In the article “A Change of Heart About Animals” by Jeremy Rifkin published in the Los Angeles Times on September 1, 2003 Rifkin advocates for the ethical treatment of animals and discusses how people perceive, and at times underestimate, animals and their abilities. Two letters were written, one by Lois Frazier and the other by Bob Stevens, to Rifkin in response to “A Change of Heart About Animals” and were published in the Los Angeles Times editorial section. Each letter expresses the author’s individual opinion on Rifkin’s convictions. Rifkin uses scientific studies, such as the ones conducted at Purdue University on pigs’ social behavior (Source #1 par. 4), to support his belief that
A letter written by Lois Frazier consists of additional opinions, on Jeremy Rifkin’s article “A Change of Heart about Animals.” Rifkin is an animal rights advocate, he conveys his belief that animals are quite similar to humans. Frazier supports Rifkin’s humane ideas and voices several novel opinions of disproportionate rights, such as confinement, affliction, and depletion. In the letter, she sheds light on concerning topics that Rifkin does not address. She first concentrates on an animal’s right to be free and live in a safe environment.
The passage explains how the meat productions were handling their meat at very low sanitation levels (Doc.D). These meat companies were letting rats
He continues to look at the “rights” of moral agents and that moral agents can only be if they themselves can make moral decisions. Animals cannot make moral
The passage is saying that we should treat the animals that we normally eat just like we treat puppies, which are normally treated like family. Morality comes into play and presents that if we don’t torture puppies for our eating pleasures then we should not support factory farms since they torture animals, which end up being eaten for our pleasure. The author is unable to find a morally relevant difference between Fred and people who eat factory raised meat, at least ones that consume the meat that know what the animals have endured to end up on their plates. The passage relates greatly to the view of the author. The author explained that if we condemn Fred’s behavior, which was only to heighten his gustatory experience then shouldn’t we condemn
In their current position, no man, at least to the reader’s knowledge, has attempted to treat the animals well. As far as the animals are concerned, all men are enemies. This thought-process, however, results in injustice of its own form. 3.
Moreover, when those in favour of zoos accept that there may be a particular shortcoming with keeping animals, or a particular species of animal in the zoo setting, it is also deemed to be morally unacceptable based on negative consequences. An example of this can be seen in the announcement made by the Detroit zoo, who declared that they would stop keeping elephants due to the fact that even their best attempt at constructing a decent elephant habitat is lacking, and only leads to elephant suffering (Jamieson 2006: 141). Furthermore, we judge the conditions of individual animals within zoos to be good or bad as a matter of degree, where the overall situation for a particular animal could be brought to be worse and made better, if modifications were made, to their enclosure for instance, that resulted in changes in the animals welfare. As such, there are clear reasons to utilise a utilitarian framework for evaluating zoos and aquariums. In fact, it may be said that utilitarianism is already the default moral theory that is, by and large, already adopted by those involved in both the institutions
“Several nights a week, after Mr. Jones was asleep, they held secret meetings in the barn and expounded the principles of Animalism to the others” (13). This is important because
Argumentative Paper Zoos and aquariums have been around since the times of the Romans and the Egyptians. Although the zoos and aquariums have adapted since those times, they still have the same concept behind them. Although zoos and aquariums have been around for ages, over the decades, controversy about these two places have grown. Although most people don’t think anything of it, there is a huge debate as to whether zoos and aquariums are acceptable or not. This topic can be very touchy to some people and can sometimes cause disputes.
Zoos Should Be Banned Imagine you are five years old, someone breaks into your home, kills your aunt and possibly your older brother in the process of kidnapping you. You are separated from your loved ones, leaving your mother in severe pain and grief. You are taken somewhere unknown, imprisoned in a cell where people come watch you for their own entertainment.
Zoos and can be places where the imagination and creativity of people, especially children, can come alive and inspire them to tread avenues that they never expected they would take. In the early years of my childhood, I spent many hours observing and studying wild animal exhibits in zoos in Seattle Washington. I would imagine myself in my dream world as zoo keeper or a veterinarian helping animals and knowing them each by name. As I studied and let my imagination run free; I knew that someday, somehow, I would be involved in the care of animals. Without the establishment of zoos and, I would have never realized my dreams and perused a career in biology and animal care.
Zoos are establishments were wild animals are collectively maintained, typically in a park or gardens, for study, conservation, or display to the public. They are much more than a collection of animals and more important than ever, because zoos are a productive and successful strategy for protecting endangered species worldwide. The majority of endangered species are suffering from habitat destruction or exploitation. Captive breeding becomes the last option when basic strategies of preservation and protection in the wild are ineffective. The survival of Pere David 's deer, Przewalski 's horses, the North American wood bison, and the Arabian oryx, are common examples of productive conservation efforts undertaken by zoos worldwide.
(ch.5 pg.47) It all clearly points to the fact that all animals (and humans) have different strengths and different jobs and that they are not equal. This is also the case because some of the animals capabilities elevated their status within their society. This inequality sometimes helped the farm by providing a firm government but often lead to harsh mistreatment of many of the animals. The only reason animals often listened to the leader was because he had ferocious dogs protected him and in certain cases he used that power to protect his own interests.
Argumentative Essay: Is keeping animals in captivity wrong? By Fu Yat Tsing P6Y Everyone loves a good trip to the zoo. Who doesn’t love dolphin shows and awesome animals? When we think of zookeepers, the image of caring humans playing with animals always come to mind.
Imagine you are taken from your home, mother, and environment to a small cage where everybody is looking at you, taking pictures, and having fun. Your owners sell you to a bad zoo where all animals only get food sometimes and the bare cages are cold because you’re getting too expensive to feed and even take care of. This is why I take the position that zoos should be banned because they can cause Animal cruelty, Too expensive, and finding new homes. Say no to zoos!
