ipl-logo

Jeremy Rifkin A Change Of Heart About Animals

862 Words4 Pages

Many Americans blindly believe that animals deserve the same rights as humans, but little do they know about the differences between the welfare of animals and the rights of animals. In the article A Change of Heart about Animals, Jeremy Rifkin cleverly uses certain negative words in order to convince the readers that animals need to be given same rights as humans, and if not more. Research has shown that non-human animals have the ability to “feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love” (Rifkin 33). Animals may be able to feel emotions, however this does not necessarily mean that they are able to understand what having rights mean. While humans must accept their moral responsibility to properly care for animals, …show more content…

Rifkin uses several imprecise “past researches” in his argument, and does not discuss the more recent studies that is at odds with his position. Ironically, the scientific studies in Rifkin’s article were conducted through the same experimentations that animal rights activists are trying to abolish. The author’s arguments were supported by studies on isolated pigs, laboratory crows, an exhibited gorilla, and a closed in orangutan (Rifkin 33-34). This shows that Rifkin does not mind experiments on animals that will benefit his report. Shockingly, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills over 95 percent of the dogs and cats it takes into its Norfolk, V.A. animal shelter (Myers). This proves that animal rights organizations and activists are highly hypocritical. When animal rights activists petition for a Bill of Rights for animals, they are bringing a case to court. Despite how empathetic this case seems, it is a nothing more than a case which is brought by the lawyer without either request or even understanding by the client. The client, the non-human specie, never gave their consent for petitioning a Bill of Rights. These bigotry people are forcing their own judgements and beliefs onto other people, attempting to control the rights of other species. Animal rights advocates, facetiously, represents the human specie holding the adjudication of rights over animals--the very thing that they are fighting

Show More
Related
248 Words | 1 Pages

In the op-ed piece “A Change of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin emphasizes the similarities between humans and animals by providing results on scientific research studies to illustrate that humans should be more empathetic towards animals. In addition, he further explains how research results have changed the ways humans perceived animals and indicates solutions that were taken by other countries and organizations to help improve and protect animal rights. Rifkin provides examples that demonstrate animals have emotions, conceptual abilities, self awareness, and a sense of individualism just like humans. For example, Pigs crave for affection and get depressed easily when isolated, two birds Betty and Abel have tool making skills, Koko

Read More
205 Words | 1 Pages

Jeremy Rifkin, the president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington D.C and author of “A Change of Heart About Animals” (2003), argues in this article that animals are much more like humans than we thought and that we should expand our empathy to our fellow creatures. Rifkin develops his thesis by comparing the similarities between humans and animals. An example of this is in paragraph 11 when he claims that animals show a sense of their own mortality and the mortality of their kin just like humans do. He supports this claim by giving an example of elephants standing next to their dead children for days after they have passed. The author gives that example of the elephants in order to make the reader understands just how aware these

Read More
445 Words | 2 Pages

In “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Jeremy Rifkin says “many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined.” By doing so, Rifkin tries to appeal to human emotions through the use of pathos, in order to reflect our current viewpoint to match his opinion. Although animals have cognitive abilities and emotions similar to humans, I have to disagree on the basis that we should not change the way that we normally treat animals because of survival of the fittest and that human lives should be put over animals’. Despite the fact that it seems inhumane to treat animals poorly, it is actually beneficial to the lives of people. Rifkin raises questions such as, “So what does all of this portend for the way we treat our fellow

Read More
654 Words | 3 Pages

The theory or idea that animal has rights comes from the rights that are traditionally moral and politically correct rights is a virtue from the type of culture that we are. Animal liberation comes from the utilitarian tradition that comes from ethics and mortality as coming about as a result of pleasure and/or pain, as someone’s overall well-being. When animals are caged harvest, this diminishes their well-being, which gives us the mortality that we address their decreased well-being and prescribes to us to liberate

Read More
364 Words | 2 Pages

Gabriel, Gonzalez Period.4 Mrs.Moreh ERWCA Animals. Rifkin has a point and has good solid evidence on his argument. He has one belief but other people believe in something else. Many people see animals a different way, some people just see them as pets others see them as part of their family which is nothing wrong believe me everybody has different perspectives of how they see things.

