Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Animal rights and liberalism essay
Animal rights and ethics
The arguments of 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.
Animal rights and liberalism essay
Animal rights and ethics
The arguments of animal rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In “What’s Eating America,” Micheal Pollan criticizes America’s dependence on fossil fuel and fixed nitrogen instead of organic farming. In 1947, a munition plant used explosives to make chemical fertilizers. After WWII, the surplus of ammonium nitrate are converted into agricultural purposes. Although the earth’s atmosphere consists of 80% nitrogen, almost all the atoms are useless. In 1909, Fritz Haber discovered a way to fix nitrogen molecules by using electrical lightning.
Thread 1: In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan describes what the omnivore’s dilemma actually is. He begins his book as a naturalist in a supermarket trying to decide “what to eat?”. This question is harder to answer without asking where the food originates. Knowing where food comes from is very difficult, unless it is locally grown or clearly states it on the package. Processed food is more complicated to understand where it comes from.
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
The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Through the addition of each section and detail, Pollan slowly gains a basis for his argument. An argument that challenges the very way in what and how we eat. And one that sheds light into the industrialized food chain. Essentially, his argument is to be aware of what we are eating.
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”.
“Thou shouldst eat to live; not live to eat”, is a famous quote by the well known philosopher Socrates, who believed this is the perspective we should take when we are eating food. Unfortunately, the times have changed and so has the way we eat. We no longer have to go hunting for our food, or grow crops to receive all of our fruits and vegetables. Because we have become a society that has grown into the new world of technology, there would be no need to rely on ourselves for what we need-- we can simply gather our resources from other people. In the book, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”, written by Michael Pollan, takes us on a journey full of concerns of the “Food Industrial Complex”.
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 Story “Let them eat dong: A Modest proposal for tossing Fido in the oven” Jonathan Safran Foer brings to light the idea of how some animals are seen as special and not eaten. Using dogs as the example in showing how a person wouldn’t dare to eat one, but are okay with eat a pig or any other living creature. Making the argument that all living animals have feeling and are special in their own ways, so none of them should be eaten but rather cherished like a dog is. Although the story is unbelievably well written and with great point on culture about food, equality of animals and the…, yet there is only emotional appeal and bias towards his idea of not eating meat.
They are more like us than we imagined…” these words written by Jeremy Rifkin in his article “A Change of Heart about Animals,” emphasize that like us humans, animals feel pain as well. Equivalently, Rifkin insists on the point that we need to change our ways in which we treat animals or in other words limit ourselves to a certain level of fair treatment with them. Alike us, they feel pain and suffer in many ways in cause of our actions towards them and it is not fair for an animal to be attacked this way by us humans when they as well are living their own lives and are already trying to survive themselves. In support of this, I am with Jeremy Rifkin and agree that our actions towards animals need either a change or limit. Researchers have found that animals feel pain, suffer, experience stress, affection, excitement and even love.
According to Elizabeth Harman, an action that kills an animal even painlessly, is an action that harms the animal. If we indeed have strong moral reasons against causing pain to animals, Harman argues we must also have strong moral reasons against killing animals. This raises an objection to the Surprising Claim, which states that we have strong reasons against causing intense pain to animals, but only weak reasons against killing animals. The First View claims that killing an animal deprives it of a positive benefit (future life) but does not harm the animal.
Having to think about the side effects of what we eat creates the omnivore 's dilemma. The point of the book is to realize some of the side effects of our food choices. Pollan uses the book to look at what we eat (for example, the fact that we eat so many things that contain corn) and to talk about the consequences of those choices. He looks at the ways these food choices affect our health and he also looks at the way they affect global
Machan believes he has the best theory explaining why animals do not have rights. He makes this claim by first acknowledging how
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
Sentientism has utilitarian views in which it is defined by what right institutions and actions can maximize the most amount of “happiness”. This supports sentientism in the sense that in order for a being to have moral rights, they must have the capability to feel happy or unhappy, and in order for them to feel these emotions, they first must be sentient. This then means that sentientism is another form of animal liberation. In “Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics”, Mark Sagoff extends the meaning of what environmental ethic is. This means that there is a value towards the ecosystem that can end up hurting individual animals.
DI #8: Dominion Over Animals The author argues that animal consumption is justified because the Bible has granted man dominion over animals. Claims that eating meat is immoral are refutable by scripture. The Bible is a widely embraced religious text which serves as a moral authority in people’s lives. The bible states that Man has dominion over animals, therefore he can assert his will over them.