“A Case for Eating Dogs” is a satirical excerpt from Jonathan Safran Foer’s book titled “Eating animals” written in a reverie-description mode, intentionally addressed to the cultural context of Americans, specifically dog owners or animal lovers, yet also individuals who eat dog meat. Foer’s purpose is to encourage his audience to treat dogs as how they treat other animals by not consuming meat at all. Through the discourse structure of a satire and use of rhetorical devices and ingredients, audiences with a cultural context of animal lovers might agree with Foer, whereas dog owners and/or lovers might misinterpret his implicit message and hence, continue eating meat.
Because of the animal lover’s nature of viewing the topic objectively, wherein they believe that all animals deserve equal rights, Foer’s excerpt, which mainly appeals to their logos and ethos has successfully fulfilled its purpose of stopping their consumption of meat. Foer’s description of meat eaters as a “selective carnivore” gives the audience a reflective imagery of themselves savagely eating dead animals like wild predators. The word “selective” does not make any difference, since “carnivore” already gives a strong negative connotation that makes them lose their appetite to eat meat. Name-calling is usually regarded as a propagandistic technique, but in this case, it makes the audience realize the meat eater’s double standards. It draws the audience closer to understand Foer’s implicit message and be persuaded by it. To appeal to the animal lover’s logic, Foer directs them to view the topic from different perspectives, which can be seen from his use of oxymoron “remarkably unremarkable” when comparing dogs to pigs in terms of their highly similar intellectua...
... middle of paper ...
... further from understanding that the excerpt is a satire, which result in the continuation of the consumption of meat, unlike Foer’s intention.
The recipe in the end of the excerpt hints the audience of Foer’s implicit message for the last time through exaggeration, which might be taken quite literal by dog owners and/or lovers due to the vivid imagery that appeals to their pathos, but to animal lovers, the exaggeration works as a reversal that forces the audience to realize that other animals also undergo the same pain as dogs when they are supposedly cooked.
Therefore, both audiences react differently because of how they perceive the situation. Since dog owners and/or lovers are subjective, they fail to understand what the animals lovers do: Foer’s excerpt, a satire is written to magnify a perspective of an issue of eating meat to change the audience’s mind.
Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Philosophical Perspectives 18, (2004): 229-245.
It is true that dogs have a high mental capacity but “such a definition would also include the pig, cow and chicken. And it would exclude severely impaired humans” (Foer 604). Foer effectively uses humor to explain why dogs are no more intelligent than many of the animals Americans find acceptable to eat. He also compares animals to severely impaired humans to allow the reader to analyze why he or she chooses to eat certain animals. Likewise, Foer questions if it’s not acceptable to eat dogs because they are companion animals, “but dog eating isn’t a taboo in many places, and it isn’t in anyway bad for [people]. Properly cooked, dog meat poses no greater health risks than any other meat” (Foer 604). Similarly, humor is used to demonstrate how it is acceptable to eat dog in other cultures and why it should be acceptable in the United States. Humor draws the reader in and makes the writing more lighthearted. This shows that with the wide variety of cultures in the United States, Americans can move to accepting dog eating customs. Thus, the author shows why it should be acceptable to eat dogs in the United States because it is acceptable in other
“A Modest Proposal” and “Let Them Eat Dog” have a common argument that we are dealing with over population of humans and animals. Swift uses satire to make us think that he really wants us to eat babies. Foer tells us of people eating animals were not accustomed to. This can put an economical strain on everyone if we don’t use our resources wisely. Both of these articles may be elusive for some to read. Both papers touch on the topics of eating animals, economic issues, and culture.
