Animal slavery

I have previously discussed the issues of animal abuse and the enslavement of animals but only from the intrinsic point of view - namely that their incarceration impedes their natural development, behavior and in some cases even facilitates their extinction.

This is a moral argument based purely on what is right. We should consider our actions before, during and after we commit them. To weigh all the information and not merely act on our appetites or justify these appetites with sophistry. Plato and Socrates both argued against the belief that "might makes right" - that just because we can do something does not mean we should. The belief in "might makes right" usually ends with an abuse of power whether it is directed toward other fellow humans or animals.

What has recently surfaced, is another equally powerful argument against animal imprisonment, based on the law. In October 2011, PETA accompanied by marine biologists and former orca trainers, filed a lawsuit against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and SeaWorld LLC. The lawsuit asks a federal court to find the capture of five wild orcas (killer whales) and their subsequent use as performance animals to be unconstitutional under the 13th amendment of the constitution. This is a landmark case as it is the first lawsuit to challenge animal captivity as being in violation of anti-slavery laws.

The 13th amendment was ratified after the civil war making slavery and involuntary servitude unconstitutional and illegal. Article XIII states:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

As you can see, the amendment, like most of the constitution, is broad and for good reason. The authors of the constitution, the bill of rights and many of the amendments wanted this document to be flexible enough to change with the inevitable change that comes with progress. This amendment makes no specific mention of humans or people, and it is because of this the lawsuit can be filed.

It is an interesting argument, as there are many parallels between the slavery of the past and the current non-human slavery that is prevalent today. First, this case is arguing that wild animals should not be forcefully removed from their natural environment and forced into involuntary servitude, in this case as entertainment for people. This is originally how human slavery began in the United States. People were forcefully removed from their native lands in Africa and bought in the U.S. to perform involuntary servitude through threats of violence and their lives. These people were separated from families, abused and made to perform hard labor against their will. They were prevented from actualizing their potential.

Second, These orcas are not viewed as living, breathing beings. To their captors, they are "property" this is reminiscent of the 19th century arguments for the continuation of slavery. Slaves were not considered people, but property which the owner could treat how they saw fit. This is exactly how non-human animals are treated today, as tools or property.

These orcas who were wild, then caught and made to perform for entertainment, forced to live in small tanks, live in unnatural environments that curtail their physical and mental well being and are subjected to artificial insemination for the benefit of their captors - the concern is that these conditions are against their will, which is the basic definition of slavery. These highly intelligent creatures are not given the choice between freedom or servitude, they are forced into an unnatural existence.

Please contact the company that owns Sea World and let them know you do not support slavery in any form and their actions toward animals must cease. For more information on the court case filed on behalf of the orcas of Sea World go here.

As always, our collective voices can make change happen. We can also elect not to support practices we do not agree with by not patronizing companies that act immorally.