Analysis Of Rifkin's A Change Of Heart About Animals

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.

That seems to be a tad bit hypocritical. All the animals he talks about have had some type of experiments on them like the crows and the orangoutang who was taught sign. His article was very informative but it wasn't credible if he decided to contradict himself with his evidence.

The first point of utilitarianism is important for readers to understand because upon completion of reading this work, or any work related to animals deserving equal considerations in terms of suffering, comes a question of ethics and a decision. Singer expresses the similarities between how humans treated one another and their progressions over time throughout Animal Liberation with good reasons. The

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.

Throughout the course of history, many people have used the power of language to manipulate audiences to gather support for their personal agenda or gain. Donald Trump speech is an example of using the power of language to manipulate people. President Donald Trump told about two dozen chief executives of major U.S. companies that he plans to bring many millions of jobs back to the United States. When it comes to the topics of bringing jobs back people will readily agree. In the article “A Change Of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin, author and president of the foundation of economic trends in Washington D.C, suggests in a seemingly, unbiased fashion, that animals “are more like us than we had ever imagined” (Rifkin). With the support

In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” Jeremy Rifkin uses scientific evidence to reason with us that “many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined”. Rifkin suggests that animals should be treated better and be provided with better living conditions. He uses Betty and Koko as examples that animals have higher intellectual abilities and emotions than we thought. Many scientists also argued that animals do not have an understanding of death or capable of grief, but Rifkin counteracts that argument by using elephants as evidence to show that they are capable of grief.

After reading Jeremy Rifkin’s article, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, I discovered more about animals than I had ever known before. As a former pet owner I know how much owners care for their pets and consider them to be a part of the family, almost like a child to them, so they are treated with kindness and are loved to the fullest. What I did not know was how intelligent animals actually are. Rifkin does a great job at expressing this by demonstrating to the audience facts that they had possibly not known or heard of before. For example, he describes how crows can make tools out of a wire, gorillas can learn sign language and have an average score on an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test, and how pigs can often feel lonely and go into depression.

In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” (2003), published by Los Angeles Times, author Jeremy Rifkin discusses how our fellow creatures are more like humans than we had ever imagined. Using academic diction, Rifkin develops his main idea with evidence such as Caledonian crows being able to make tools to complete a task. These birds were given the task of grabbing meat out of a tube with a choice of two tools, a hooked wire and a straight wire. Both of the birds were able to complete the task, however, one bird showed exceptional cognitive abilities when she bent a straight wire into a hook to grab the meat. This suggests a logos persuasive appeal that broadens the reader’s awareness of the conceptual abilities of crows. Rifkin’s use

In the article titled “A Change of Heart about Animals”, by Jeremy Rifkin, it talks about how us humans need to have a different perspective on how animals are treated and have more empathy for them. I however, disagree with Rifkin. It is essential to recognize that in nature, animals kill each other for food and have no sympathy for whatever it is that they are eating.With this said, why should killing,eating,and animal experimentation be any different or inhumane?

Over 100 million animals are killed in U.S laboratories for experimentation and chemical drug, food and cosmetics testing. In “A change of heart” by Jeremy Rifkin focuses on telling readers, how animals have feelings, think and are really smart. He gives examples and shows evidence on how they are more like us than we imagined. How the way that animals are treated is wrong. There is no doubt that we should stop animal cruelty.

In an article based on an interview published in Time Magazine, “A Change of Heart About Animals”. Jeremy Rifkin expresses his views about the similarity behavior and emotional state between us humans and animals, with the purpose to change the way of how we see and feel about them. “We’re so skewed toward efficiency that we’ve lost our sense of humanity. What we need to do is to bring back a sense of the sacred”, Rifkin, argues. He supports his arguments with the findings of many researchers around the globe. Researchers that come from very prestigious institutions using different species of animals, we’re talking about crows, elephants, geese, etc. Not your ordinary lab rats and monkeys (which they don’t have anything

In A Change of Heart about Animals, Jeremy Rifkin says us humans should take to consideration that animals are more like us than we imagined. I’m of two minds about Rifkin’s claim that animals are just like us. On the one hand, I agree that animals should be treated with the same respect as us. On the other hand, I’m not sure if animals are able to develop a promiscuous combination of ideas such as reasoning and conscience.

Jeremy Rifkin had made such impact on readers through his article “A Change of Heart about Animals”. Not only did he inform us the reality that animals do have feelings, he also unbounded the label we had long given to the animals, thus fully altered our perspectives about these fellow creatures. In regard to the influence, I myself am not excluded. As a matter of fact, since I was a kid, I have started raising pets. As long as it seems, I have built myself an assumption about these domestic animals as they don’t differ much from humans’ natural behavior in life. They have feelings, family and awareness of surroundings.

To the editor of “A change of heart about animals” Los Angeles Times, September 1, 2003: thank you for the well-written article by Jeremy Rifkin on animal emotions and cognitive abilities. Animal emotions are, indeed, important. When watching the full documentary last week on Koko, the gorilla who can, do sign language, and understand several thousand English words made me eager to write you. I agree with your statement that animals are more like us than we imagine in your opening sentence. We do need to respect animals around us because we take them for granted lots of times.

“In addition to the torment of the actual experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them-they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized” (Animal Experiments: Overview). The animals have their entire natural habitat taken away from them while being tested. Without their normal surroundings, it is hard for them to behave and live like their species. If a person were to have all of their possessions taken away, they would be inferior and victimized. The animals feel this way. Scientists take the animals for granted and forget that the animals have feelings too. The habitats that the facilities provide for the animals could be viewed as poorly as the quality of treatment for animals