Jeremey Rifkin: Supporting The Animal Rights Cause

In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” (1 September 2003), published by Los Angeles Times, author Jeremy Rifkin discusses how “... researchers are finding [is] that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we imagined.” (Rifkin 61). Using academic diction, Rifkin develops his main idea with evidence such as “They [animals] feel pain, suffer, and experience stress, affection, excitement, and even love -- and these findings are changing how we view animals. ”(Rifkin 61). This suggests a pathos and logos persuasive appeal that broadens the reader’s understanding and knowledge in changing our perspective of the inhumane and inequality treatment that non domestic animals receive. Rifkin’s use of pathos and logos appeals is to

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.

Rifkin talks about how animals such as pigs get lonely and should have contact with toys and humans. I honestly believe that our society should not be spending money on resources for animals that are gonna be eaten anyways because of the fact that there are human children who not

In the article “A Change of Heart About Animals”, Rifkin asserts that humans are treating animals in the most atrocious way, and he claims that in order for their lives to improve, we need to definitely adjust ours. He uses great amount of logos, and several experiments done with different animals and tries his best to closely relate animals to us, humans. Rifkin although, never inserts a call for action to this problem throughout his article. Instead, he puts the emphasis on the pathos of the argument. In the world we are living in today, there is about 8.7 million different living species. Whether they are land or marine animals, they do play a big role in our community such as being apart of the food pyramid, assisting handicapped people wherever they go, or being a transportation for people living on farms and fields. With this being said, the ranking of animals in our community has brought up a heated argument in connection to their rights and welfare. Eight legged, four legged, or two legged land or sea animals do not comprehend the concept of rights. If we, humans, give animals “rights”, we are basically inferring the fact that we are like animals, and they have the entitlement to share our rights. Although they don’t understand rights, the fact that many of these animals are being treated inhumanely is wrong and animal welfare should be ingrained into this community rather than the massive inhumane treatment.

In the assert of ¨A Change Of Heart about Animals¨ by Jeremy Rifkin, the author strongly supports animals rights and has been working to prove animal intelligences and emotions can see understand through science. Rifkin include pig´s studies at Purdue University, where scientists found the animal can feel depressed under isolated conditions or health problems. Even Dr Arthur Saniotis, fellow with the University's School of Medical Sciences stated, ¨science tells us that animals can have cognitive faculties that are superior to human beings." Due to the rise of the agriculture evolution, people going to consume animals as property and began viewing human as superiority for our exclusive aptitude in reasoning. Human began to break themselves from the nature when technology and standard language imply in everyday life in the world.

In the article, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, by Jeremy Rifkin argues about how scientists have shown and proven that there are many similarities between animals and humans. Jeremy Rifkin believes animals should be treated with more empathy and that the animals should be treated more like humans. I agree with this statement and that they should be treated better with more animal rights.

In Change of Heart about Animals, Jeremy Rifkin says “we should empathize with animals”. I completely disagree with his statement. I am a pet owner and although I love my pet I don't think I would view him on the same level as me. If I were to see him on the same level as me it would defeat the purpose of having a pet. I mean you don’t keep other humans as pets.

I honestly think that Jeremy Rifkin had some very significant findings when he published “A Change of Heart about Animals”. If it wasn't for Rifkin many people like myself would have not known that animals share some of the same traits as humans like grief, self awareness, and the need for affection. Everyone needs to know that animals aren't some type of toy but rather a living creature with feelings. Rifkin wants his readers to believe that humans and animals are much alike and want some of the same rights for them but is that a good idea…

Furthermore, Rifkin discusses the cognitive abilities of animals, by informing us that learning is passed on from parent to offspring. Rifkin says that most animals engaged all kind of learning, Rifkin in paragraph 15 wants to make us get in our emotions and he says, “So what does all of this portend for the way we treat our fellow creatures?” Rifkin believes that a lot of animals are in the most inhumane

It is more likely that readers will accept the main argument because after comparing animals to humans, Rifkin suddenly strikes them with such a negative tone that makes one regret the way animals are being treated. It makes the reader more likely to want to feel compassionate to animals and treat them the way we want to be treated.

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.

The controversy about animals should have rights or not is something that has been controversial for a while. Animals are living and breathing creatures just like the human species and humans have rights, unlike animals. Tom Regan wrote an article about how animals should have rights and gave reasons why he believes that. There are several arguments for animals should have rights just like how animals don’t deserve them. We are all animals to a point but humans have evolved, and we take care of animals by protecting them from harm.

In other words, Rifkin believes we need to stop abusing animals and start thinking how animals feel. Animals feel love, Experience stress. Everyone needs to realize we need to stop mistreating animals and come to the fact that they feel what we do.

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan emphasizes his philosophy on animal and human equality. After reading further into his work, he illustrates a societal system that belittles animals and their significance to our own existence. Regan conceptualizes that animals won’t have real rights unless we change our beliefs. We need to acknowledge a problem. After identifying the issue, we must recognize that there is a need for change in society. In addition, he also reiterates the importance of the populace changing the way they view animals. The way society views animals will create a snowball effect that will influence politicians to also believe in animal rights.

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