Summary Of Jeremy Rifkin A Change Of Heart About Animals

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

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.

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.

In the letter, she sheds light on concerning topics that Rifkin does not address. She first concentrates on an animal’s right to be free and live in a safe environment. Then elucidates her solutions and goes into further details. Her solutions consist of no animal experimentation and no usage of fur or leather clothing. Animal experimentation is inhumane. Wearing

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

Currently people are treating animals with disrespect by abusing , eating , and slaughtering them. In his article “ A Change of 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.” In the 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

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”. (Rifkin) For the subject of pathos, he tries to sway with what he calls the “ultimate test of what distinguishes humans from animals” (Rifkin) which are a test of

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.

Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals is a book about persuasion. Foer seeks to convince his readers to take any step in reducing what he believes is the injustice of harming animals. To achieve this, Foer employs many persuasion techniques and often changes his approach when he targets specific groups. His strategies include establishing himself as an ethical authority and appealing to his readers’ emotions, morals, and reason.

Cows, one of the most farmed animals in the world, are described as highly sentient and intelligent individuals with markedly different personalities (Bekoff). Not only are cows able to learn different tasks, solve complex puzzles, and discriminate between different people and animals, they also form strong bonds with their fellow cows. For females, the closest bond they form is with their calf - who is typically ripped away from its mother within 48 hours of suckling. The trauma this separation causes is extremely apparent, from calling to one another for days to pacing back and forth in an effort to be reunited. Alongside doubts about farm animals’ mental and emotional intelligence, the myth that animals can live a decent life and still be killed humanely for our consumption is unreasonable at best. First, even a marginally better death is still death. The life we give these animals by breeding them does not give us the right to nonchalantly take it away for our own pleasure. As Ashley Byrne, a PETA campaign specialist, says, “Slaughter can be less cruel, but not humane.” Additionally, in an interview with the General Managers of one of the most progressive slaughterhouses, it is revealed that the owners ‘sometimes get attached to the cattle and occasionally spare one they become close to, keeping it as a pet’