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.
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
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 Jeremy Rifkin’s article, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, proves his statement that many of our fellow creatures also “feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love..”. I agree that animals share similar feelings as us, and I believe that they should be treated in a way that they can feel comfortable and care in their surroundings. Just because animals may not be completely the same as us, that should not give the right to a human to mistreat and abuse of an animal’s life. Animals can be well treated and cared for without giving them the right to be treated as a human.
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.
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. Not everybody is going to have same point of views in arguments.
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.
Rifkin’s overall view of animals is that they should have more rights. I strongly disagree in giving animal more rights than some humans worldwide do not have. We, as humans, live off these animals. They are what we survive on. We need them for their meat and their fur. It is basically survival of the fittest. Giving animal’s rights should be necessary only if they are being abused. For example, forcing dogs to fight other dogs till one is dead. If the animals are killed for our basic human needs than it should not be wrong.
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
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 this passage by Royal Dixon, the author incorporated various persuasive techniques to build an extremely well-crafted essay, which encourages the readers’ respect toward the animals. By emphasizing the common aspects of the animals and the human, the author attempted to convey his points that animals deserves more respect. His logic and persuasiveness was strengthened through rhetorical question, criticism of the limitation of science, and emphasis on the interconnection between humans and animals. The author is mindfully persuasive from the very beginning starting off his essay by rhetorical questions. His intentional manipulation of structure of placing the rhetorical questions directly after the commonly held concept of “we cannot treat men He claims that the science is imperfect due to its defect of leaving out feelings. The author first discusses the descriptions of human in the scientific approach that humans are “merely a machine to be explained in terms of neurons and nervous impulses, heredity and environments and reactions to outside stimuli”. Consequently, however, he incorporated rhetorical question, “who is there who does not believe that there is more to man that that?”, provoking the empathy that humans are indeed much more valuable beings that such simplistic explanation. He attempts use this created empathy and apply this concept to the animals as well. This encouraged the readers to approach this matter not with the heads, but with hearts, changing the perception of animals not as a mere inferior creature, but as a being of intellect and feelings as humans. Although the author revealed his unsatisfaction toward mechanistic interpretation, he approaches his argument in a scientific way to counter his audience, who may still disagree with him based on the scientific fact of superiority in intelligent of humans over the animals.
How animals are treated can also affect daily human life. Animal rights are rights given to animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse and enumerates further rights for laboratory animals, farm animals, companion animals, and wildlife. Some animals should have a Bill of Rights. This law does go against centuries of human culture. This law would increase the cost of food. This law would hinder medical research.
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
Some animals had more power and influence which caused a struggle of power between some animals. The animals were all different species; each of them were raised to do different jobs. They had different intelligence levels and some of the animals like Boxer were strong and worked hard while other animals guided work but used their intellect to further the farm. Different jobs were looked up to and respected because of their wisdom and some of the jobs were reserved for certain people because of their power. It was assumed the animals with wisdom would govern the farm as shown, "... the pigs, who were manifestly cleverer than the other animals, should decide all questions of farm policy." (ch.5 pg.47) It all clearly points to the fact that all animals (and humans) have different strengths and different jobs and that they are not equal. This is also the case because some of the animals capabilities elevated their status within their society. This inequality sometimes helped the farm by providing a firm government but often lead to harsh mistreatment of many of the animals. The only reason animals often listened to the leader was because he had ferocious dogs protected him and in certain cases he used that power to protect his own interests. Many of the animals tried to take advantage of this situation by siding with the animals with more power. By showing the
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