Rifkin's Rhetorical Analysis

For many years there has been an ongoing debate on whether or not animals should be given rights, even there own bill of rights. Some who are against the animal bill of rights argue that testing products on animals is important to the safety of humans. Others who want the new bill of rights claim that animals have feelings and that science is treating them inhumanely. Animal activists also add that animals are intelligent beings and are aware of how they are treated. Based on science proving animal activists correct on many of their points, this calls for a new bill of rights, in the United States, especially written for the protection and care of wild and domestic animals.

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.

Michael Pollan’s, An Animal’s Place, analyzes the controversial topic of animal abuse while Pollan himself struggles to comprehend the relationship between humans and non-humans. Whether animals are used for food or clothing, Pollan’s impartial view of the moral ethics behind the treatment of animals acknowledges that we as readers are susceptible to influence and he encourages the questioning of our own beliefs. Rather than succumbing to Singer’s, All Animals are Equal demands of making it our “Moral obligation to cease supporting the practice” (pg.4), Pollan conveys the benefits as well as the concerns to the consummation of animals. From the personal connection Pollan establishes with his readers, his progressive beliefs

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.

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.

On the topic of animal rights, Vicki Hearne and Peter Singer represent opposite ends of a belief spectrum. Singer describes, in numerous articles, that he believes animal rights should focus on if the animal is suffering, and the best option to prevent it is to limit interaction between animals and humans. Specifically, in “Speciesism and Moral Status” Singer compares the intelligence and ability of non-human animals to those with severe cognitive disabilities to establish an outrageous solution to animal belittlement. He uses logos (the appeal to reason) and ethos (the appeal to ethics), to question the current rights in place to appeal to other scholars. Nevertheless, his approach can cause an emotional disconnect to the readers; this apparent in contrast to Hearne’s pathos (the

When a cause is brought up and given light, it has a way of splitting people in how they react to it. And such has been true when it comes to granting new rights, because it’s brobdingnagian in our society that is always hungry for freedoms. We are split down the middle on whether, or not to consider animals, just like us, and thus deserve the rights we hold in our society today. On the other end, are people who don’t believe such rights should be given to animals. While the pro-arguments hold value, there is much more to see on the other end. As to why animals shouldn’t have a “Bill of Rights” like we as humans do. It’s shown in various different ways, even the most popular arguments held by the opposing side. Such as cows hurting the environment, zoo’s being inhumane, and pets. There are other factors as well to take into consideration such as food, psychology medicine, and even culture.

Despite being ‘cruel’ in order to meet the requirements of ‘Australians for Animal Rights’, humans have considered the report ‘alternative’ and ‘important’, compounding the agency’s apparent guilt. This attack on humans invites both readers and carnivores by choice to support the tough action done by the Australians for Animal Rights in defence of the animal society. The tone of the article becomes less forceful when explaining the Australians for Animal Rights’s response. Talk of ‘compassionate people’ and ‘breaking the law’ gives way to a more conciliatory tone, reporting an agreement between humans and the Australians for Animal Rights in order to ‘justify’ to ‘damage’, risks and ‘poor creatures’ involved. Jo’s use of language is most likely intended to encouraging the readers to accept their ‘self-serving purposes’ and to perceive of ‘animal rights’ as a

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

The idea of animal rights has been around for centuries. Even decades ago, people were taking action for the welfare of animals. Marc Bekoff and Ned Hettinger share this idea all the way back in 1994 when they said that there is evidence that scientist are concerned with animal welfare by acknowledge that they use the guidelines in place to protect animals during research, in order to have their work published (Bekoff 219). Guidelines are the basis for the moral and ethical treatment of animals. Each person may have his or her own standard, but having a standard among the entire population ensures the welfare of the animals. Unfortunately, these standards are not at a level to where the animals are being protected. Many animals in captivity are treated in ways that would shock the average person. Orcas for example, are starved until they do the desired task (Cowperthwaite). This form of operant condition can lead to success, but often leads to resentment and hostility towards the trainers.

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.

Animals are a big part of many people’s lives. They provide companionship; they provide daily assistance to those that have deficits and are having difficulty functioning in their daily life; they provide security and help keep a watchful eye on things, plus so much more. And yet, with all that animals do for us, there are those that are treated with such little regard, care, and cruelty. They are unable to speak for themselves and therefore, they need a voice to speak for them.

In Peter Singer’s piece “All Animals Are Equal”, he begins his argument by an in-depth consideration of notable rights movements, such as the Black Liberation and women’s rights movement, then segues into the justification for equal consideration of rights regarding animals, before finally exposing the immorality behind factory farming and animal cruelty. According to Singer, “the basic principle of equality…is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights” (Singer 1974, 506). Based off proposed animals’ rights to equal consideration, Singer formats his main arguments against factory farming and the mistreatment of animals in general. These arguments stem from

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.