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. Of all the articles, Jeremy Rifkin uses the most credible sources such as lab studies and examples. In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” Rifkin uses sources such as Purdue University and the European union when talking about situations. One situation he writes about is how pigs need social activity so the pigs are not “lacking mental and physical stimuli [which] hand result in deterioration of health”.
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
In the article titled "A Change of Heart About Animals," (2003), author Jeremy Rifkin addresses that contrary to previous research and discovery, new breakthroughs in science are finding that animals are more comparable to humans than we once thought, and as a result, human empathy should be extended towards them. Rifkin supports his claim by providing numerous examples of studies that show capabilities of animals to make tools (crows), develop complex language skills (Gorilla), and present signs of self-awareness (Orangutan); things once believed only to be human characteristics (Rifkin 7, 8, 10). The author's purpose is to inform and convince the readers that empathy should be inclusive to all animals by providing a multitude of studies,
A life is a life, i think that every living organisms on this planet that are breathing are important and we all should treat others with respect and with love. Animals are like us, not physically, but they can feel pain and lonely when we mistreated them in some ways. I believe humanity has the ethical obligation to change their behavior towards animals. In the article, “ A change of Hearts on Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin stated some of his key points that humans should focuses more on animals’ feelings.
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,
A popular view in the 1900s was that some animals were good because they contributed to overall pleasure and well-being, whilst others were harmful because they perceived them as dangers to one's well-being. Animals may bring people together in a variety of ways. The most basic example is when people are drawn to a pet being walked by a stranger and feel it safe and easy to strike up a conversation because of the presence of the animal. Animals in a more complicated way, form human societies by becoming the focus of shared concern and interest. With this being said many species were at risk of abuse, neglect or exploitation.
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. 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
They are more like us than we imagined…” these words written by Jeremy Rifkin in his article “A Change of Heart about Animals,” emphasize that like us humans, animals feel pain as well. Equivalently, Rifkin insists on the point that we need to change our ways in which we treat animals or in other words limit ourselves to a certain level of fair treatment with them. Alike us, they feel pain and suffer in many ways in cause of our actions towards them and it is not fair for an animal to be attacked this way by us humans when they as well are living their own lives and are already trying to survive themselves. In support of this, I am with Jeremy Rifkin and agree that our actions towards animals need either a change or limit. Researchers have found that animals feel pain, suffer, experience stress, affection, excitement and even love.
In section 3. Why Animalism is Unpopular, of “An Argument for Animalism,” Eric Olson argues that animalism is unpopular amongst contemporary philosophers. Animalism, according to Olson, is a theory that humans are numerically identical to animals (“An Argument for Animalism”, 610). This means that there is a particular human organism and that organism is you; the human organism and you are one in the same. When thinking about personal identity, Olson reasons that contemporary philosophers don’t ask what kind of things we are.
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
In human history, a number of oppressed groups have campaigned for equality, demanding for an expansion on the moral view of life, and to be treated fairly in the eye of consideration. This means that when the matter concerns this group, their voices are heard, and treated with value, and consideration. Where this equality is not determined by an assembly of facts like that group’s collective intelligence level, the colour of their skin, or the physical strength of their bodies. This is what Peter Singer brings up in his essay: “All Animals are Equal”, that non-human animals should have equal consideration with humans when matters concern them. Going into a specific set of non-human animals known as primates, I argue that primates should have some of the fundamental rights and equal consideration that are given to humans.
Is it right to kill those innocent creatures painfully? No. It’s not right to harm them for our own benefits. Every living soul have rights, this includes animals, and just because they can’t speak up for themselves doesn’t mean we can take that away from them. The fact that they can’t speak is a disadvantage, and it’s unethical for us to use their disadvantage against them for our own benefits.
On the one hand, some people are favorable for killing animals. It has many opinions why they have accepted. Their reasons with cruelty make them get many benefits such as nutrient, knowledge, safety, prevention, and money. The first reason for killing animals is humans killed them for consuming such as pork made from pigs, beef made from cows, and lamp made from sheep. Human’s life exists to cause by plants and animals.