A Change Of Heart About Animals Analysis

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 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,

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

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.

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,

The article, “Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and “Dignity” to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?” by Ed Yong is trying to convince the reader to see a different side to primates. The Great Ape Project set legal rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and orangutan. United Kingdom and New Zealand protect great apes from experimentation. For the Great Ape Project they are basically setting laws and higher standards for primates to me experimented on or held captive.

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

Primates deserve human rights because they have been forced to do many things that they would never do with their own lives. They are veterans who have been sent up into space only to test how fast they will die, and in what ways they will die. People hold primates against their will to do things that nature would never physically allow them, and don’t care if they completely destroy a species or animal because of it. The problem

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

Primates should not be entitled to basic civil rights due to the advantages that society reaps from animal testing. “Rights” and the understanding of imposed actions are a concept that can only be grasped by the human mind. Humans are the only species that can compose themselves with cogent and sensible thinking.. Giving basic human-rights to primates, including life, protection, freedom from torture, slavery, and freedom of movement, etc. is a ridiculous idea because they are unable to reciprocate these rights onto others, due of their lack in rational thought. We, as a society, are unable to teach primates to go against their natural instincts, you cannot, for example, teach an animal not to hunt for survival or kill for protection.

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.

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.

Rights are against the use of force and they are our primary if not only our means of survival. There is only one fundamental right: To live successfully, a man has to make his own choices as well as animals too (Roleff,2014,p.33). There is a huge difference between giving animals their rights which is less than human beings and not to give them rights at all. Nowadays animals are presented in many places of entertainment such as zoos and cruces as well as aquariums where the audients pay a lot of cash to watch fun and exciting things going on, it sure makes us happy but what about the animals are they happy too? Are places of entertainment appropriate for wild animals to live in it normally?