The Lives Of Animals ( 1999 )

First, I will explore the historic and contemporary connections of animal studies within feminist waves and discussions. Next, this paper will address speciesism as a system of oppression and infrahuman prejudices – animals as less than human – and I will discuss the interconnectedness of

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 Peter Singer’s article, All Animals are Equal, Singer claims that animals deserve the same equal rights and respect that the human lives get. His strongest argument is defined by all animals, human or non-human shall be defined as equal. Singer makes some very strong arguments within his article, but I feel some of his statements are humanist. As an animal lover and mother to two pets, I disagree that not all animals or living things endure the same amount. However, I do agree that animals do deserve the rights to live lives as animals should. This paper will analyze Singer’s argument in relation to the specific issue of animal equal rights. It will also include the counterarguments I have against his claims of his article.

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

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

Mark Sagoff, ‘Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce’, in Environmental Philosophy, edited by Michael E. Zimmerman, et al. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1993, pp. 84-94

The film features a quote from Jeremy Bentham, the philosophical godfather of animal rights, so to speak, which says, ’The question is not, “Can they reason?” nor, “Can they

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.

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.

Korsgaard begins with explaining the tradition of Roman law, in which all the entities in the world may be categorized into ‘persons’ and ‘things’. However, since animals are being categorized as ‘things’, it is difficult to offer them legal protection despite they share some properties with human beings. Therefore, some animal rights advocates suggest animals should be re-categorized as persons.

In more recent times the rising prevalence around animal ethics, in the world itself as well as in the realm of philosophy, a multitude of people are finding connection between the somewhat hidden prejudice of speciesism and the indisputable prejudices of sexism and racism. To fully grasp this association, one must first understand the seriously

Rob Sherlock writes about conservation of species, the rate of destruction of our planet, and global warming in an encyclopedia entitled Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia. In the article, he shows a slight bias in his presentation of information to favoring conservation. This is a constant argument between scientists and politicians. This article, titled “Conservation”, is divided into eight subcategories. These categories are Need for Conservation, Rate of Extinction, Conservation Biology, Need for Biodiversity, Risk Assessment, Habitat Conservation, Marine Conservation and Shifting Baselines, and Global Warming. Simply looking at the subheadings, it is easily shown what the author is choosing to focus his work on, conservation. The article

Animals should be viewed as experiencing subjects of life with inherent value of their own. We are guilty of speciesism and have been inhumane and evil to creatures that are powerless. He contends that any change requires a change in our heads and hearts.

As years go by, the population of humans increase, with the expansion of humans more land is needed to provide shelter and other necessities. Yet, humans do not comprehend that they also must consider the animals and plants lifestyle. Nowadays, people do not recognize the damages they do to society. As each year passes, each person’s changes the way they think and contributes a domino effect. When trees are cut down and other landmarks are used to build supermarkets or hotels, humans are taking away homes of those creatures and their food supply to survive. Humans unknowingly and knowingly, at times relocate animals to various locations and that animal must change its habitat to be able to survive, thinking it will be for the better. Not understanding that humans have done wrong in unbalancing the ecosystem and what disaster come along with the trouble they started. Jack Ewing in Monkeys are made of Chocolate provides the reader with useful information about what has been going on with the planet and how people can change their mindsets, when will mankind accepts the fact that if they do not learn the knowledge of what actions must be taken to provide a better lifestyle for Earth, humans will die along with the plants and animals.