Jeremy Rifkin A Change Of Heart About Animals Summary

Many species of wildlife continue to be mistreated and neglected even when they show many signs of being intelligent creatures. In the article, “A Change in Heart About Animals” author, Jeremy Rifkin discusses many instances where animals prove smarter than people give them credit for. One of many discoveries evaluated by Rifkin where crows, that were able to manipulate a wire in order to retrieve food. The crow was able to adapt to the situation using its critical thinking skills, similar to humans. Since these crows showed immense skill and have characteristics similar to people they should, like people, be protected and not experimented on. Another humanlike quality shown in an animal, explained by Rifkin, is the ability to communicate with human beings. Koko the gorilla was taught

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.

Animals by Simon Rich is an outstanding short story which takes a unique perspective on the everyday life in a classroom. The story is written from the point of view of a hamster who spends his tortured life entrapped in a cage. From the first point in this story, it is clear that the purpose of the writing is not to understand the hamster, but rather to analyze the different actions of the people, and to discover that how they act towards the hamsters reflects on their character. It is curious to view the everyday interactions of people through a different set of eyes, that is done by humanizing the narrator’s perspective. Based on the actions of the many people and the treatment of the class pet, the author suggests that human nature is very much a product of the financial circumstances a person is subjected to.

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.

Our nation’s industrial farming has become more than just feeding people; it has become a way for the food industry to make more money as human population continues to grow. Jonathan Safran Foer in his book Eating Animals, illustrates the effects factory farming has had on animals meant for human consumption. Furthermore, Foer asks many questions to the reader on what will it take for us to change our ways before we say enough is enough. The questions individuals need to be asking themselves are: how do we deal with the problem of factory farming, and what can people do to help solve these issues? Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation, also illustrates the animal abuse that goes unseen within the food industry as well as Bernard Rollin and Robert Desch in their article “Farm Factories”, both demonstrate what is wrong today with factory farming. Foer gives such examples of employees who work in slaughterhouses giving accounts of what goes on in the kill floors, and stories of employees who have witnessed thousands and thousands of cows going through the slaughter process alive (Animals 231). Namit Arora in the article “On Eating Animals”, as well as Michael Pollan in his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, both address some of the issues that animals face once they hit the kill floor. The food industry has transformed not only how people eat, but also the negative effects our climate endures as a result of factory farming as illustrated by Anna Lappe in “The Climate Crisis at the End

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.

To start with, The term Animal Rights did not emerge until the late 1970 's, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. In Particular, Richard Ryder, a British Psychologist, expressed his boldest ideas, but in order to get his word out around the world he needed assistance from one of the top Australian philosophers, Peter Singer. Singer published numerous of notable books such as " Animal liberation " which described in vivid detail, the grueling agony animals had to suffer. In fact, Pete Singer got his inspiration for his book " Animal liberation " from his view on utilitarianism, the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people and animals. Indeed, the phrase Animal Rights first surfaced in the 1970

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.

Animals have similar characteristics to humans in terms of their physical and psychological states, thus we have a moral obligation to free them from unnecessary pain. More ethical alternatives to animal testing are more cost-effective, quicker and more reliable.

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

In “Speciesism and Moral Status”, Peter Singers argument is that when it comes to the value of life, we should not discriminate in regards to species, and cognitive ability should play some role in moral status. In comparison to humans with “profound mental disabilities” (Singer 569), the use of the gorilla Koko’s higher IQ score, not needing constant supervision, or border collies being able to provide useful work to society, serves as a strong logos appeal regarding the relationship between cognitive ability and moral status. Singer is effectively able to support his claims by continuously referencing respected philosophers and individuals such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and even Pope John Paul II. Validity and integrity are very much solidified in Singers article with the use of counter arguments as well as alternate views to his own arguments. The structure and information Singer provides is clear and organized, and does not leave his audience confused due to the strong use of factual, relevant support of his argument.

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

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.

Peter Singer addresses the ordeal of animal rights better than I have ever seen anyone address it. His analysis laid out in A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation is remarkably stated. He pushes the viewer to see animals as equals to us.