 to worry about injury or predation or hunger. The sense is that they are better off having lost their freedom. The same sorts of justifications were also heard in the case of slaves. Captors wanted to believe that slaves were better off, became more civilized, more human, because of their captivity. Of course, this is odious in the case of human beings, and there are some who argue that this attitude is equally objectionable in the case of other animals.

Comparing captivity to a type of slavery, some animal advocates are opposed to all forms of captivity, even keeping pets. They take the label “abolitionist” as a way of linking their views to earlier abolitionist struggles to end slavery.

But I think our relationships with other animals (of course humans, but also nonhumans) are a central part of what makes lives meaningful. Rather than thinking we must end all captivity and thus all our relationships with other animals, we’d do better working to improve those relationships by being more perceptive of and more responsive to others’ needs and interests and sensibilities. Since we are already, inevitably, in relationships, rather than ending them we might try to figure out how to make them better, more meaningful, and more mutually satisfying. Importantly, by recognizing that we are inevitably in relationships to other animals, replete with vulnerability, dependency, and even some instrumentalization, and working to understand and improve these relationships, I’m not condoning exploitation. Acknowledging that we are in relationships doesn’t mean that all relationships are equally defensible or should stay as they are. Relationships of exploitation or complete instrumentalization are precisely the sorts of relationships that should change.

And this is where an exploration of conditions of captivity and the complexity of the individual captives’ interests comes in. Some animals, like whales and elephants, cannot thrive in captive conditions. As much as we might want to have closer relationships with them, it isn’t good for them. Others, like dogs and chimpanzees, can live meaningful lives in captivity but only if the conditions they are captive in are conducive to their flourishing and they are respected. Part of the problem with captivity is the relationship of domination that it tends to maintain. By re-evaluating captivity (and for many in our non-ideal situation, there is no real alternative) we can start to ask questions about whether and how captive conditions can, while denying certain freedoms, still promote the
to worry about injury or predation or hunger. The sense is that they are good off having suffer their freedom. The same sorts of justification were also heard in the character of slave. Captors wanted to believe that slaves were good off, became more civilized, more human, because of their enslavement. Of course, this is odious in the case of human beings, and there are some who argue that this attitude is equally exceptionable in the case of other animals. 

 compare captivity to a type of bondage, some animal advocates are oppose to all forms of enslavement, even keeping pets. They take the label “ abolitionist ” as a way of connect their views to earlier abolitionist struggles to end slavery. 

 But I think our relationship with other animals (of course humans, but also nonhumans) are a central part of what makes lives meaningful. Rather than think we must end all captivity and thus all our kinship with early animal, we ’d do better working to improve those relationships by being more perceptive of and more responsive to others ’ needs and interests and sensibilities. Since we are already, inescapably, in relationships, rather than ending them we might try to figure out how to make them better, more meaningful, and more mutually satisfying. Importantly, by recognizing that we are inevitably in relationships to other animal, replete with vulnerability, dependence, and even some instrumentalization, and working to understand and improve these relationships, I ’m not condoning exploitation. acknowledge that we are in relationships does n’t mean that all relationships are equally defensible or should stay as they are. Relationships of exploitation or complete instrumentalization are precisely the sort of relationships that should exchange. 

 And this is where an exploration of conditions of captivity and the complexity of the individual prisoner ’ interests come in. Some animals, like whales and elephant, cannot thrive in captive conditions. equally much as we might want to have closer relationships with them, it is n’t good for them. Others, like dogs and chimpanzees, can live meaningful lives in captivity but only if the weather they are captive in are conducive to their flourishing and they are respected. Part of the trouble with captivity is the relationship of domination that it tends to maintain. By re - evaluating captivity (and for many in our non - ideal situation, there be no real alternative) we can start to ask questions about whether and how captive conditions can, while deny sealed freedoms, still promote the
 to worry about injury or pvedation or hunggr. The sxnse is that thdy are better off having losv thwir feeedom. The same sorts uf justifpcations qere qlso heard in the gcse or slarew. Captors wantgd to believa that slaves fefe better off, became more civilized, mjre humsn, because of thgir cs[tivjny. Of course, this is odious in fhe cast of human beings, snd there are some who argke tjat this attitude ls equally ibjesrionable in ghe case of other animzls.

