Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments about animal abuse
Animal abuse as an ethical issue
Arguments about animal abuse
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments about animal abuse
PreTest- Oct. 9
What is the thesis of the article?
The thesis of the article “ A Change of Heart about Animals” was basically stating how animals and humans are the same thing just somewhat different for example they way we may look. Other then that the thesis mentioned how animals have right to just like any human has the right to speech and freedom. People can’t just hurt animals for fun that is against the law. So a summary of the article from the thesis is that animals have emotions and shouldn’t be treated differently becuase of appearins. 2. Does the author make any claims that you disagree with? What are they?
Well I mean not really all the claims that the author mention kinda are positive responses becuase it’s trying to show us the main point in why humans and animals shouldn’t be treated any different becuase at the end of the day they are alive just any human out there. So No, the author does not mention any claims that I disagree
…show more content…
Also Rifkin supports his implication by illustrating how animals are similar to humans by describing the research that has proved in the article. His purpose is to inform the readers the conscious of animal cruelty in our economy in order to bring around greater rights for animals in this world. The author Rifkin makes the audiance feel a certain way becuase they mention lots of cruel stuff people do to the animals and how they should have the same rights as the humans, for example, “They feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love- and these findings are changing how we the people view animals” . The literary of the artilce of Rifkin is basically to show the studies between animals and
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.
Not only does Rifkin imply that we that the scientific discoveries that he summarizes should change the way we feel about animals, but he is desperately reaching for a change in action as well. questioning things like “Should wild lions be caged in zoos”(Rifkin) and most importantly asking the question of what all this means to the way we will treat “our fellow creatures”(Rifkin). Now I ask you after reading this rhetorical
In the article you published called “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Jeremy Rifkin states “Many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined.”. I agree and believe society should be more involved into the way we do things that involves animals. We need to be more aware about the animals and that they have feelings and emotions too and we should not be taking advantage of that. Rifkin stated a lot of good points and arguments. I honestly do not agree we should end all animals deaths, but I do believe there should be an awareness against animal cruelty.
...nimal rights yet I do question myself where to draw the line. I do not condone violence or harm against animals, yet I shudder at the thought of a mice plague and feel saddened by the extinction of our native animals by ‘feral’ or pest species. Is it right to kill one species to save another? I am appalled by the idea of ‘circus’ animals yet I will attend the horse races every summer for my entertainment. I think Tom Regan’s argument and reasoning for animal rights was extremely effective at making whoever is reading the essay question his or her own moral standards. Reading the essay made me delve into my own beliefs, morals and values which I think is incredibly important. To form new attitudes as a society it is important we start questioning how we view the lives of others, do we see animals as a resource to be exploited or as equals with rights just like we do?
The reason I agree with the author is because, she showed facts and quotes about what some of the scientist that work on these animals think when they are working such as when she quoted "The only thing I care about, is whether the monkeys will show characteristics that I can publish. I never feel affection for them. I don’t like animals at all. I despise cats. I hate dogs. How can you like monkeys?" (as cited by H. Ruesch in "Slaughter of the Innocent", 1983, page 52. ) which you can see why it helps her article to be more effective on animal experimenting being wrong. Also she had added a true story about how one of the professors that were testing on a monkey tattooed the work CRAP onto it's forehead all of these helped me to see why she believes that animal testing shouldn't be allowed. To me this author seems to be manipulated by emotion just because she had told so many stories that broke my heart and made me cry just thinking about what is happening to all of these innocent animals. Another reason I believe that she manipulates through emotion is because, she makes people realize all that these animals are going through just because scientist think that animals have the same feelings and reactions that us people
As I have progressed through this class, my already strong interest in animal ethics has grown substantially. The animal narratives that we have read for this course and their discussion have prompted me to think more deeply about mankind’s treatment of our fellow animals, including how my actions impact Earth’s countless other creatures. It is all too easy to separate one’s ethical perspective and personal philosophy from one’s actions, and so after coming to the conclusion that meat was not something that was worth killing for to me, I became a vegetarian. The trigger for this change (one that I had attempted before, I might add) was in the many stories of animal narratives and their inseparable discussion of the morality in how we treat animals. I will discuss the messages and lessons that the readings have presented on animal ethics, particularly in The Island of Doctor Moreau, The Dead Body and the Living Brain, Rachel in Love, My Friend the Pig, and It Was a Different Day When They Killed the Pig. These stories are particularly relevant to the topic of animal ethics and what constitutes moral treatment of animals, each carrying important lessons on different facets the vast subject of animal ethics.
