complex physical and psychological
needs.
This suggests that we may have to rethink some
contemporary forms of animal use: if the capacities
and needs of animals are more complex than thought,
contemporary ways of treating animals have to be
revisited. Welfare studies point towards the urgency of
such rethinking. When their needs are frustrated,
animals commonly portray stereotypical behaviours
(repetitive movements, self-harm, aggressive
behaviour, etc.), or fall into a state of helplessness and
apathy – moreover, under unsuitable conditions,
physical injuries and illnesses are common. Thus,
ignoring the basic capacities and needs of animals
can lead to great suffering. Because of this, it is
elemental that society routinely scrutinises the ways in
which animals are treated. One important target of
such scrutiny is animal circuses.
Cognitive ethology (study of animal
minds) and welfare studies have shed
much new light on the welfare of animals
within different forms of animal use.
According to cognitive ethology, the
cognitive capacities of animals are much
more developed than traditionally thought
– animals have complex capacities,
www.captiveanimals.org
1
The welfare of animals in circuses is particularly
threatened by four aspects of the circus environment.
Firstly, due to the travelling nature of circuses, the
animals tend to live in very close confinement.
Therefore, they may suffer from severe lack of
adequate space, required for them to fulfill speciesspecific traits and needs. They may be
exercised infrequently, and at other
times be confined to cages or
stalls. At worst, this could
mean that the animals are
locked up 23 hours a
day, and only gain any
exercise whilst
performing.
Secondly, travelling
itself is stressful to
animals. This has been
noted in the EU welfare
standards concerning the
transportation of farmed
animals, but unfortunately
animals in circuses are often
forgotten. They have to endure
almost continuous transportation
throughout their lives, which no farmed
animal would have to go through. The movement of
the vehicle, cramped conditions, lack of water and
food, lack of air-conditioning, accumulation of faeces,
incapacity to lie down, darkness, lack of visibility,
noise, traffic fumes, and so forth are amongst the
factors mentioned in scientific studies concerning the
transportation stress of farmed animals. It is
reasonable to argue that the same factors apply to
animals in circuses, and (due to the intense travelling)
to a greater
degree. Animals
will also struggle
to form a sense
of territory or
familiarity with
one specific
place, which can
cause stress.
Thus, large herbivores may be forced to stand up on
their hind legs, predators that naturally tend to fear fire
may be forced to jump through burning hoops, dogs
may be dressed up and expected to dance around like
miniature people, and so forth. This poses a very
fundamental welfare issue, as the animals are forced
to commit acts that go against their
cognitive and physiological traits.
One of the basic rules in animal
welfare is that animals
should be treated
according to their
species-specific traits.
By intentionally going
against these traits,
circuses can inflict
great suffering and
stress. The animals
are forced to perform
acts that they cannot
mentally comprehend
(they literally ‘make no
sense’ to the animals, and
can hence be a source of
great stress and frustration),
and that can cause physical pain or
discomfort. Common sense alone tells us
that this goes against the animals’ welfare.
Fourthly, in order to make animals perform oddities
that go against their nature, training can be harsh.
Numerous undercover reports have documented how
animals have to endure both mental and physical
punishments. Punching, kicking, hitting with various
instruments, etc. have been common in these
documents, as well as shouting, threatening
behaviour, deprivation from food, etc. These are
obvious violations of the welfare of animals.
The fact that many animals in circuses are wild (from
non-domesticated species) adds to the suffering
caused. The stress and pain are severe enough when
it comes to domesticated animals, but will be even
greater amongst animals who are inherently unfamiliar
with human
beings.
Thirdly, the
animals are often
asked to perform
‘tricks’ alien to
their natural
constitution (this
is what the circus
numbers
inherently rely on:
animals acting in
a ‘non-animal’
fashion).
www.captiveanimals.org
2
Value
Moreover, making them the
basis of individual value
Another question concerns the value of non-human
would exclude large
animals. Although society tends to view and evaluate
sections (small children,
animals mainly via instrumental use, it has been
mentally unable, and so
argued that animals also have value in themselves, as forth) of the human
the type of beings that they are. A field of philosophy,
society. Placing
called ‘animal ethics’, is a prominent part of practical
emphasis on the capacity
ethics, and many within it have maintained that the
to experience would
individual value and even rights of animals can be
mean that many animals
reasonably defended. Indeed, during the academic
would also have
debates that have lasted for the past three decades,
individual value. Cognitive
the arguments for such value and rights have proved
ethology is only beginning to
stronger than counter-arguments. A common claim in shed light on the minds of nonphilosophy states that although animals are not ‘little
human animals, but already the results are
people’, they do have their own viewpoints and
astounding. Not only can many animals (including the
cognitive capacities, which give them basic value.
majority of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and even
Although radical, the philosophical strength of, and the invertebrates) experience, but also capacities such as
recent rise in societal interest in, this approach forces intentionality and the formation of concepts and beliefs
governing bodies to at least consider the possibility
are common. The standard claim, according to which
that animals ought not to be reduced to instruments.
animals have only instrumental value, relies on the
mistaken belief that animals are nothing but pure
Major arguments in animal ethics maintain that the
biology. The recognition of animal minds requires that
value of an individual is based on her capacity to
their value be re-investigated.
experience, ie. ‘consciousness in the phenomenal
sense’. Rather than so-called ‘perfectionist capacities’, Hence, there are good grounds for maintaining that
such as rationality, use of language and moral agency, animals have value in themselves. Some will argue
our value derives from the same capacity that makes that they also have rights, whilst others will maintain
us individuals in the first place: the capacity to
that the value is more basic. However, whichever way,
experience our existence and the surrounding world
the notion of animal value will place severe restrictions
as something.