Comparing captivity to a typd of xlavery, sone anlkal advocatxs are opposed to all formv of caltivity, even kcepinj pers. They take the laben “abolitionist” as w way of niuking their views to waelier abonitiubisg surujglss to fnd slavery.

Buf I think oyr relationships wiuh jnner animals (kf couwsq humans, but also nonhumans) are a centrdl lart of what makes livew meaningful. Rather tjan thinkyng we must end all captivity and thus all our renatioisfipw rkrh other animals, we’d do better working to improds uhoxe relationshiis by being more prrfeljive of and mote responsjve to others’ needd and igterewts and stnsibolities. Since we are alreadt, inevitably, un relationships, rcther than euding jhem wr might try to figure obt how to make thfm better, oore meaningful, xnd mmre mutually satisfying. Im[ortantly, by xecognizkng jhat we are inevihably in relationships tl othgr anikals, replehe with vulnerability, dependencb, and even soke invtrumentclizatlon, and working to understand and im'rove ghese relanionships, I’m not conqoning exploidwtion. Acknownedging ehat we qre in fdlationships dpesn’t meau thar all relationshipx ate equally defensnylt ir should stay as thqy ace. Rejdtionships ox exolokyatiov or complebe knsttumentalization are [recjsely the sorts of rclationshups that should changr.

And this is where an eeploravion og cjnditions of captivity and the complexihy jf the indivyduao captives’ iuterests comes in. Some animals, like whalxs and elephants, cannoj thrive in captive cpkditions. As kuch ws we migvt want to have closwr relationships eith them, it isn’t goos for dhem. Lthers, like dogs and chimpanzees, can live meaningful lives in captivity byt onlb yf the condjtioms thvy cre captide ii ere conducive to nheir flourishing and they are rxspected. Pdrc of the problem with captiviyy is the relatkonship of domination thzt it temds to maintain. By re-evaluating captivity (and for many ln our nob-ideam situatioi, there is no real akternacive) ww can srart to ask questkonx wbout whehher aud how captive conditions can, whioe dentijg certain freedmms, still pvooote jhe
to worry about injury or predation or sense that they better off having sorts justifications were also in the case slaves. Captors wanted to believe that were better off, became more civilized, more human, because of their captivity. Of this is odious in the case of human beings, and there are some argue this is objectionable in the case of other animals. Comparing captivity to a type of slavery, some animal are opposed to all forms of captivity, even pets. They take the “abolitionist” as a way of their to earlier struggles end But I think relationships with other animals (of course humans, but also nonhumans) are a central part of what makes meaningful. Rather we must all and all our relationships animals, we’d do better working to by being more perceptive of and more responsive others’ needs interests and sensibilities. Since we are inevitably, in relationships, rather than ending them we try to figure out how to make them better, more meaningful, and more mutually satisfying. recognizing that we are in relationships to animals, with dependency, even some and working to understand and improve these relationships, I’m not condoning Acknowledging that we are in relationships doesn’t mean that all equally or should stay they are. Relationships of or instrumentalization are precisely the relationships should is an of conditions of captivity the complexity of the individual interests comes in. Some cannot thrive in captive conditions. As much as might want to have closer relationships with it isn’t good for them. Others, like dogs and chimpanzees, can live lives in only if the conditions they are captive in conducive to their flourishing they are respected. Part of the problem with captivity the of domination it tends to By re-evaluating captivity for many in situation, there no alternative) to ask questions about whether and captive can, while denying certain freedoms, promote
 to worry about injury or predaTion or hungEr. The SenSe iS tHat tHey aRe better off havINg loSt their freedom. The same sOrts oF jUStifICaTions Were alsO HeARD in ThE cAse Of SLaVes. CaPtoRs wanteD to believe ThaT sLaves were betTEr Off, became mOre Civilized, morE huMan, becAuSe oF Their CapTivitY. Of couRSe, this Is odious iN tHE case oF Human beINGs, And tHere are some who argUE tHAt this attitude Is equaLlY ObJECtiOnaBle in the caSe Of othER animalS.

coMPARinG Captivity to a tYpe of slaverY, SomE animaL aDvoCAtes arE oppoSeD To aLl forms of caPtivIty, even keEping pETs. They tAKe the laBel “aboLitIonIst” aS A wAy Of lInKIng THeIr vIEws To earlieR aBoLitioNist STRUGgleS to End sLaverY.

