Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
The arguments of animal rights
Animal rights philosophy arguements essay
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.
The arguments of animal rights
Animal rights philosophy arguements essay
The arguments of animal rights
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
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,” 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?
In Jeremy Rifkin’s article, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, he argues that animals have feelings and emotions and are more similar to humans than expected. This claim is true and Rifkin has strong evidence that proves his claim including how animals show a sense of self and are very intelligent. A study by the Washington National Zoo reports that “orangutans given mirrorrs explore parts of their bodies they can’t otherwise see, showing a sense of self” (Rifkin 10). This study supports Rifkin’s claim because this qualified study proves that animals have a sense of self. Animals are curious about their bodies and looks; when given the opportunity to see themselves, animals often inspect and groom their bodies.
As a whole, Rifkin argues the importance of treating animals with respect based on the fact that animals share characteristics with humans. I agree that animals do deserve to be treated with respect and honor, but should animals really be treated like human beings? One must look at the imperfect world we live in, it is man against man, the survival of the fittest. This evolutionary concept even takes place in the animal kingdom, one must hunt and kill for survival. Thus, will giving a pig a toy or assuring that animals are happy, change the fact that they be slaughtered and become man’s source of nutrition?
In the article titled "A Change of Heart About Animals," (2003), author Jeremy Rifkin addresses that contrary to previous research and discovery, new breakthroughs in science are finding that animals are more comparable to humans than we once thought, and as a result, human empathy should be extended towards them. Rifkin supports his claim by providing numerous examples of studies that show capabilities of animals to make tools (crows), develop complex language skills (Gorilla), and present signs of self-awareness (Orangutan); things once believed only to be human characteristics (Rifkin 7, 8, 10). The author's purpose is to inform and convince the readers that empathy should be inclusive to all animals by providing a multitude of studies,
Your newspaper recently published an editorial by Jeremy Rifkin author of the Biotech Century “A Change of heart about animals” in which he suggests that animals deserve empathy from humans because they are also capable of intelligence. Rifkin explains many studies on animals that have proven that animals are intelligent and for that reason they deserve empathy(33-34).I'm of two minds about Jeremy Rifkin's claim that empathy should be extended to animals. On the one hand, I agree that animals are more like us than we think, so empathy shall be given to them. On the other hand, I'm not sure if extending empathy to animals is a good idea because it would affect the economy, slow down medical advancements, and hurt humans by having to convert to a meat free diet (vegetarians).
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.
Animals who are able to surpass these barriers are able to receive our empathy and their rights, but in Jeremy Rifkin’s, “A Change of Heart About Animals,” he talks ideas about all animals should receive our empathy for great acts of the few. The individual animal receive its equal rights, not by a single entity achieving it for the mass, but by the individual must showing intelligences, emotions and feelings, and most importantly, the ability to co-exist with others; including human and other animals alike. An animal must show intelligences, the ability to communicate, solve problems, and follow simple instructions. In “A Change of Heart About Animals,” Rifkin refers to a gorilla, named Koko, who learned sign language.
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
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.
As a society there should be a continuation of proceeding to develop new laws. Animals have rights that are not being protected or considered when they are not given the chance to live without suffering or harm. Additionally animal rights are violated when they are used as products for experimentation. Animal experimentations