A letter written by Lois Frazier consists of additional opinions, on Jeremy Rifkin’s article “A Change of Heart about Animals.” Rifkin is an animal rights advocate, he conveys his belief that animals are quite similar to humans. Frazier supports Rifkin’s humane ideas and voices several novel opinions of disproportionate rights, such as confinement, affliction, and depletion. In the letter, she sheds light on concerning topics that Rifkin does not address. She first concentrates on an animal’s right to be free and live in a safe environment. Then elucidates her solutions and goes into further details. Her solutions consist of no animal experimentation and no usage of fur or leather clothing. Animal experimentation is inhumane. Wearing …show more content…
She believes that all humans should adopt a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle. In fact, Frazier states that consuming meat can “lead to spiritual disturbance and physical disease.” However, according to an article, “Side Effects of Switching to a Vegetarian Diet” written by Michael Kerr, informs readers that there are consequences for going vegan or vegetarian (01.14.14). He states that “protein is essential for the growth and maintenance of cells in the human body,” when limiting one 's protein consumption, it can cause one to feel anemic, dizzy and lethargic. Although there are other alternatives to proteins such as peas, rice, and soy products, they do not provide the same natural amino acids and vitamins that meats do. If the vegan or vegetarian does not eat a balanced diet, it can result in the inability to develop sufficient immunity cells from certain viruses and decrease in production of nail, hair, and skin cells. This is the first sign of malnutrition. Although, animals are an important part of our ecosystem, they are a food source in many parts of the world. To question Frazier’s ideas, would not a carnivorous animal eat you if given the chance? It is society 's obligation to treat everything and everyone with dignity and compassion. As the dominant race, it gives humans the responsibility to make a change. The change one makes does not have to be drastic, but thinking about one 's decisions can create a sanctuary for many animals. This planet is a delicate balance between life and death, destroying that relationship can wreak havoc on the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In her work “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights,” Vicki Hearne challenges common beliefs of animal rights, arguing that animal rights groups do very little to actually benefit animals. She argues that natural selection should be allowed to take place for wild animals, and animals such as cats and dogs should not be seen as property. To persuade the audience to support her position, she uses ethos, pathos, and logos. Her credibility as a trainer makes the logic behind her views reliable, her logic reinforces the examples she uses, and she appeals to emotion using her relationship with her Airedale, Drummer, to support everything her argument is saying. Through these strategies, Vicki Hearne effectively counters the current, popular views of the
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 “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
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
16 November 2016 Dear Mr. Rifkin, Jeremy Rifkin writes an incredible article which is warm hearting and does not go over the top. He states that animals are more like humans and don't get the credit they deserve. He also backs up his evidence not with personal opinion but with facts. He talks about pigs who crave affection, intelligent animals, and devastating tragedies that animals feel when losing one of their own.
To begin, when talking about animals it can be a very sensitive subject mainly because the way animals are treated on farms, and how no one feels the need to question these actions. This is because many people feel this issue doesn’t concern them. In this essay Matthew Scully discusses the issue on how animals are treated and how they should be given more respect, and attention. Matthew Scully argues that animals in these factory farms are wrongfully treated, he uses biblical references and addresses the morals of humans to get conservatives to act on this matter.
In An Animal’s Place, Michael Pollan describes the growing acknowledgement of animal rights, particularly America’s decision between vegetarianism and meat-eating. However, this growing sense of sentiment towards animals is coupled with a growing sense of brutality in farms and science labs. According to Pollan, the lacking respect for specific species of animals lies in the fact that they are absent from human’s everyday lives; enabling them to avoid acknowledgment of what they are doing when partaking in brutality towards animals. He presents arguments for why vegetarianism would make sense in certain instances and why it would not and ultimately lead to the decision of eating-meat while treating the animals fairly in the process. Pollan
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 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
In the beginning of Norcross, Alastair introduces an analogy. The analogy consists of two premises and a conclusion. The first of the premises looks into the story of Fred. Fred was in an auto accident and he damaged his Godiva gland. Therefore, he decided to torture puppies in order to produce cocoamone.
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).
Animal cruelty is becoming an issue that is too big to ignore. It can be defined as neglect or the infliction of pain or suffering towards animals. One might notice that this is an issue that is becoming more common in zoos and aquariums. These places can be wonderful for the animals, but can also portray an awful life for the captive animals. No animal should have to go through the pain and stress that many are suffering through.
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.
Today the modern American is not vegan, but what is commonly known as a “meat-eater,” or more specifically an omnivore. It is widely known that eating meat comes with various positive and negative attributions. Though for non meat-eaters, where does their health state stand? Becoming vegan for one's health,