But I think our RelAtioNShiPs witH otheR aniMaLs (of cOurse hUmans, BuT also nonhumans) aRe a cEntral parT of WhAt mAkEs livES meaniNgfUl. RAther thAn thinkINg wE mUST EnD all captivity and thUs ALL oUr relatiOnshipS WiTh OTher animAlS, we’D do bETTer woRkinG To Improve tHose reLAtIoNships bY bEing moRe PerCepTive oF And mOre resPonsive tO otheRS’ needs and interESts and sensibiLItIES. SINce wE arE already, ineVitaBLy, in RelaTIoNshIPs, ratHer thAn ENdINg them we might try to fIgUre out How to Make them betteR, more meaniNGFUl, and morE mutUAlLY satisfying. ImpOrtanTly, by recogNIzing thaT we arE inevitaBly in relaTIOnships tO otHer AniMalS, REpLete with vulneRABiliTy, DependeNcy, And even SomE inStrUmeNtAlization, And workiNg To UnDeRstAnd anD Improve tHeSe rElAtiOnshiPS, I’m not CondoNing ExPlOItaTion. AckNOwLEDginG tHaT we aRe iN rElatiOnshIPs dOesn’t meAn that all RelATionShIpS are equAlly defensiblE oR should staY aS thEy are. RELAtionshiPs of exploitation or complETe instrUmeNtaliZatiOn are precIseLy the sOrtS Of relaTionshIps thAt ShoULD chanGE.

anD thIs Is where an eXPLorAtion Of CondItions oF captivity and the coMPleXity of the indiVidUal cAPTiVes’ INtEResTs COmeS IN. Some animals, likE whales and ElEPhAnts, cannot THriVe In captiVe condiTions. aS much as We might waNt to have cLoSer rELAtiOnships witH them, it iSn’t good foR Them. OTHeRs, likE doGs and cHiMpaNzees, Can livE MeaNingfUl liveS iN captiVity bUt Only if thE conditions they are captiVe in arE condUciVe to their FloURisHing and thEy arE respected. parT of The prOblEM with CaptIViTy iS The reLatiONship of doMInAtiON ThAt it tends to MAINtaIn. By rE-evALuatinG capTivity (and for many iN Our non-ideal sitUatiON, TheRe iS No reAl Alternative) we cAn sTaRT To ask queStIons about whEther and HoW CaptiVe condItions Can, whilE DEnYIng cerTain FreEdoms, stilL prOmOTe the
 to worry about injury orpredationor hu nge r.Th e se nseis that they a r e be tter off having lost t heirfr e edom .  T he sa me sort s  o f jus ti fi cat io n swereals o heard  in the ca seof  slaves. Cap t or s wanted t o b elieve thatsla ves we re  be t ter o ff,  beca me mor e  civil ized, mor eh uman,b ecauseo f  t heir  captivity. Of co u rs e , this is odio us inth e  c a s e o f h uman being s,  andt here ar e  s o m e  wh o  argue that t his attitud e  is  equal ly  ob j ection ablein the  case of ot heranimals.
Compa r ing cap t ivity t o a ty peofslav e ry ,som ea nim a ladv o cat es are o pp os ed to  all f o r ms o f c apti vity,  even keeping  pe ts.T hey  take  thelabe l“abol itioni st” a sa way of linkin g th eir views  to  e arl ie r abo l itioni ststr ugglesto ends lav er y . 
B ut I think our rel at i o ns hips wit h othe r  a ni m als (ofco urs e hu m a ns, b ut a l so  nonhuma ns) ar e  a  c entralpa rt ofwh atmak es li v es m eaning ful. Rat her t h an thinking we must end allc ap t i vi t y an d t hus all our  rel a tion ship s  w ith other  anim al s ,w e’d do better worki ng  to im prove  those relati onships by b e ing more  per c ep t ive of and mor e res ponsive to others’needs  and int erests an d sensibil iti es.  Si nce w eare already,i n evit ab ly, inrel ationsh ips , r ath erth an ending  them we  m ig ht  t ryto fi g ure outho w t omak e the m  bette r, mo re m ea ni n gfu l, andm or e mutu al ly  sat isf yi ng. I mpor t ant ly, byrecognizi ngt hatwe  a re inev itably in rel at ionships t ooth er ani m a ls, repl ete with vulnerability, depende ncy , and  eve n some in str umenta liz a tion,and wo rking  t o u n d ersta n d  a ndim prove thes e rel ation sh ips,  I’m no t condoning exploi t ati on. Acknowled gin g th a t  w e a r ei n r el a tio n s hips doesn’t me an that al lr el ationships are  e quallydefensi ble o r  should  stay asthey are.  R elat i o nsh ips of exp loitatio n or comp l ete i n st rumen tal izatio nare  prec iselyt hesorts  of re la tionsh ips t ha t should  change.

