Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Argument for animal rights
Topic on animal rights
Ethical dilemma about animal rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
After reading the articles,”A Change of Heart about Animals”, by author Jeremy Rifkin, “Hooked on a Myth”, by author Victoria Braithwaite, and “Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and “dignity” to NonHuman Organisms Halt research?”,by author Ed Yong, I both agree and refute some things that are represented in all three articles. In the articles by Rifkin and Yong, I believe that there should be more examples present. In my opinion they were just making assumptions rather than stating facts in order to backup their claims. For example in the article by Rifkin he states” They feel pain,suffer and experience stress, affection,excitement and even love--and these findings are changing how we view animals” (Rifkin 2). By him saying this statement shows that he only states this statement off of what he thinks rather than off of logic and research. On the other hand in the article by Braithwaite’s article, her use of scientific words,and logic, showed me that she knows a lot on that subject. For example she uses words such as,”If you look at thin sections of the trigeminal nerve, the main nerve for the face for all vertebrates, fish have …show more content…
In the article “ A Change of Heart about Animals”, author Jeremy Rifkin uses pathos by explaining the different things that animals go through on a daily basis. For example in the text he states that,”Elephants will often stand next to their dead kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks.”(Rifkin 11). This statement shows that he is trying to appeal to the emotions of the readers by explaining the different actions that animals encounter. Also in the article by Ed Yong he states that “Not everyone is comfortable with GAP’s rights-based approach”(Yong 4) This statement is basically appealing to the readers emotions by saying that all people do not totally agree with the actions of the
Pathos is the author's use of emotions and sympathy to urge the audience to agree with his or her standpoint. And lastly, logos apply sound reasoning (logic) to attract the typical ideas of the audience and to prove the author's point of view. "Lockdown" by Evans D. Hopkins is a fine example of an author using these appeals to persuade his audience. Hopkins uses of the three appeals are easy to locate and relate to throughout the entire passage. He undoubtedly uses rhetoric to try and keep his audiences focused and to persuade them to feel the way he does about the treatment of prisoners.
In the “180” movie Ray Comfort outstandingly used rhetorical appeal throughout his argument in a thorough way to further grasp his audience’s attention. He used pathos, ethos, and logos during the course of his dispute of abortion and the Holocaust. Comfort uses pathos more frequently than the other two appeals, to plea to the audience’s heart strings. An example of when pathos was used was when
Pathos is the appeal to an audience’s emotion. Aside from the other two appeals that I have outlined in this essay, pathos is by far the most recognizable appeal in Lamott’s article. The humorous tone of the article is very easily recognized and frankly, it is hard not to laugh at some of Lamott’s uncalled-for sarcastic remarks (whether it be in your head or out loud). For example, when writing about how every writer she knows never writes an elegant first draft, she continues, “All right, one of them does, but we do not like her very much. We do not think that she has a rich inner life or that God likes her or can even stand her” (1). By making such presumptuous claims about this person, some audiences might find this type of language comical or entertaining, which in turn makes them want to believe Lamott and continue reading. In a way this helps Lamott seem credible to some readers, in which case she has created a successful argument. On the other hand, some readers might find this kind of language unprofessional and inappropriate. Because much of the article deals with language that is full of humor and sarcasm, it would make sense to say that Lamott has directed this article towards an audience who is looking for something more entertaining than a typical statistic-filled essay that one might consider mainstream in this field. Whether it be entertaining or absurd, Lamott most definitely uses the appeal of pathos in her
For example, the emotion is felt when Kozol speaks to a student from a New York, Bronx high school, “Think of it this way,” said a sixteen-year-old girl. “If people in New York woke up one day and learned that we were gone…how would they feel? Then when asking how she thought the people of New York would feel she replied, “I think they’d be relieved” (Kozol 205). By mentioning the thoughts and emotions of individuals involved with the issues of school system segregation and inequality his reader cannot help but develop a feeling of empathy for children that feel as if no one cares about them and their issue. Kozol also uses pathos effectively by reading letters to his reader he received from young elementary school children that are not afforded the same amenities as other children in wealthier school systems, amenities such as toilet paper or the appropriate amount of restrooms. Which causes students to hold the urge to relieve themselves out of fear of being late for class (Kozol 214). With the proper use of pathos, Kozol places the reader in the same situation and assistances the reader with an understanding of his reason for conveying a concern to help children in this unfortunate situation. Another example of Pathos is when he speaks of the letters that came from third-grade children asking for help with getting them better things. He mentions a letter that had the most affected on him that came from a girl named Elizabeth, “It is not fair that other kids have a garden and new things. But we don’t have that.” (Kozol 206). This example being only one example of the few things mentioned in the letter. The tone of the little girl from when Kozol reads gives a pitiful and sad feeling. By stating this, it acts on the reader’s emotional state which creates a sense of wanting to resolve the problem of
Pathos: is an approach that appeals to the audience’s emotions. Including specific examples showing how tragedies have been avoided thanks to first responders being trained. Also, included in Pathos are examples on how tragedies have happen due to the misunderstanding
In the article “A change of heart about animals” author Jeremy Rifkin uses rhetorical appeals such as ethos, logos, and pathos to persuade humanity in a desperate attempt to at the very least have empathy for “our fellow creatures” on account of the numerous research done in pursuit of animal rights. Rifkin explains here that animals are more like us than we imagined, that we are not the only creatures that experience complex emotions, and that we are not the only ones who deserve empathy.
