A Change Of Heart About Animals Analysis

If Animals Had A Choice

Whether on the farm, at home, or at the dinner table, animals play an important role in everyday human life. They serve as a source of livelihood, entertainment, inspiration, and of course food and clothing to people all across the world. Yet animals can exist independent from people and, as living beings, they arguably have interests separate and apart from their utility to humanity. However, society is increasingly faced with legal, ethical, and economic dilemmas about the position for animals and the extent to which their interests should be respected, even when those interests conflict with what is best for humans. All animals should be treated respectfully but they are not equal to humans. However, animals need to have the Animal Bill of Rights because it can stop animal abuse, unnecessary animal experiments, and the death of many innocent creatures, but cannot have equal rights as humans have because we cannot ignore human suffering and focus only on animals rights.

On the one hand, passing an Animal Bill of Rights while it is true that it could limit the amount of animal abuse. In Rifkin’s article “A Change of Heart about Animals” he states, “Studies on pigs’ social behavior

funded by McDonald's at Purdue University, for example, have found that they crave affection and are easily depressed if isolated or denied playtime with each other. The lack of mental and physical stimuli can result in deterioration of health” (Rifkin 3). This proves that animals crave and desire affection. Pigs’ have similar characteristics and habits as humans. They play, eat, sleep, and feel pain. If a human lacks attention or love, that person could also become depressed very easily. This proves that animals have many similarities as humans, therefore, should have the same rights as humans.
Scientists have done many experiments on all kinds of animals. Most people believe that animals don’t suffer or feel pain, but according to Victoria Braithwaite even fish feel pain. “…fish have the same two types of nociceptors that we do –” (Braithwaite 36). Nociceptors are nerve endings that alert your body if it is encountered with a pointy or sharp object. It is proven that every little animal, as well as fish, have these in their bodies. I think that scientist and psychologist should not be able to do unnecessary experiments on animals. The reason that they shouldn’t is because most of the time these animals don’t survive these procedures. It isn’t right to instantly end an animal’s life, as well as its wrong to end a human’s life. On top of these innocent killings human’s show little to no remorse.  
On the other hand, animals can't distinguish between good or bad, they haven’t a free will, they just follow their instinct. As you can see in the Blackfish directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite where it focuses on Tilikum, an Orca held by SeaWorld and the disputation over captive killer whales. An Orca was involved in the deaths of three individuals. This is the consequences we take for keeping orcas in captivity. A segment of the video of trainer Dawn Brancheau's death is shown at the beginning of the film and near to the end, but cuts off just before Tilikum attacks and drags her underwater (Blackfish). This is the most accessible difference between an animal and a human: the ability to choose on a moral basis, what is better and for whom, implies the creation of the term “right”, the inability to do so implies the inapplicability of any rights. This is one of the main reasons why animals cannot have rights equal to human rights.
Do animals deserve a Bill of Rights?

Yes, they do, because people like farmers and ranchers need to understand that the animals have feelings and emotions. However, while animals need to be treated respectfully, they are not equal to humans. The main difference between humans and animals is our ability to act on a moral basis. Because of their inability to determine right from wrong, they do not deserve a Bill of Rights equal to that of human’s. I believe that animals need a Bill of Rights to protect them to live humane lives, but only to a certain point. As we have seen, animals are incapable of understanding the moral implications of their decisions. A compromise between two extremes would protect animals as well as not letting the situation get out of

hand.