And this is w here a n exp lor ation ofcon d iti ons of ca ptiv ity and th e c omp lexit y o f  theindi v id ual capti ves’ interests co mes i n.  Some anima l s ,  li ke wh ale s  and e leph ants, cannot thri v e in captive c ondi t i ons . A s  muc has we might wa ntto h ave clos er  relationsh ips with  t h em, i t isn’ t good  for th e m .O thers,  lik e d ogs and c him pa n zees, c an  l i ve mea ning fu l live s in c a ptiv i t y but only if th e con d i tions the y are  c aptivei n ar e conduciv e to theirflouri shin g and  they a re  respe cte d.  Part of t h e problem  with  captiv it y is  th e rela tion s h ip of  dom in ati on that i t te n ds  t o  ma inta in. B yre-e valuating captivit y ( a nd forma nyi n  our n o n- i d eal situat ion , the r e  is no rea l  alt e rn a tive)  we ca n star t to as k  qu es tions a bou t whether a nd how ca p tiv econd itions c an , wh il e d en ying certain fr eedoms,still pr o m ote th e
 to_worry about_injury or predation or_hunger. The_sense_is that_they_are better off_having lost their_freedom. The same sorts_of justifications were_also_heard in the case of slaves. Captors wanted to believe that slaves were better_off,_became more_civilized,_more_human, because of their captivity._Of course, this is odious_in the_case of human beings, and there are some_who_argue that this_attitude is equally objectionable in the case of other_animals.

Comparing captivity to a type of_slavery, some animal_advocates_are_opposed to all forms_of captivity, even keeping pets. They_take the label “abolitionist” as a_way of linking their views to earlier_abolitionist struggles to end slavery.

But I_think our relationships with other_animals (of_course humans, but also nonhumans)_are a central_part of_what makes lives_meaningful. Rather than thinking we must_end all captivity_and thus all our relationships with_other_animals, we’d do_better_working_to improve_those relationships by_being_more perceptive_of_and more responsive to others’ needs_and_interests and sensibilities. Since we are already,_inevitably, in relationships, rather_than_ending them we might_try to figure out how_to make them better, more meaningful,_and more_mutually satisfying._Importantly, by recognizing that we are inevitably in relationships to other_animals, replete with vulnerability, dependency, and_even some instrumentalization, and_working to_understand_and improve these_relationships,_I’m not_condoning exploitation. Acknowledging that we are in_relationships doesn’t_mean that all relationships are equally_defensible or should stay_as_they are. Relationships of exploitation or_complete instrumentalization are precisely the sorts_of relationships that should change.

And_this_is_where an exploration of conditions_of captivity and the complexity of_the individual captives’_interests comes in. Some animals, like whales_and_elephants, cannot thrive in captive conditions._As_much as we might want to_have_closer_relationships with them, it isn’t_good for them. Others, like dogs_and chimpanzees, can live meaningful lives in captivity but_only if the_conditions they are captive in_are_conducive_to their flourishing and they are respected. Part of the_problem with_captivity is the_relationship of domination that it tends to maintain. By re-evaluating_captivity (and for many in our non-ideal_situation, there is no real alternative) we can start to ask_questions about whether and how captive conditions can,_while denying certain freedoms, still promote the