In Jonathan Safran Foer’s “Let Them Eat Dog”, he discusses a controversial, yet debatable topic. The topic concerns the eating of dogs, and whether or not it is moral and right. This is an issue that has two sides to consider; it is either completely right or completely wrong, there is no in-between. The argument to eat dog is presented with the use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Foer has a number of important arguments why eating dogs is moral and unmoral, in the end he leaves it to the judgment of the reader as to which side they come down on.
The eating of companion animals is a taboo, but dog is not the only companion animal. I believe Foer stops at dogs to preserve the man’s best friend angle. Foer sites research that shows dogs have very similar mental capacities of a pig, cow, and chicken. Ethos kicks in due to the fact that researchers say dogs have mental capacities similar to other animals, yet people think it is immoral to kill dogs but moral to kill chickens, cows, or pigs; Furthermore, Foer states “if we let dogs breed on their own, the country would have a local meat s...
Jonathan Safran Foer wrote “Eating Animals” for his son; although, when he started writing it was not meant to be a book (Foer). More specifically to decide whether he would raise his son as a vegetarian or meat eater and to decide what stories to tell his son (Foer). The book was meant to answer his question of what meat is and how we get it s well as many other questions. Since the book is a quest for knowledge about the meat we eat, the audience for this book is anyone that consumes food. This is book is filled with research that allows the audience to question if we wish to continue to eat meat or not and provide answers as to why. Throughout the book Foer uses healthy doses of logos and pathos to effectively cause his readers to question if they will eat meat at their next meal and meals that follow. Foer ends his book with a call to action that states “Consistency is not required, but engagement with the problem is.” when dealing with the problem of factory farming (Foer).
Alastair Norcross introduces a very controversial case. He compares the actions of Fred as being morally equal to factory farming. Norcross presents the Marginal case and the Analogy argument. There are many objections to his beliefs such as; the suffering of the puppies is intended as a means to Fred’s pleasure, whereas the suffering of factory raised animals is merely foreseen as a side effect of a system that is a means to the gustatory pleasure of millions. Also, the individual consumers lack the power to put an end to factory farming. And lastly, human beings have a greater moral status than nonhumans. (Norcross, 285) I disagree with Norcross’s statement saying that Fred’s behavior and that of people who consume factory-farmed meat is morally equivalent.
People take pain killers at the first hint of pain, What happens when you can’t afford that for your pets? In the blog, “Is It Ethical to Euthanize Your Dog?” (2011), by Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D, Cohen shares the heavily biased argument for euthanasia, favoring the against side. Cohen’s purpose was to inform the readers about the ethical dilemma concerning euthanasia. Euthanasia can be the ethically and morally correct decision for a couple of reasons; pain and suffering of your pet, overall quality of life, and the tremendous vet bills.
In this paper I will look at the argument made by James Rachels in his paper, The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism supporting the view that humans should be vegetarians on moral grounds. I will first outline the basis of Rachels’ argument supporting vegetarianism and his moral objection to using animals as a food source and critique whether it is a good argument. Secondly, I will look at some critiques of this kind of moral argument presented by R. G. Frey in his article, Moral Vegetarianism and the Argument from Pain and Suffering. Finally, I will show why I support the argument made by Frey and why I feel it is the stronger of the two arguments and why I support it.
Connell uses irony to instill a question in the mind of the reader”Is killing animals moral?”
First Friend: A History of Dogs and Humans, by Katherine Rogers, articulates the history of the relationship between dogs and humans. Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals, by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce, investigates if and how dogs exhibit morality. In both texts, anecdotes and observations are used to portray instances of dogs displaying cooperation, empathy, altruism, and, by extension, morality. Consequently, it stands to reason that dogs have a capacity for sociality, but how can the sociality of dogs be described? A dog’s capacity for sociality is the ability to form long term relationships with members of the same or other species. Dogs, in particular, dogs who hunt as well as dogs who play, are able to form long term relationships with humans and other dogs through trust, love,
...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?
In June Robison’s article,”Frosty’s story illustrates scope of animal cruelty”, she argues that animal cruelty is wrong and attempts to persuade the reader to feel sympathy for animals. Animal cruelty is indeed wrong and it must stop. The author made some strong points in her editorial; however, she left out several substantial sources. This evaluation will review Robison’s article and state the main points.
Ultimately, William Saletan argues his point very well in ?Wok the Dog.? He systematically deconstructs both the argument that dog meat should be outlawed because of cruel treatment of dogs, and the argument that dog meat should be outlawed because dogs have a special position as ?man?s best friend,? and this takes away the foundation for the overarching argument that eating dog meat is unsightly and wrong, and exposes the arguments for what they truly are; an attack by westerners against a foreign practice that they find odd. Saletan effectively presents dog-eating Koreans, people whose dietary practice seems grotesque to many people, as the victims of foreign bullying, and leaves the reader no choice but to support them.
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Philosophical Perspectives 18, (2004): 229-245.
Vegetarians are uncomfortable with how humans treat animals. Animals are cruelly butchered to meet the high demand and taste for meat in the market. Furthermore, meat-consumers argue that meat based foods are cheaper than plant based foods. According to Christians, man was given the power to dominate over all creatures in the world. Therefore, man has the right to use animals for food (Singer and Mason, 2007). However, it is unjustified for man to treat animals as he wishes because he has the power to rule over animals. This owes to the reality that it is unclear whether man has the right to slaughter animals (haphazardly), but it is clear that humans have a duty to take care of animals. In objection, killing animals is equal to killing fellow humans because both humans and animals have a right to life. Instead of brutally slaying animals, people should consume their products, which...
Michael Pollan presents many convincing arguments that strengthen his position on whether slaughtering animals is ethical or not. He believes that every living being on this planet deserves an equal amount of respect regardless of it being an animal or human, after all humans are also animals. “An Animal’s place” by Michael Pollan is an opinionated piece that states his beliefs on whether animals should be slaughtered and killed to be someone’s meal or not. In his article, Pollan does not just state his opinions as a writer but also analyzes them from a reader’s point of view, thus answering any questions that the reader might raise. Although Pollan does consider killing and slaughtering of animals unethical, using environmental and ethical
We neatly separate animals into relatively artificial categories – “pets”, “wild animals”, and “farm animals”. These categories affect how we treat those within the category. For instance, our treatment of farm animals would be illegal if applied towards pets. If a shed filled with cages was then crammed by dogs so tightly that limits them to stretch or move freely, one would face strong social and legal sanction, but would probably differ in the case for chickens. According to two recent studies by Kristof Dhont and Gordon Hodson, it was observed that conservatives consume more meat and exploit animals more because they dismiss the threat that vegetarianism and veganism supposedly pose to traditions and cultural practice, and they feel more entitled to consume animals given human “superiority”. Aside from that, the study also examined the possibility of both conservatives and socialists in simply preferring the taste of meat thus consuming them. It appeared that the conservatives are more likely to consume more meat for reasons related to ideology, even after statistically removing the influence of hedonistically liking the taste of meat from the
Let me begin with the words by George Bernard Shaw: ‘Animals are my friends and I don’t eat my friends’. This indicates the ethic aspect of meat consumption. In fact, people often don’t realize how animals are treated, but they can see commercial spots in their TV showing smiling pigs, cows or chickens, happy and ready to be eaten. My impression is that there can’t be anything more cruel and senseless. It is no secret that animals suffer ...