In “A Change of Heart about Animals”, by Jeremy Rifkin, he attempts to argues that we should protect animals because of the suffering and pain they experience. While merely glazed at the surface, this article does point out that animals do experience pain, but while dissected at a deeper level, Rifkin’s hypocrisy is exposed. The evidence Rikin tries to provide that animals feel simple emotions like fear, pain, and suffering don’t justify the means of creating absurd laws protection animals from human consumption and experimentation. An example brought up by a research article from the NY Times explains “Would a starving bear prevent itself before it kills a human being for food?” Why should we treat animals more humanely than they would
Jeremy Rifkin in the article " A Change of Heart about Animals" argues on the fact that as incredible as it sounds, many of our fellow creatures as like us in so many ways. For example, in a movie named Paulie a young girl that suffers autism gets attached to a parrot. The girl struggles to talk but she just can't. Time passes by and then the girl starts talking because the parrot helped her. An incident happened so the little girl's parents decide to let the parrot go. The parrot ends up in an animal testing lab but somehow he managed to escape. The parrot begins to miss his owner because he formed a bond with a human being. Obviously, this proves Rifkin is right when he states that animals experience feelings like human beings.
In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).
In the article you published called “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Jeremy Rifkin states “Many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined.”. I agree and believe society should be more involved into the way we do things that involves animals. We need to be more aware about the animals and that they have feelings and emotions too and we should not be taking advantage of that. Rifkin stated a lot of good points and arguments. I honestly do not agree we should end all animals deaths, but I do believe there should be an awareness against animal cruelty.
Peter Singer’s arguments in Animal Liberation have often been misunderstood. The most mutual, and important, misunderstanding among professional thinkers consists in the belief that the moral argument advanced by Animal Liberation is created on utilitarianism, besides not, as is in fact the situation, on the belief of no maleficence. Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation is surely one of the most persuasive, powerful and efficient works of applied integrities ever printed. Since the publication of the first edition in April 5, 1973, Singer’s work has been spoken, and its main theses enthusiastically argued by others. In the essay Singer’s tone was very rational and patient,
I am writing to you regarding Jeremy Rifkin’s article, “A Change of Heart About Animals.” I agree with Rifkin’s claim that inhumane treatment of animals needs to stop, but I think that he is addressing the topic in a way that is not as effective as it should be. Rifkin’s short study on Koko the Gorilla is accurate, but could have more detail. Just by going to the Gorilla Foundation’s website, I found out more about the project that would have supported his study findings. The claim that “fast food purveyors such as McDonalds, Burger King, and KFC are research sponsors,” is weak and unsupported. Rifkin follows up by stating that these food establishments were simply pressured by animals rights activist. I think Rifkin could have gone deeper
In “A Change of Heart about Animals” Jeremy Rifkin says researches are findings is that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had every imagined. I also agree with Rifkin that animals have feelings, emotion, and their more like us. Do you treat people badly? If not, why you do it to an animal. I have three dogs and their family to us Every day they are happy to see me and sad when we leave the house. They bark when they want attention. They show emotion like we do.
I am writing to you regarding Jeremy Rifkin’s article, “A Change of Heart About Animals.” I agree that he argues about the science what animals that are not feel with and what the research do. He claims that Rifkin was thought that animals are feel pain, stress, and affection for their environment. It this true that Rifkin says “many the creatures are more like us that the other?” The claim that he told was pressure on animal rights funded by fast food chains, such as KFC. He claims that he says “Studies on pigs’ behavior have found crave affection and depressed if isolated or denied playtime with each other.”
In today’s culture there is a consensus that opposes animal cruelty, from government organizations to non profit organizations. Is it morally okay to inflict some pain on animals if it is for the benefit of a certain group; can it be justifiable? Tom Regan and Peter Singer position on vivisection but understand moral value in a more individualist term instead of a group of species. Regan and Singer both discuss vivisection in different terms. One looks at it through deontology (Regan) while the other through utilitarianism (Singer).
Ø Pyers, G & Gott, R. (1994) “Treated like animals”, The relationships between people and animals, Carlton, Vic: CIS publishers
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
Regan’s essay is meant to argue that animals should have equal rights. One might say we are nothing to animals, we can do nothing that harms them. Animals themselves are morally significant they are not people because they have no rights, but humans have rights that demand respect, humans take interest in animals they care about and it would upset humans to see them in pain. It is an indirect duty to respect animals because we care about other people’s feelings. To abuse an animal is to do wrong by a human not the actual animal (Regan, 2). Unless we accept that animals have rights from the start, one can assume that animals don’t feel pain and should be allowed to be abused. Still some have trouble grasping the concept that humans are animals, because if humans are animals with rights, and animals have rights, than can we also assume that animals are humans? Regan says that anything that has a life is a person, but doesn’t back up his reason to the extent that would persuade someone to believe his theory, however he does encourage people to set their own bar. Regan also reminds us that if the bar we set is too high than every human might not make the cut. Reagan takes Hobbes’ theory on social contract into consideration when forming the conclusion of how one determines who has rights, who is considered an animal and so on. If
The ugly truth is that animals are dying at the hands of their owners everyday, some in very violent ways that can be avoidable given the right solution. Slaughterhouses, puppy mills, dog fighting, and so on, are just a few examples of how animals are being treated badly by people. Animal cruelty is a form of violence which, un...
Although the chapter is occasionally hard to follow, Haraway successfully demonstrates an empathetic response to animals suffering due the actions of humans subjecting them to research. She uses arguments to support her views that animals should be regarded as co-workers rather than objects that simply react and are dispensable. She looks at the different perspectives of the act of killing between animals and humans, and states “The problem is actually to understand that human beings do not get a pass on the necessity of killing significant others, who are them-selves responding, not just reacting” (Haraway 2007, 80). This view is unique in comparison to what society commonly believes, so reading this chapter was both enlightening and interesting. Despite the interesting ideas and arguments that Haraway communicates, the chapter often has run on sentences and unnecessarily lengthy words, such as ‘multiplicitous’ (Haraway 2007, 80). This often made the chapter hard to read and therefor difficult to digest. This can, however, be seen as a fault of my own. My final thoughts on chapter 3 of ‘When Species Meet’ is that the extensive research that Haraway underwent proved effective when supporting her argument and, in turn, created a thought compelling and respectable piece of
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Call Number: HV4711.A5751992. Morris, Richard Knowles, and Michael W. Fox, eds. On the Fifth Day, Animal Rights. and Human Ethics.
In this essay, I will discuss if our actions towards animals are immoral. McGinn discusses his reasons shortly, assuming that he is correct. He claims that, “we have a moral duty to relieve the suffering, and cease the killing, of the animals with which we have dealings” (McGinn 150). This is the structure of his argument: