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, …show more content…
Rifkin uses several imprecise “past researches” in his argument, and does not discuss the more recent studies that is at odds with his position. Ironically, the scientific studies in Rifkin’s article were conducted through the same experimentations that animal rights activists are trying to abolish. The author’s arguments were supported by studies on isolated pigs, laboratory crows, an exhibited gorilla, and a closed in orangutan (Rifkin 33-34). This shows that Rifkin does not mind experiments on animals that will benefit his report. Shockingly, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills over 95 percent of the dogs and cats it takes into its Norfolk, V.A. animal shelter (Myers). This proves that animal rights organizations and activists are highly hypocritical. When animal rights activists petition for a Bill of Rights for animals, they are bringing a case to court. Despite how empathetic this case seems, it is a nothing more than a case which is brought by the lawyer without either request or even understanding by the client. The client, the non-human specie, never gave their consent for petitioning a Bill of Rights. These bigotry people are forcing their own judgements and beliefs onto other people, attempting to control the rights of other species. Animal rights advocates, facetiously, represents the human specie holding the adjudication of rights over animals--the very thing that they are fighting
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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
The theory or idea that animal has rights comes from the rights that are traditionally moral and politically correct rights is a virtue from the type of culture that we are. Animal liberation comes from the utilitarian tradition that comes from ethics and mortality as coming about as a result of pleasure and/or pain, as someone’s overall well-being. When animals are caged harvest, this diminishes their well-being, which gives us the mortality that we address their decreased well-being and prescribes to us to liberate
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
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.
Since entitlements, freedoms and rights are all affixed, we can then look more closely at the differences between animals, humans and their independent abilities to obtain justices and compassion. Overall, compassion between humans and animals is contrasted due to the vast differences in the species and their understanding of their rights and entitlements for both themselves and each
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
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.
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.
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
Research published within the last few years has expanded our understanding of animal sentience, suggesting that an animal’s potential for suffering harm is greater than has been appreciated and that safeguards must be reassessed; however, this type of newly gained information is not taken into account in the outdated ‘‘3 Rs’’ (Ferdowsian and Beck 2). This lack of laws protecting animals and the misinformed, deficient foundation for them ultimately causes animal test subjects to suffer every day with little to no protection from cruelty and unethical practices. The true value and dangers of using animal experimentation data for predicting human outcomes has become questioned in recent years by the scientific community and in fields such as
Sargent 1 Harley Sargent Ms. Clements English 1301 12:00 9/25/17 Animal Rights Animal rights activists believe in giving the life of an animal the same importance as a human’s life. Animal welfare accepts that animals have interests but allow those interests to be traded away as long as the people benefit from the sacrifice. In contrast, animal rights theories say that animals, like humans, cannot be sacrificed or traded to benefit individuals and their needs. Animals should not have the same rights as humans because they were not put on this earth to serve as equals they were put here for us to benefit from. Animal activist want to state their opinion on how farm animals are mistreated but do not witness this abuse first hand, or they just hear it through the grapevine and believe what they hear.
However, human always ignore their feeling. B. Animals' rights are ignored 1. Animals have no option a. Animals are compelled to be tested and often painful or cause invariable damage or death, and they are never given the choice of not participating in the research 2. Human are deprived of the animals’ freedom of
Many people presume true that some animals have (or should have) ethical and/or legal rights under certain prosperity. They may rescue abandoned pets, lobby for legislation against animal abuse, feed pigeons in the park, or do any number of other things on behalf of animals. These people are broadly viewed as animal welfarists. Their adherence to the idea of animal rights generally depends on the situation. This is exceptionable to animal rights fundamentalists.
As the question consist of an analogical argument, so, I will divide this essay into three parts. I am going to define is that human are animals first, describe the rights we have and then using the Kant’s anthropocentric views, Peter Singer’s specialism, Tom Regan’s views on animal right and some examples, to give a full picture in order to support my stance. In my opinions, I strongly agree that all human are animals, but, there are some differences between the human and animals mentally. Thus, I agree with the statement of “animals also have rights”.