Animals Exhibit Moral Behavior?

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.

In Chapter two of Moral, Believing Animals Christian Smith argues that human beings are moral animals because they are strong self-evaluators who inhabit morally based orders. In the next chapter, smith adds that humans are moral animals because they also believe. This ability to believe and act morally allows humans to stray away from our instinctive minds. In other words, it is apart of what makes us human. Smith finds that this way of viewing humans provides a better account of human religiousness. Religion is the manifestation of our capacity to be self-conscious. Smith uses Narrative morality writing to help explain his views on religion and human beings, which allow us to recognize our true moral capacity.

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

The purpose of a 2003 LA times article “ A change of Heart about Animals “ by Jeremy Rifkin is to persuade the audience or change their mind to think that animals can or do experience pain, affection and suffering. Also, he argues us to believe that animals are more like humans, they are intelligent and they should be treated equally. To begin with, in this article Rifkin tried to persuade the audience to sympathize and make them feel bad about the animals. Personally, this article did not reach out to me as much because I believe animals may somewhat feel pain, depression, sufferings but can they also feel guilt or pride? I don't think so because animals do not have certain intellectual capabilities to think as high level as humans do.

The article “A Change of Heart About Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin informs readers that animals feel emotions very much similar to humans and should be given more rights. I agree with Rifkin’s statement, but to a certain extent.

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.

Over the course of history, humans have classified various animals from companions, playmates we will love until the end of the world; to nourishment, meat we look forward to for our next meal. Be that as it may, how ever did we reconcile theses ways of loving some animals while eating or hating others? In Hal Herzog excerpt, “Animals Like Us”, using anecdotal stories Herzog tackles the reasoning behind our contradicting relationships and behaviors regarding this 'trouble middle' for different animals. In order to resolve the murkiness of the trouble middle we must reshape our ethics on why we treat certain animals differently by eliminating our misconceptions of each animal and understanding that every animal should be treated equally.

The question of the correct ethical treatment of animals has been a topic of many heated debates. The basis of this discussion arises numerous premises that justifies the treatment of animals. Whether animal do in fact have a sentient? And what is distinctive about humanity such that humans are thought to have moral status and non-human do not? Providing an answer to the correct ethical treatment of animals has become increasingly paramount among society as well as philosophers.

The subject of morality and ethics is a topic that so many individuals have difficulty understanding: and practicing. Many factor come in to place when thinking of one’s knowledge to treat or behave in an ethical and moral way to consider the feeling of others. Thus, an individual’s culture, religion, and environment may hinder the general idea of morality. In the interview of Martin Luther King Jr: Speech Civil Disobedience and obeying Just vs Unjust laws; he discusses how some laws that have been created: do not make right just because there laws. Likewise, Michael Pollan: An Animal’s Place talks about animal cruelty, and how animals should been have the same rights as human beings. Additionally, new laws can be created to adjust to new ethical and moral laws; that would benefit the way of living for humans and animals.

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.

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

Research by Yamamoto, Humle and Tanaka in 2009 concluded that chimpanzees show altruism only when prompted or pressured rather than voluntarily [5]. This particular empirical research challenges the evidence proposed by prior researchers and tests the limits of chimpanzee’s altruistic nature. Using colour-coded tokens, one of which allowed for a partner to share the reward with the test subject and one of which gave the test subject all of the reward, several chimps were tested as to their response. Results showed a tendency for the chimpanzee to take the prosocial option in situations both with and without peer pressure. Abnormally results showed that pressure or harassment from partners reduced the chimpanzee’s inclination to take the prosocial option. Although these results challenge prior research [5] they are limited as they are not conclusive and raise questions of their own to reach a complete understanding. These research results are significant in challenging an already established understanding of chimpanzee’s altruistic traits and acts as a good contrast to other references. This resource stands out as it does not make conclusive statements out of abnormal results but rather opens up a reader’s opinion and presents issues further

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

Frans de Waal begins his argument by first stating the question as to whether or not a human’s moral actions originated from the psychological and behavioral nature of our evolutionary ancestors. He concludes this thought by saying that our moral actions do, in fact, originate from the psychological and behavioral nature of our evolutionary ancestors. De Waal further argues that the foundations of human morals are found in the primates of today. They are composed of actions and emotions whose evolutionary role assists us in our social organization and unity. In the beginning pages of his book, De Waal