on how animals are to be treated. We cannot use
beings of individual value as instruments for our own
The perfectionist capacities may be valuable in
benefit, unless this is absolutely necessary for our
themselves (like aesthetic beauty may be), but there is own survival. Moreover, whenever our interests are in
little reason why they would be the source of the value a conflict, we are to look at the primacy of those
of an individual (any more than aesthetic beauty would interests: primary interests (such as the interest to live
be).
without pain) are to be emphasised at the cost of
secondary interests (such as the interest to eat
chocolate).
www.captiveanimals.org
3
Next to bullfights and other
sorts of entertainment that
inflict suffering on animals,
circuses are one of the most
obvious types of animal use
which have to be abolished if
the value of animals is to be
taken seriously. Using animals
in circuses is hardly
necessary for our survival
(even those who gain their
livelihood from such circuses
may take example from the
countless other circuses that
do not use animals), and
therefore the suffering caused
cannot be morally justified.
Moreover, the interest served
is secondary, as we go to the
circus for nothing more than
entertainment. To harm the
primary interests of animals
(by severely infringing on their
welfare, as explained above) in
the name of entertainment is
quite simply a moral wrong. It has to be emphasised
that one does not need to have a strong conception of
the value of animals (such as that endorsing animal
rights) in order to come to this conclusion. Already the
recognition that animals have some value will lead to
it: we cannot treat animals as mere sources of
amusement, especially when doing so infringes on
their welfare.
Therefore, from the viewpoint of value and ethics,
animal circuses lack justification. What is more, they
can be argued to be so morally dubious that they
ought to be abolished as soon as possible.
animals, and it is often
maintained that such beliefs
have a great effect on our
ethics. This makes it
elemental that more attention
be paid on what types of
understandings concerning
animals we, as a society,
foster.
Zoos have been used as a
prime example of this.
Sociologists have argued that
zoos lead to an understanding
of animals, which
emphasises difference, lack
of individuality and value, and
human power over animals.
When we look at animals in
cages and read short
introductions on the small
signs placed outside, we may
believe that animals are very
different from human beings,
that they are nothing but
specimens of given species, that they are dictated by
biology to a degree that they have no individuality or
minds of their own, and that humans have the right to
hold captive even the most wild of them in small
enclosures in the name of entertainment. Such an
interpretation may sound harsh, but literature does
offer support for it. When we encounter wild animals in
captivity, understandings concerning animals in
general are affected, and not always in a positive way.
Even those with a more optimistic take on zoos will
have to admit that they do have an influence on how
animals are perceived.
Understandings
In relation to the third issue, that of
understandings concerning animals,
we need to ask what types of
understandings different forms of
treatment of animals foster, and what
types of human-animal relations they
help to maintain.
Placing emphasis on understandings
concerning animals is important, for
these understandings go to form our
future treatment of animals. Sociology
and cultural studies have, in the past
few years, placed scrutiny on the
societal and cultural beliefs concerning
www.captiveanimals.org
4
Whilst zoos have been an object of some studies,
less has been written about circuses. This is
possibly because animal circuses are seen to be so
blatantly at odds with animal welfare and value that it
is not even necessary to point out that they would
have negative implications on the way we
conceptualise and treat non-human
animals. That is, it may be
thought that we do all know
that animals should not be
made to perform for the
amusement of humans,
at least so long as such
performing infringes on
the welfare of the
animals.
However, the same
analyses could be used
in relation to circuses.
They bring forward an
understanding of animals,
which underlines difference
and lack of value. It is
presumed that the value of
animals is so insignificant that they
may, indeed, be used for nothing more
than entertainment, even if such use infringes on
their welfare. Moreover, as the circus numbers may
rely on humour and ridicule, the animals may even
be made a ‘mockery’ of. In general, the animal
circuses clearly presume that animals do not have
individual value or dignity, which would require that
we admire them in their own natural surroundings
rather than dressed as little people or committing
acts that go against their nature. Such an
understanding can have a great impact on the people
who go to circuses, and especially on children, who
are still learning what animals are and how they ought
to be treated.
Animal circuses suggest to children that animals have
no value in themselves, and that their welfare
is of so little relevance that it may be
broken for our own amusement.
Awareness of the natural
traits and species-specific
tendencies of animals is
not encouraged: rather,
such awareness is
hidden under
misrepresentations and
bizarre caricatures. Thus,
children are not only given
misleading notions
concerning the value of
animals and their welfare,
but also misleading
notions concerning the
nature of animals as such.
Conclusion
Taking all these considerations – welfare, value, and
understandings of animals – into account forces us to
acknowledge that animal circuses lack moral
justification. They infringe on the welfare of animals,
they do not take into account basic moral
considerations, and they present a misleading
understanding of animals. Legislation ought to reflect
these considerations, and animal circuses ought to be
banned.
The Captive Animals’ Protection Society
PO Box 4186, Manchester, M60 3ZA, UK
Phone: 0845 330 3911
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.captiveanimals.org
Registered Charity in England & Wales. No. 1124436
www.captiveanimals.org
All photos:
Captive Animals’ Protection Society
Written by:
Elisa Aaltola, PhD (Philosophy)
Research Fellow in Moral Philosophy
Manchester Metropolitan University Cheshire / Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics
5