Persuasive Speech On Animal Rights

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

Peter Singer has written many works in support of animal rights. In one of his greatest works Animal Liberation, Singer goes into great depths on how similar in biology animals are to human beings. Another strong point was not only the biological resemblance, but also the behavioral tendencies and traits humans and nonhuman species share. There are two major areas of focus that Singer puts emphasis on that need to be recognized for the purposes of my argument. One focus is this utilitarian approach that only the human species carry: the belief of ethical and morally good behavior should be extended to the consideration of nonhuman species. The second focus that is the basis for my argument is Singer’s argument against a huge human social construct labeled speciesism.

Do animals have the right to a certain quality of life? How would your views change if our cooks got treated the same way cattle and poultry do? How would you feel about them being beaten and brought to their knees just to be detained to know how to cook todays specials? You might think that the food industry has no issues and no faults behind their tasty food, but when you open up the meat curtain, there is a different kind of world out there that is cruel and inhumane. In Robert Kenner’s 2008 film, Food, Inc., He shows the conditions that cows, chickens, and pigs have to live in. The dark and closeted homes in which the animals are closely compacted together and eating, sleeping, and walking in their own manure. As a person who would consider themselves an animal rights activist, most people would agree that the food industry treats their animals like products instead of living things.

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

Purpose Formula: To persuade my fellow classmates, who are consumers of animal based products and supporters of zoos and wildlife conservation efforts, that animals deserve the same rights as humans and should not be used for profit.

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

Think about how we will look back on our cruel forms of entertainment in the future. Will we be proud of the way we treated these great animals, with abuse as neglect? Today we turn our heads away from reality and what happens behind the scenes of animal entertainment. However, we can’t turn our heads forever. Around the world, there is so much more to animal entertainment than what meets the eye. These animals have been torn away from their beautiful, natural homes and brought to a prison of concrete. In these prisons, they are beaten, starved and tortured all for our money and entertainment. These animals lives should not be taken from them for us. Our money and happiness should not be worth these animal’s lives. Circus, theme park and zoo animals all suffer from aggression towards trainers, mental disabilities and physical injuries. These animals should not have to suffer any longer.

“One cannot look deeply into the eyes of an animal and not see the same depth, complexity and feeling we humans lay exclusive claim to.” – Nan Sea Love. The discussion of the persona of animals and humans is an ongoing topic. Today, scientists with diverse worldviews influence both the young and old minds of individuals with their theories and philosophies based on observations and statistics. Society, as a whole, struggles with the connotation of animals portraying human traits and vice versa.

Today we are gonna talk about a subject that has has a very big role in promoting a bright future for wildlife in the U.S. It is something that has really made a big impact in making people respect wildlife and it beauty. The first Federal Bird Reservation was established in Pelican Island Florida, by president Theodore Roosevelt in 1903. Pelican Island was the first of many to stop the hunting of the Brown Pelican. When Pelican Island was discovered they surveyed it and said that it was 4.5 acres but that it was unfortunately never filed, so when they surveyed it more recently they measured the island to be 5.5 acres. Something not many people know and at least to me it kind of interesting is that Paul Kroegal was the first Game Warden and was paid $1 per month by the American Ornithologists' Union Bird Protection Fund.

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

One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.

In Peter Singer’s essay, “Equality for Animals”, he argues that the principle of equal consideration of interests can extend beyond just the interests of human beings. He starts out saying just because there is oppression within our own species, does not mean that our attitude against animals should be taken less seriously. Going into several topics Singer tries to convey that we may have the wrong idea about animals.

Animal rights has been a topic of controversy for the last decade and the question arises on whether or not animals have rights. In the quote from Arthur Schopenhauer’s The Basis of Morality, the main argument is that the only way humans can remain moral is if we treat all animals with compassion. Schopenhauer uses different comparisons in the short quote to improve the impact on the reader as well as show the way humans view the animals being treated. With that, it is evident that animals do need basic rights which can potentially be achieved through proper compassion and care. These animals need to have the ability to freely express their personalities as well as the proper attention and interactions on a daily basis.

I’ve seen first-hand the benefits of adoption through working and adopting from Second City Canine Rescue.

Singer firsts sets up the basis of animal equality by using comparisons to women’s equality as well as race and gender equality. With women’s rights he concludes that because men and women are in many ways similar they should have similar rights. This sets up a counter argument that may say, since animals and humans are so different, nonhuman animals shouldn’t have equal rights. To