Writing this paper did not affect my original line of thinking in regards to the topic. I support animal rights in every way, and am extremely against any sort of testing. Observing the “necessities” of animal testing did not, in any way, alter my negative view of animal experimentation.
"In "All Animals Are Equal," Singer argues for the equality of all animals, on the basis of an argument by analogy with various civil rights movements, on the part of human beings. How does this argument go exactly, and what is Singer's precise conclusion? Is his argument successful? Why or why not? If you think it is successful, raise a residual potentially damaging objection, and respond on Singer's behalf (i.e., as a proponent of the position). And if not, how far does the argument go and/or how might it be improved? What has Singer taught us here, if anything?"
Regan begins the essay by stating that " Not a few of people regard the animal rights position as extreme, calling, as it does, for the abolition of certain well-entrenched social practices rather than for their “humane” reform " ( Regan 619 ) . The writer also compares animal rights with humans based on extreme moral positions, such as rape, child pornography and racial discrimination, claiming that “. . . when an injustice is absolute, as is true of each of the example just cited, then one must oppose it absolute. It is not reformed, more humane child pornography than an enlightened ethic calls for: it is abolition that is required “(Regan 620). The writing is totally against hunting animals for sport, dressing in animal skins, and breeding of animals for slaughter. In his view any animal sacrifice is no different from a crime perpetuated a human being. Sacrifice any animal should stimulate the same emotional reaction that a crime a human being. This belief is considered by many as a vision "extremist” of animal rights and generally not widely accepted.
The issue that has been raging for over many years is if animals should be owned by humans. This mainly concerns zoos, private owners and other facilities that hold animals. The public saw this issue and wanted to address it. Big organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are the ones who are mainly active in this dilemma. The people who are also interested in this issue are those who fit into the category of any side of the argument. Other people and organizations, who are interested in this topic, are zoos or animal wildlife parks. People of the public were interested in this issue, which is why there so many organizations and debates for the issue of animal cruelty. Zoos also promoted interest for this issue in the public, due to the high amount of visitors. There are two main viewpoints in this argument and one in the middle of both. One side is for animal being kept in zoos, facilities or owned by humans in general. The other side argues that animals should not be kept by anyone because they are nobody’s to own. The middle ground between the two points of view believes that only some people and facilities are allowed to take care of animals (basically those who are qualified).
Seeing maimed animals are not pleasant images. Those images sometimes appear across computer and television screens. The advocacy groups who place these images in the public’s view are trying to jolt people into the realization that abuse exists. For every ten seconds that goes by an animal is getting abused (“Animal… Statistics”). One statistic states that “71% of pet-owning women entering women’s shelters reported that their batterer had injured, maimed, killed or threatened family pets for revenge or to psychologically control victims; 32% reported their children had hurt or killed animals” (“Animal… Violence”). Animal cruelty comes in several forms, some of which people do not know. There is animal experimenting, animal abuse, and mistreatment of animals. and through revealing the results from research, one discovers the horrific effects of animal abuse.
1. How is life of animal described in the chapter one? I. Misery and slavery II. Misery and cruelty III. Slavery IV.
A. A. “The Case Against Animal Rights.” Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Janelle Rohr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
The experiments and other data show that animals are not just driven by instincts alone. There is more to them than that. It is hard to watch dogs play and believe that they derive no fun or pleasure from it at all. Animals have shown that they are sensitive to their social surroundings. They punish one another and alleviate other’s pain. Some monkeys in established communities attack those that find food and don’t share. These studies are important. A better understanding of how animals are feeling could create a whole new guideline of rules on the way animals should be treated. Humans should not be so arrogant to believe they are the only animals capable of emotion. How are we capable of seeing from their viewpoint and assume they feel no emotion.
In conclusion I hope to have shed some new light on just what animal cruelty is and what it consists of. I hope that with this information people will be more open to what they see. Hopefully this information will cut down on animal abuse and will make people watch out for mistreatment of animals. I hope that people will think twice before abusing animals. Animals DO have feelings. They may not be able to talk and tell us where it hurts, but they do feel pain just like humans. There are laws to protect animals just like humans. I do not feel as though the laws are strong enough nor are they enforced the way they should.