ON a recent visit to Trinidad and Tobago, I joined my family for a trip to the nearby zoo. The experience itself was a beautiful one. It was memorable primarily because we got pretty close to exotic animals, many of which one only sees in books or in images online.

What struck a chord with me, though, was that these animals were in captivity. None was in its natural habitat, and I was paying to see them.

A beautiful giraffe stretched up to get a leaf, and I thought to myself, it should not be in that zoo. Two young Bengal tigers played in front of a group of curious onlookers, and I thought to myself, those cubs did not belong there. I could not help but ask myself what right we have as humans for keeping them there.

We can always justify visits to the zoo by telling ourselves that the fees we pay go towards the upkeep of the facilities and the maintenance of the animals. We can even tell ourselves that, because of our efforts, these animals are being kept safe; they are being protected from poachers and others who would intentionally do them harm.

I own a pet dog, a Papillion that has been with us for over eight years. The truth is, I never really stopped to consider whether or not I was being fair to her by keeping her in my care all these years. When she is not tied, she is running around in the enclosed yard. I occasionally take her for a walk. I am not proud of it. In fact, I know I can treat her better. But there is something that almost feels a bit hypocritical about being called a person who is striving to be Christ-like, and being the proud owner of a pet. Do I have the right to keep my little dog in captivity under the guise that I am caring for her?

Many Christian pet owners will quickly remind me that I have been given dominion over the animals. They will point out that the book of Genesis demonstrates that authority given to man. That may be true, but does having dominion over the animals automatically mean man has been given the power to control, enslave or capture, or does it suggest we have been given the responsibility to take care of the animals?

The Abrahamic religions do not revere animals as much as some other religions do. Hinduism does not hide the high esteem with which it holds animals, especially cattle. However, one may be tempted to argue that Hindus treat animals as well as they do because they believe these animals house the souls of their ancestors or are representatives of their gods.

There is sufficient evidence in the Bible that shows that both Judaism and Christianity often see animals as a means to an end, and treat them accordingly. Whether the animal was being used for sacrifice or for labour or for food, or in rare instances for worship, the animal was always used to accomplish some task.

Animals are more than that, though. Domesticated or wild, they have a right to coexist with us. They have the right to be protected from abuse. They have the right to be shielded from exploitation. They have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones when threatened.

Zoos, some homes and shelters can be havens for animals in need of care. Unfortunately, they can also be traps and places of torture for these creatures we often consider lesser than us. And so it is important to find a balance.

As civilised human beings, each of us can treat animals with greater respect. Whether or not one is religious, we may discover, upon introspection, that it should not matter whether we understand the animal or where it comes from or what it seeks. At the end of the day, we should be focused on treating others as we would like to be treated ourselves. And that is not just a religious principle. That is a human principle. After all, we are animals too.

Dexter Wharton is a linguist, theologian and communications officer at the Global Interfaith Council. Comments: dexterwharton@gmail.com