Jeremy Rifkin A Change Of Heart About Animals Summary

Not surprisingly, elephants are known for being more emotional and empathetic animals than the rest. According the three articles, “Elephants Can Lend a Helping Trunk”, “Elephants Know When They Need a Helping Trunk in a Cooperative Task”, and “Elephants Console Each Other” elephants understand when they need each other’s assistance. All two authors describe the studies of elephant behavior differently, but with a similar purpose.

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 wants us to believe that animals are similar to humans. I personally think that I agree and disagree with his argument. One reason why I agree with Rifkin is because I believe animals have feelings, just like Rifkin said “They feel pain, suffer, and experience stress, affection, excitement, and even love.” (Rifkin 33). On the other hand, I disagree with Jeremy’s argument because I don’t think we should go out of our way to pay more attention to these animals feelings when we have millions of children that don’t even get the amount of attention these pigs are getting.

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…

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.

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.

When it comes to animals, everyone seems to have an opinion. Some love them, some hate them. Some believe that animals feel and experience authentic emotions, while others believe that they do not have the capability to do so. A lack of belief in the existence of emotions in animals is often used to justify wrongful treatment. Are some animals more aware of feelings than others? These questions and more demand answers. Animals definitely have emotions, and because of this we must rethink many of our modern practices.

The statement by Paul McCartney rings true, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian.” Animal rights is a concept which people hardly ever consider in a serious light. Being born as a human being, having a superior mental capacity and sense of times makes people think that they can rule this world and use other living beings as they see fit. This mentality leads to people say things like “animals are born to eaten” or how Aristotle claimed “all of the nature exist specifically for the sake of men” and “that animal are merely instruments for humankind.” (Pg. 495). This way of thinking often leads to overconsumption of animals, cruelty to animals and loss of species.

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.

Contrary to what we might think, animals share similar characteristics with us in terms of their physical and psychological states. Jeremy Rifkin, author of twenty books on the impact of scientific and technological changes on the society and the environment, writes in his op-ed piece “A Change of Heart about Animals,” research which supports animals have behavioral, mental, and emotional states. Koko, a gorilla, was taught how to use sign language and has mastered more than 1,000 signs and can understand several thousand English words. To express their sense of individuality, orangutans use mirrors to explore parts of their bodies they can 't otherwise see. A common misconception is animals can 't feel anything, meaning they don’t understand suffering. However, elephants appear to experience grief by mourning for the dead and standing next to their dead kin for days (Rifkin). Also according to Victoria Braithwaite, a Professor of Fisheries and Biology interested in animal cognition, studies in her article "Hooked on a Myth" suggests nociceptors, specialized nerve endings that alert creatures to feel pain, are found in the mouths of fish. This study proves animals have the ability to experience pain. Rifkin’s

According to some philosophers and animal behaviorists, animals are capable of self-awareness and individualism. Rifkin concludes that there is a new study in the Washington National Zoo that orangutans can’t explore their part of their bodies with a mirror. Rifkin is arguing a statement where it says that animals can’t have a sense of their mortality. And that they can’t comprehend when they are going to die. Rifkin believes that this statement is false he used an example of a research in the Washington National Zoo to make people believe that this is a false statement about animals. Although many may agree with Rifkin to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusion because the examples he gave do not define that animals can comprehend when they are going to die. I know this because in paragraph 10 it says, “An orangutan named Chantek who lives at the Atlanta Zoo used a mirror to groom his teeth and adjust his sunglasses.”

To improve their articles support, the writers for Vegan Outreach should rely mainly on logos to back up their claim that animal consumption is morally wrong and that they should switch to a less cruel alternatives to source food. Although the authors do originally provide evidence throughout the text, their argument is poorly constructed. For example, in one case Vegan Outreach used a statistic without indicating from where they attained the statistic “...[b]y avoiding the meat of chickens, turkeys, and pigs, you can prevent the suffering of more than two thousand of these animals during your lifetime!” (11). The initial issue with Vegan Outreach’s document is that it fails to reference their work, the second issue is that it does little to reference the sample statistics of other animals, which makes their application of logos unreliable. In addition, this example statistic is not their

Over fifty-six billion animals are slaughtered yearly for consumption, but because we are conditioned from a young age to view animals as resources, we neglect that they are passionate and intelligent living beings. Cows want to enjoy their lives, pigs want to enjoy their lives, and many other farm animals want to enjoy their lives but instead are abused and confined in small cages. Ironically, though, when someone does likewise to a cat or dog, they’re prosecuted. The sole solution to these inhumane acts is Veganism. Veganism is the ideal diet because plant-based foods are plentiful, and it recognizes the unethical treatment of animals.

Morally, one may feel obligated to exercise Vegetarianism due to the inhumane treatment of animals throughout the farming process. The issue is that roughly ten billion animals are raised for United States food consumption alone. Animals such as cows, fish, chickens, pigs, and turkeys are subjected to

In his essay, Singer brings up key ideas that give insight to the readers as to why they should follow utilitarianism and vegetarianism. He argues that pain and pleasure are the basis of all moral values and because animals experience pain and pleasure, this makes them morally significant as well. Singer also states that utilitarianism gives good reasons to avoid certain kinds of sourcing meats. Therefore, factory farming should be avoided and that free-range organic methods of raising animals should be used instead because it is morally neutral or good. As well, even if livestock is raised in humane ways, it is morally wrong to kill and eat the animal because it will feel pain. Singer also notes that many things must be taken into account: the potential loss of happiness of vegetarians, the loss of livelihood of producers of factory-farmed products, environmental consequences, global and individual health concerns as