In “Omnivore’s Delusion,” Blake Hurst, a veteran famer, calls attention to the “agri-intellectuals” who are critiquing farming when having no experience. First of all, the author wants “Agri-intellectuals” to take a walk in a farmer’s shoes. Throughout the article, Hurst throws jabs at the people criticizing choices a farmer makes, for example, he says, “It is important, though, that even people riding in airplanes know that there are environmental and food safety costs to whatever kind of farming we choose” (4). The author says this to show his anger and suggest to these critics they should know what they are talking about before they talk about it. Secondly, Hurst points out the food animal endangerment. The author tells his readers
American consumers think of voting as something to be done in a booth when election season comes around. In fact, voting happens with every swipe of a credit card in a supermarket, and with every drive-through window order. Every bite taken in the United States has repercussions that are socially, politically, economically, and morally based. How food is produced and where it comes from is so much more complicated than the picture of the pastured cow on the packaging seen when placing a vote. So what happens when parents are forced to make a vote for their children each and every meal? This is the dilemma that Jonathan Safran Foer is faced with, and what prompted his novel, Eating Animals. Perhaps one of the core issues explored is the American factory farm. Although it is said that factory farms are the best way to produce a large amount of food at an affordable price, I agree with Foer that government subsidized factory farms use taxpayer dollars to exploit animals to feed citizens meat produced in a way that is unsustainable, unhealthy, immoral, and wasteful. Foer also argues for vegetarianism and decreased meat consumption overall, however based on the facts it seems more logical to take baby steps such as encouraging people to buy locally grown or at least family farmed meat, rather than from the big dogs. This will encourage the government to reevaluate the way meat is produced. People eat animals, but they should do so responsibly for their own benefit.
In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a stand against factory farming, and if we must eat meat then we must adapt humane agricultural methods for meat production.
Olson, Kirby. "Gregory Corso's Post-Vegetarian Ethical Dilemma.(Gregory Corso)(Essay)." Journal Of Comparative Literature And Aesthetics 1-2 (2004): 53. Academic OneFile. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Throughout the last century the concern of animals being treated as just a product has become a growing argument. Some believe that animals are equal to the human and should be treated with the same respect. There are many though that laugh at that thought, and continue to put the perfectly roasted turkey on the table each year. Gary Steiner is the author of the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, that was published in the New York Times right before Thanksgiving in 2009. He believes the use of animals as a benefit to human beings is inhumane and murderous. Gary Steiner’s argument for these animal’s rights is very compelling and convincing to a great extent.
Since Michael Pollan received his Master’s Degree in English (“Michael Pollan: Biography”), he has written top shelf extraordinary books, some of which are New York Times Best Sellers: Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A History of Four Meals, and many others (“About Michael Pollan”). Michael’s writing has won awards such as the World Conservation Union Global Award and the Genesis Award from the American Humane Association for his writing on animal agriculture (“About Michael Pollan”); therefor is credible enough to be writing about food and animals because he has been awarded in this subject. Moreover, Pollan is named one of Time’...
Michael Pollan’s purpose of writing Omnivore’s Dilemma came about when he realizes that society is unbelievably unhealthy due to the abundance of food. The two conflicting logics that Pollan introduces are the logic of nature and the logic of industry; these two logics are reflected through various ways of raising livestock animals. The logic of nature consists of raising livestock animals in a pastoral environment where animals interact with one another and avoid the use of artificial chemicals; whereas, the logic of industry settles on raising livestock animals unnaturally. Growing cattle through the use of corn has allowed meat to be produced in large quantities and in a short time as described in the chapter “Feedlot: Making Meat”
...inder of the cost of our lifestyle, for no one can live a totally cruelty free life. Cruelty will happen whether we wish it to or not—even people who abstain from animal sourced or tested foods and products will inevitably cause some cruelty by simply going about innocent daily life. For example, nearly any driver will eventually hit some animal no matter how hard they try to avoid it. The best one can do is make an honest effort to reduce his or her own impact on other creatures, whether that be by excluding animal products from their diet or seeking out foods from humane farms. Animal narratives are unique in their ability to allow the reader to experience these stories vicariously through the perspective of the animal, encouraging reflection and introspection on how humans treat others, and accordingly promoting empathy towards humankind’s fellow earthlings.
Christopher McCandless, a young American who was found dead in summer of 1992 in wild land in Alaska, wrote in his diary about his moral struggle regarding killing a moose for survival. According to Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Chris had to abandon most of the meat since he lacked the knowledge of how to dismantle and preserve it (166-168). Not only did he have a moral dilemma to kill a moose, but also had a deep regret that a life he had taken was wasted because of his own fault. He then started recognizing what he ate as a precious gift from the nature and called it “Holy Food” (Krakauer 168). Exploring relationships between human beings and other animals arouses many difficult questions: Which animals are humans allowed to eat and which ones are not? To which extent can humans govern other animals? For what purposes and on which principles can we kill other animals? Above all, what does it mean for humans to eat other animals? The answer may lie in its context. Since meat-eating has been included and remained in almost every food culture in the world throughout history and is more likely to increase in the future due to the mass production of meat, there is a very small chance for vegetarianism to become a mainstream food choice and it will remain that way.
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
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...
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.