Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarianism essay for animal rights
Utilitarianism on animal rights
Utilitarianism on animal rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarianism essay for animal rights
Utilitarianism on animal rights
Utilitarianism on animal rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Utilitarianism essay for animal rights
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
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?
In the article,¨ A Change of Heart about Animals¨, author Jeremy Rifkin presents to the reader that he believes that animals are similar to humans in many different perspectives. In the article he talks about the emotions of different animals and he gives different examples such as the pigs that support his main claim. He then goes on to explain the cognitive abilities of the animals and starts to explain the thinking process of the animals. He also explains that the people should be more aware about animals and how they are being treated. He is trying to have people have a change of heart in how they view animals, he wishes people to be more aware of what goes on in animals and how they are so much like us, they should be treated and thought
Singer’s focus is more towards the way we should treat animals and feels that they should
Nicole Thai 1603 Bajet - Blk 4 Expo 15 September 2014 Response to “A Change of Heart About Animals” by Jeremy Rifkin There has always been a hierarchy among the creatures of nature. Within this accepted hierarchy, humans have always deemed themselves superior to the animals we share the earth with.
A group of teenagers stole a puppy from his owners garden and abused him for hours. According to an RSPCA inspector, this is one of the worst cases the inspector had ever seen. The tiny chihuahua yorkshire terrier mix, named Chunky, was kicked, burned, hit, fed drugs, and had his neck squeezed before being left for dead. The eight month dog was eventually found and taken to a vet immediately. After four months, Chunky has fully recovered physically and is nice and playful.
A life is a life, i think that every living organisms on this planet that are breathing are important and we all should treat others with respect and with love. Animals are like us, not physically, but they can feel pain and lonely when we mistreated them in some ways. I believe humanity has the ethical obligation to change their behavior towards animals. In the article, “ A change of Hearts on Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin stated some of his key points that humans should focuses more on animals’ feelings.
We are not alone on this Earth. We, humans, have animals by our side. We share this inhabitable planet together with animals, and they should have same right as we do on this beautiful planet. Animals are pure instinctual living creatures who never think before following their instincts. They won’t think otherwise before killing a person.
In Jeremy Rifkin’s article, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, proves his statement that many of our fellow creatures also “feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love..”. I agree that animals share similar feelings as us, and I believe that they should be treated in a way that they can feel comfortable and care in their surroundings. Just because animals may not be completely the same as us, that should not give the right to a human to mistreat and abuse of an animal’s life. Animals can be well treated and cared for without giving them the right to be treated as a human.
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,
Tom Regan Regan is professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University. He is a deontologist and an abolitionist. He argues that at least some animals are “subjects-of-a-life”. This means they have beliefs, desires, memories, and sense of their own future, and because of this they must be treated as an end, not a means to an end.
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.
In his work, Tom Regan establishes the rights of animals used in scientific research. He argues that when animals are used as objects of experiment, they are not respected and their inherent value is not acknowledged. Having inherent value, as defined by Regan, is a state, in which a being is not just a vessel, but a being with a complex mental life. All who have inherent value are to have it equally.
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.
Animal Rights Some people assume that just because animals cannot speak that they cannot feel pain. It is not okay to torture living beings that have their own thoughts and breathe the exact same air us humans breathe. It is unjust and selfish to stand by and take no action while everyday hundreds if not thousands of innocent animals die without reason. No matter how much fur or how many limbs the creature has; it should be treated as equal as a person. A heart beat is a heartbeat regardless of the body it’s in.