Jeremy Rifkin A Change Of Heart About Animals Analysis

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

Animals carry an important role throughout human lives every day. Humans look to animals for numerous things such as: pets, a means of production, food, entertainment, experimental means, etc. Many animals carry human like traits, which raises many arguments and different positions on the subject of whether animals deserve rights while others feel that animals are simply animals, but may have certain interests that humans are obligated to respect. The issue is that many people confuse the terms animal rights and animal welfare when there is a fundamental difference between the two that revolves around the rights that humans have to use animals.

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.

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 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.

What is the difference between wild animals and humans? Humans live in a world of affection, where emotions and self moral rights matter. In the same manner as humans, wild animals live in a world like ours where they too feel emotions. So what is the correct answer to the question… Nothing in reality, wild animals are like humans. In a very similar matter, they both have common characteristics that relate to one another. In many researches today, it has been proven that animals feel the same effectiveness we have towards them. Studies have shown that animals are more like us than we understand; therefore, they deserve human rights.

Many of us, nowadays, eat and enjoy eating meat but many would agree that this is actually not an ethical action. Michael Pollan, in his persuasive style article “An Animal's Place" published in The New Work Times Magazine, on November 10, 2002 intends to persuade his audience that humans should respect animals and as long as they are treated well in farms and give them a more peaceful life and death it will be fine to eat them. According to Pollan, in today's huge industrial farms, cruel and unbearable things happen that are against animals rights. There is a high possibility that in the future these actions will stop as already some protest for animal rights have begun, because animals have feelings and farms take advantage of them thinking that they are mere machines, making them suffer. The solution to this conflict according to the author who supports friendly farms that respect and give a fun and secure life for animals. I believe that the author is convincing because he first makes clear what the argument is about, he then presents both moral arguments and

In his article “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Rifkin points out that “ they feel pain, suffer, and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love--- and these findings are changing how we view animals.” Currently people are treating animals with disrespect by abusing , eating them , and slaughtering them. Rifkins point of view is to catch people's attention to change their attitude towards animal abuse so that we can think twice about animal cruelty. He states that animals have the similar intelligence as us human beings. I agree with Rifkins point of view for the fact that we need to change the way we treat animals because they’re similar to us human beings.

Michael Pollan brings to our attention the arguments that relate to the treatment of animals. He begins his essay with examples talking about how pigs are seen as nothing more than meat and how dogs get their own birthday and Christmas presents. Here he questions how certain animals receive different attitudes from us and makes us think about how each animal has a different fate. Pollan wants us to question ourselves and to look at animals from another perspective and see if they deserve more equality or if we need to have a different attitude towards them all together. These arguments are very effective in that they make us question of whether or not our attitude towards certain animals are different because of how they are used or in our eyes some are just more important than others. The author highlighted another paradox when it came to analyzing human attitude towards eating

Although Jeremy Rifkin, Bob stevens, and Lois Frazier have all written about their view on animals and how they are treated globally, but when bringing in animal rights groups like ASPCA and PETA, different bias and tactics are newly introduced.

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.

Tracy Reiman from the Tribune news service describes animal rights and cruelty during a time of racism in the United States. She explains events from the past to compare the similarities of how we have treated other people to how we treat animals today. Her persuasive method is very effective and kept me tuned in the whole time by using pathos in almost all of her examples. Reiman’s use of comparisons along with her explanations from different perspectives really make the reader think and feel a connection. This is why I strongly support Reiman’s claims on animal rights and treatments.

Imagine a day in the life of a common farm animal. Far from the peaceful grazing life one would envision, the livestock of today endure horrific conditions - from suffering painful diseases to being separated from their mothers at too young of an age. Not only are these conditions harmful to the animals, the food produced by them is unnecessary to humanity’s well-being and can even be damaging to society’s overall health. Since the definition of ethics is having well-founded standards of right and wrong, this process of producing meat for our consumption is unethical.