A Change Of Heart About Animals Analysis

If Animals Had A Choice Whether on the farm, at home, or at the dinner table, animals play an important role in everyday human life. They serve as a source of livelihood, entertainment, inspiration, and of course food and clothing to people all across the world. Yet animals can exist independent from people and, as living beings, they arguably have interests separate and apart from their utility to humanity. However, society is increasingly faced with legal, ethical, and economic dilemmas about the position for animals and the extent to which their interests should be respected, even when those interests conflict with what is best for humans. All animals should be treated respectfully but they are not equal to humans. However, animals need to have the Animal Bill of Rights because it can stop animal abuse, unnecessary animal experiments, and the death of many innocent creatures, but cannot have equal rights as humans have because we cannot ignore human suffering and focus only on animals rights. On the one hand, passing an Animal Bill of Rights while it is true that it could limit the amount of animal abuse. In Rifkin’s article “A Change of Heart about Animals” he states, “Studies on pigs’ social behavior

Yes, they do, because people like farmers and ranchers need to understand that the animals have feelings and emotions. However, while animals need to be treated respectfully, they are not equal to humans. The main difference between humans and animals is our ability to act on a moral basis. Because of their inability to determine right from wrong, they do not deserve a Bill of Rights equal to that of human’s. I believe that animals need a Bill of Rights to protect them to live humane lives, but only to a certain point. As we have seen, animals are incapable of understanding the moral implications of their decisions. A compromise between two extremes would protect animals as well as not letting the situation get out of