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,
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
“He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” Philosopher Immanuel Kant explains that someone who treats animals cruelly becomes cruel with those around him, expressing that animals and humans should be treated with the same respect. The practice of using animals for entertainment has been around for centuries, it had been known for Kings and Lords to had kept animals to show their wealth and superiority. The use of animals in circuses arose in Europe during the 1790s.
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.
He explains of the stress filled lives these animals endure for the pleasure of humans. The humans are not properly aware of the situations of these animals. They are consistently in cramped cages in farms, while human’s sense of morality towards farm animals has been nonexistent. Norcross’s conclusion does not argue against eating meat, but he justifies it to an extent. Norcross compares two distinctive creatures in his argument, and their comparison does not justify his point of view.
Initially, the authors argue that the domestication of animals must be prohibited as it violates the basic rights of animals and raises moral questions. One right that animals must obtain is the right not to be property. When animals are a property they are mistreated and not protected. Despite the laws that governments such as the US and UK established towards animals, they only seem to be effective when a conflict arises between the owner and the animal. Furthermore, the
To begin, when talking about animals it can be a very sensitive subject mainly because the way animals are treated on farms, and how no one feels the need to question these actions. This is because many people feel this issue doesn’t concern them. In this essay Matthew Scully discusses the issue on how animals are treated and how they should be given more respect, and attention. Matthew Scully argues that animals in these factory farms are wrongfully treated, he uses biblical references and addresses the morals of humans to get conservatives to act on this matter.
(Marquis, 1987). Kant and Hence have the arguments that people do not have the duty for considering animal, but their theory is hard to explain is that possible for men would do harm on people because of hurting animal or some people do not inflict animals so that they will not do it on human. The alternative arguments on wrongness of the wanton infliction which considers more on the reader or some people themselves in the situation which the animals may face, so this is plausible. The wrongness of infliction on animals is approved, and the structure to prove this argument is similar with considering the lost of future on adult or young children for abortion, so the arguments which states that abortion is impermissible is powered by the analyze of why infliction of animal is wrong. During
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.
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.
Paper #1 In the essay “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace, the author present “preference” and its application in ethical practices on the topic of boiling lobsters. The author argues that there is a correlation between preference and pain that drives morality. Wallace’s arguments are supported by personal accounts and factual evidence taken from scientific studies. The clinical facts offers a background analysis on the lobster; while the personal accounts queries lobster as sentient beings. The use of factual evidence, emotional appeal aided by evidence from the text, presents a cohesive argument on preference and it’s relation to empathy and/or torture.
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.
Standards of morality are often complex as morality is determined by different social aspects. In The White Tiger written by Aravind Adiga, it’s difficult to judge whether the protagonist Balram’s murder of his master, Mr. Ashok, is either completely moral or immoral, because there are so many circumstances surrounding Balram’s actions. Sacrificing his family’s lives and renouncing all the things that Mr. Ashok has done for him, Balram’s murder of his employer would be considered immoral according to social standard. However, from Balram’s perspective, the murder is necessary and moral since he greatly longs to be “a man” and uses the money that he steals from his master for good purposes. Indeed, the theme of morality plays an essential role in The White Tiger; the complexity of morality is shown through Balram’s murder, which is immoral from society’s view, but moral at the same time in Balram’s situation because it can help him to have a better life and use his master’s money for the common good.