Summary Of Rifkin's Overall View Of 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.

“This is your heritage, he said, as if from this dance we could know about his own childhood, about the flavor and grit of tenement buildings in Spanish Harlem, and projects in Red Hook, and dance halls, and city parks, and about his own Paps, how he beat him, how he taught him to dance, as if we could hear Spanish in his movements, as if Puerto Rico was a man in a bathrobe, grabbing another beer from the fridge and raising it to drink, his head back, still dancing, still steeping and snapping perfectly in time.” (Torres, 10). Within We the Animals by Justin Torres, we find a sad narrative of anger depression and woe. The main focus of said story is how family dynamics and real life experiences led a child to

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.

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 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

For example the Humane Slaughter Act applies only to slaughterhouses that sell meat to the federal government or the federal government agencies. Another example would include the Twenty Eight-Hour Act. With the Twenty Eight-Hour act animals transported by train were protected while those who were transported by trucks were not. Although there are laws evolving in the protection of animals they have their limits. With laws having their limits the laws may not protect animals under all circumstances. As a society there should be a continuation of proceeding to develop new laws. Animals have rights that are not being protected or considered when they are not given the chance to live without suffering or harm.

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.

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

As a whole, Rifkin argues the importance of treating animals with respect based on the fact that animals share characteristics with humans. I agree that animals do deserve to be treated with respect and honor, but should animals really be treated like human beings? One must look at the imperfect world we live in, it is man against man, the survival of the fittest. This evolutionary concept even takes place in the animal kingdom, one must hunt and kill for survival. Thus, will giving a pig a toy or assuring that animals are happy, change the fact that they be slaughtered and become man’s source of nutrition?

Animals have always played a pivotal role in societies throughout the past. Some communities praise animals, while others use them as a symbol of wealth, and some sectors own animals merely as companions. Throughout the article “The Case Against Pets” Francione and Charlton (2015) argue that animals must not be property, and consequently need to gain basic animal rights. As law professors at Rutgers University, and publishers of a book about animal rights, the author’s viewpoints and research are held credible. Nevertheless, despite their arguments being supported by validated and reliable evidence, both authors are biased towards their viewpoints.

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.

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.

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

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. Not everybody is going to have same point of views in arguments.