Read More
324 Words | 2 Pages

In An Animal’s Place, Michael Pollan describes the growing acknowledgement of animal rights, particularly America’s decision between vegetarianism and meat-eating. However, this growing sense of sentiment towards animals is coupled with a growing sense of brutality in farms and science labs. According to Pollan, the lacking respect for specific species of animals lies in the fact that they are absent from human’s everyday lives; enabling them to avoid acknowledgment of what they are doing when partaking in brutality towards animals. He presents arguments for why vegetarianism would make sense in certain instances and why it would not and ultimately lead to the decision of eating-meat while treating the animals fairly in the process. Pollan

Read More
554 Words | 3 Pages

Since entitlements, freedoms and rights are all affixed, we can then look more closely at the differences between animals, humans and their independent abilities to obtain justices and compassion. Overall, compassion between humans and animals is contrasted due to the vast differences in the species and their understanding of their rights and entitlements for both themselves and each

Read More
1408 Words | 6 Pages

One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477).

Read More
673 Words | 3 Pages

In the article All Animals Are Equal, written by Peter Singer addresses the inadequacies surrounding the rights of animals in the societies of today. Singer opens the article by presenting a scholarly parallels between the fight for gender equality, banishment of racism and the establishment of rights for “nonhumans.” In order to explain this constant set of inequalities that seem to riddle our society, Singer readily uses the term “speciesism”, which he acquired from a fellow animals rights advocator, Richard Ryder. Essentially, this term is defined by Singer as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. Singer claims that if this idea of speciesism

Read More
655 Words | 3 Pages

I will argue in favor of Regan’s principle that non-human animals should have moral rights. Tom Regan, a famous philosopher, proposed the idea “that animals have rights based on their inherent value as experiencing subjects of life” (Regan). For thousands of years, animals have been used for as pets, food, and labor. Throughout the past century, many philosophers, including Regan, have raised arguments on how we, as humans, are treating animals poorly.

Read More
1273 Words | 6 Pages

All these are certainly enough to intrigue even the most minimally curious among us. But do they provide support for the view that these beings have moral rights?” (1986/87, p.192-193) This article highlights irreconcilable conflict between the two sides. Jan Narveson addresses Tom Regan, the author of The Case for Animal Rights, “he in the preceding argument, refers to just anybody who doesn 't already accept whatever moral principle we are trying to establish.

Read More
756 Words | 4 Pages

Therefore, rather than basing rights off of those traits make it a vulnerability discourse. There are two main animal equality arguments, Peter Singer’s Utilitarian theory, and Tom Regan’s moral recognition theory. Singer argues, “human preference for humans rests on an unsupportable biological distinction vis-a`-vis all other animals”. While Tom Regan states, “that all beings who are ‘‘subjects-of-a-life” should receive the moral recognition and legal protection that rights afford”. The problem with the

Read More
1461 Words | 6 Pages

Singer and Scruton both present arguments about the position that animals hold in our moral sphere. Singer presents the argument that animals ought to be fully integrated into our moral community and treated equally to humans. Scruton makes a moral distinction between humans and animals, and believes that we are justified in domesticating and eating them. I agree with Scruton’s point that humans should be treated uniquely from animals and that humans do have something morally distinct about them. However, it is important to understand that animals do have the capacity to suffer and we should not exploit them strictly because we find their meat appetizing.

Read More
808 Words | 4 Pages

same inherent value we have, as a result of equal rights we owned. Having those creatures, said to be the subjects-of–a-life. Anything with inherent values, should be treated with equal respects and not to harm the one who with those creatures of inherent values. Therefore, human and animals are both with inherent values as the subject-of-a-life, must respect each other and help when in danger. Anyway, the nonhuman animal rights are fundamentally including the right to life, liberty and bodily integrity.

Read More
996 Words | 4 Pages

Many people presume true that some animals have (or should have) ethical and/or legal rights under certain prosperity. They may rescue abandoned pets, lobby for legislation against animal abuse, feed pigeons in the park, or do any number of other things on behalf of animals. These people are broadly viewed as animal welfarists. Their adherence to the idea of animal rights generally depends on the situation. This is exceptionable to animal rights fundamentalists.

Read More

More about Jeremy Rifkin A Change Of Heart About Animals

Related Topics

Open Document