More handpicked essays just for you.
Rifkin a change of heart about animals article
Rifkin a change of heart about animals article
Rifkin a change of heart about animals article
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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
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
Although Jeremy Rifkin, Bob stevens, and Lois Frazier have all written about their view on animals and how they are treated globally, but when bringing in animal rights groups like ASPCA and PETA, different bias and tactics are newly introduced. Of all the articles, Jeremy Rifkin uses the most credible sources such as lab studies and examples. In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” Rifkin uses sources such as Purdue University and the European union when talking about situations. One situation he writes about is how pigs need social activity so the pigs are not “lacking mental and physical stimuli [which] hand result in deterioration of health”.
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
In A Change of Heart About Animals, author Jeremy Rifkin gives his penny for thought on the animal rights front. Rifkin states his beliefs firmly, citing evidence that supports his argument that like humans, animals are able to have emotional connections and are more like humans than we realize. However, Rifkin’s evidence swiftly begins to contradict his point. He expects humans to treat animals with equal rights without realizing animals wouldn’t be able to do the same. So, in Rifkin’s cute little imaginary world, would animals end up being superior to humans?
For instance, Rifkin establishes the individuality of each animal by identifying them with human names—Abel and Betty the crows, KoKo the gorilla, and Chantek the Orangutan. Rifkin could have excluded the names of the animals for they were likely randomly assigned, but he did not in order to connect the readers to the subjects. He furthers the relation by showing the audience the different classifications of human traits that animals exhibit—Betty was able to fashion a hook with her beak in order to obtain a morsel of food from a tube. Koko mastered over 1,000 signs in American Sign Language and understands several thousand English words while Chantek uses a mirror to floss his teeth. Rather than using a more pleasant terminology, Rifkin turns toward a negative use of language and connotation towards the end of the article, writing with words such as slaughter, inhumane, and caged (15).
As said by Lois Frazier, “Animals have a right to live without being confined, exploited, tormented, or eaten.” With the similarities animals have with humans, this right is something animals should possess, hence the animal-rights laws. Animals deserve to live in a comfortable environment just as humans do. However even with similar skills, just as Koko the gorilla has language skills, animals would not need them for survival the way humans do. Humans communicate through their own languages, but these languages may not be necessary for Koko.
A popular view in the 1900s was that some animals were good because they contributed to overall pleasure and well-being, whilst others were harmful because they perceived them as dangers to one's well-being. Animals may bring people together in a variety of ways. The most basic example is when people are drawn to a pet being walked by a stranger and feel it safe and easy to strike up a conversation because of the presence of the animal[9]. Animals in a more complicated way, form human societies by becoming the focus of shared concern and interest. With this being said many species were at risk of abuse, neglect or exploitation.
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,
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).
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
In human history, a number of oppressed groups have campaigned for equality, demanding for an expansion on the moral view of life, and to be treated fairly in the eye of consideration. This means that when the matter concerns this group, their voices are heard, and treated with value, and consideration. Where this equality is not determined by an assembly of facts like that group’s collective intelligence level, the colour of their skin, or the physical strength of their bodies. This is what Peter Singer brings up in his essay: “All Animals are Equal”, that non-human animals should have equal consideration with humans when matters concern them. Going into a specific set of non-human animals known as primates, I argue that primates should have some of the fundamental rights and equal consideration that are given to humans.
In section 3. Why Animalism is Unpopular, of “An Argument for Animalism,” Eric Olson argues that animalism is unpopular amongst contemporary philosophers. Animalism, according to Olson, is a theory that humans are numerically identical to animals (“An Argument for Animalism”, 610). This means that there is a particular human organism and that organism is you; the human organism and you are one in the same. When thinking about personal identity, Olson reasons that contemporary philosophers don’t ask what kind of things we are.
Is it right to kill those innocent creatures painfully? No. It’s not right to harm them for our own benefits. Every living soul have rights, this includes animals, and just because they can’t speak up for themselves doesn’t mean we can take that away from them. The fact that they can’t speak is a disadvantage, and it’s unethical for us to use their disadvantage against them for our own benefits.
On the one hand, some people are favorable for killing animals. It has many opinions why they have accepted. Their reasons with cruelty make them get many benefits such as nutrient, knowledge, safety, prevention, and money. The first reason for killing animals is humans killed them for consuming such as pork made from pigs, beef made from cows, and lamp made from sheep. Human’s life exists to cause by plants and animals.
