Freedom is generally considered a basic human right, albeit with caveats. To clarify, I mean freedom in a physical sense, ie. as the absence of literal, external containment. By this definition, obviously most zoo animals are not free. I don't think I'd be a member of this site if that fundamentally bothered me. What I'm wondering is: should it? Perhaps other forumsters adopt a different stance, instead believing that removing animals' freedom is the lesser of many evils. However, I imagine the majority are ambivalent at worst about this inherent facet of captivity. My supposition is manifested not only in our collective zoo obsession, but also keeping pets, consuming livestock products, using those tested on animals, etc. So, here's my question: is there a rational justification for the apparent double-standard? Why should freedom be a basic right for humans, but not other animals? I look forward to / hope for some interesting thoughts.