Animals In Jeremy Rifkin's A Change Of Heart

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. 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.

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 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.

In the articles of Jeremy Rifkin, Victoria Braithwaite, and Ed Yong, there's a deep research and debate whether animals should be given the right to have human rights or not. All authors include their perspective on the issue and provide scientific evidence. However, I believe that there should be a separation of rights between animals and humans because there is no biological basis for drawing the line. Giving the right to apes, what factors exclude other mammals like dogs, cats, and birds.

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.

In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument.

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). 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,¨ 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

I agree with the claim “animals have emotions”. There are many example of animals having emotions in the short story “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell. First, Rainsford was scared and fearful when Zaroff caught him in the tree. This matters, because Rainsford was the animal, the hunted, in this story. This is important because, his emotions would be similar to an animal's emotions in this situation. Another example of Rainsford’s emotions was when Rainsford felt relief after defeating Zaroff, and being able to sleep in the bed. Lastly, Rainsford felt hesitation right before he jumped into the ocean to escape from the dogs. The reason that Rainsford’s emotions can be seen as animal’s emotions is because he was the animal. He was hunted

Everyday, the sun rises in the morning and sets at night, but the debate about hunting always remains on the table. Hunters see their killing of an animal as an achievement, they put food on their tables, or a mount on their wall. Critics see this as a cruel way for a human being to take the life of an innocent animal. In the article “Is hunting a moral? A philosopher unpacks the question” written by Joshua Duclos, examined the question of why people hunt. Dudlos purpose was to describe the different types of hunting and contemplate whether hunting is moral is not. He establishes an sympathetic tone in order to bring together each side of the argument to create a sense of unity between hunters and non-hunters. Duclos begins building his credibility

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.

These captured animals may have tags on one ear, have a piece of an ear cut off or dyed, and are kept tied up and abused (US, Public Health Service 192). Moreover, it is known that when pet animals bite a child, or become violent, they are put down, or are sent to a pound, which is equivalent to taking away their freedom. These animals therefore get removed from the general public, just in the same way that criminals became slaves and were kept together, separated from society (More 30). Hence, More believed that when humans gave into their violent tendencies, they should be treated like animals, but if they followed the rules of society and did not commit crimes, they were allowed the privileges that humans do, like freedom, and maintained the intelligence that made us better than animals

The relationship between people and animals has changed in the last 50 years. Animals who live with people have traditionally been called ‘pets’. They now tend to be referred to as ‘companion animals’. This change in terminology implies a mutual relationship between humans and animals which has been described as the ‘human-animal bond’. This relationship seems to be deepening.

Human life is precious, then how about animals? Ending human life is considered as unethical and this is against the law. However, this does not apply to animals. Even though most families treat their animals as part of their family members, animal euthanasia is still a controversial issue nowadays. Millions of dogs are euthanized in each year and several methods are used by the veterinarian to put the animal to death. Euthanasia is an act putting the animal’s death painlessly and do not show any signs of distress. The word ‘euthanasia’ is a board term in veterinary area which applies to healthy animals and terminally ill animals. Animals should have their rights and they should deserve the same way as humans because there is no difference

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? let`s find out. Some people believe that animal