In A Change of Heart About Animals, author Jeremy Rifkin gives his penny for thought on the animal rights front. Rifkin states his beliefs firmly, citing evidence that supports his argument that like humans, animals are able to have emotional connections and are more like humans than we realize. However, Rifkin’s evidence swiftly begins to contradict his point. He expects humans to treat animals with equal rights without realizing animals wouldn’t be able to do the same. So, in Rifkin’s cute little imaginary world, would animals end up being superior to humans?
In An Animal’s Place, Michael Pollan describes the growing acknowledgement of animal rights, particularly America’s decision between vegetarianism and meat-eating. However, this growing sense of sentiment towards animals is coupled with a growing sense of brutality in farms and science labs. According to Pollan, the lacking respect for specific species of animals lies in the fact that they are absent from human’s everyday lives; enabling them to avoid acknowledgment of what they are doing when partaking in brutality towards animals. He presents arguments for why vegetarianism would make sense in certain instances and why it would not and ultimately lead to the decision of eating-meat while treating the animals fairly in the process. Pollan
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.
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,
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
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[9]. 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.
One such appeal is an appeal in which Foer urges readers, either directly or indirectly, to imagine what it would be like to be an animal. Foer defines this concept as “anthropomorphism” (the urge to project human experience onto the other animals) (46). Foer either directly asks readers to picture themselves in the place of an animal, or he relies on anthropomorphism in a more subtle way. For instance, Foer states that, “Fish build complex nests, form monogamous relationships, hunt cooperatively with other species, and use tools” (65). Foer attempts to show that animals and humans are more alike than conventional wisdom suggests.
We are their voice The ASPCA, founded in 1866, was the first humane society created in America. The ASPCA’s ultimate goal is: “to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States.” (ASPCA, “The Mission Statement”).
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. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.
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 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.
Nancy and Maria have similar opinions about animals. They both think animals should be treated the same as human beings. Animals and humans are able to learn things from each other both of the authors agree, animals help human beings, like learning how to take care of something/someone, humans teach animals simple things. Humans and animals work together to help out Earth, like Nancy said animals protect to keep their name and humans help them accomplish that. People have feelings for animals and those feeling could be stronger than they
Many people are awakening today to the idea that the animals who live with us are more than child substitutes, more than "pets". The term "pet" means an animal who lives with us for our amusement or as our companion. All animals are, in fact, sentience beings - conscious, intelligent, with life purposes and life goals. They are aware of themselves and of their situations. They make life choices.
We need to be more compassionate and empathetic about the animals that we have in this world because the situations that they go through are not as easy as we think. Just because some believe that animals don’t have emotions or a soul doesn’t mean that they cannot feel pain and misery when they are in certain situations. The same way that we feel pain when we get sting with a bruise or a cut is the same way that they will feel if they were to be in the same situation. Have you ever seen a terrible thing happen to an animal and they didn’t whelp in pain because of the damage that was done to them?