Pathos was use often in this story to show his compassion to those affected victims, and his disagreement toward the opposing individuals of the death penalty. In the article, the writer put sentences that had emotion that the writer convoke to the audience. For example, in the last two paragraphs he mentions the case of a murder victim that is not help. At the beginning, Koch showed sadness, then toward the end, he displayed the madness he felt toward those who did not do something to help. He believes that the opposing group toward death penalty are the same as the people that did not do anything to help. With this emotion, the author was able to make the reader thoughtful whether not supporting death penalty makes justice of the inoffensive victim. Although the writer uses a considerable amount of emotion, he does not go to an extreme, which would made his argument emotional for the reader to lost interest of
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.
She allows the reader to identify with her by pointing out that she “went to the zoo all the time with [her] family” and that she “loved pandas” (Carr); the reader identifies with her, as the reader is likely to have visited the zoo as a child or likely to have a love for animals. Initially, she was very excited about seeing the animals so closely, but then she realized, even at that age, the “animals were miserable” (Carr). By telling the reader about her memory, Carr persuades the reader into believing that zoos are depressing and that animals do not belong in unnatural environments. Carr also mentions that she no longer goes to the zoo and urges her family and friends to do the same. The author then adds that she has a love for animals and wishes for the zoo animals to be set free. Again, by involving loved ones and reinforcing her love for animals, Carr appeals to the emotions of the reader. The reader is then likely to identify with the author, urge his or her family members and friends to not go to the zoo, and wish to see animals free from captivity. Therefore, Carr persuades the reader into believing that zoos are wicked by using the persuasive method of pathos. Along with Carr appealing to the reader’s emotions, she appeals to the reader’s
Goodall argues that her readers have an ethical obligation to protect animals from suffering, but she also implies that it might be necessary sometimes to abandon that obligation. She points out that animals share similar traits with human beings: they have a capacity for certain human emotions, and they may be capable of legitimate friendship. Goodall’s evidence for this claim is an anecdote from her research. She recounts that one chimpanzee in her study, named David Greybeard, “gently squeezed [her] hand” when she offered him food (62). Appealing to readers’ emotions, Goodall hopes to persuade readers that the chimp is “sociable” and “sentient,” or feeling (62). According to Goodall’s logic, if researchers are careful to avoid tests that cause human suffering, they should also be careful to avoid tests that cause suffering for other life forms.
Finally, this article touches upon inappropriate versus appropriate pathos in scientific argument. Novak is considered too invested in bringing back the passenger pigeon, while his most other scientists involved in the field do not feel the same level of attachment. Interestedness is often considered bias, but in regards to “de-extinction”, a field that is so closely related to ethics and morals, is it dangerous to be biased on behalf of bring back animals mankind contributed to destroying? One contrasting argument that none of the scientists in this article touched upon is the desire to completely change the scientific community’s direction concerning the issue of extinction to focus its energy and resources onto preventing the extinction of species struggling to survive today.
With the use of pathos, he may have convinced readers that what he is trying to state is factual. The majority of his arguments apply to emotion.
The morals of a modern society entails protections for all species of life. Humans do not have the nature to not inflict harm on innocent animals around the world.Animal research is unjust and neglectful to species in every animal kingdom.The animal kingdom has been disturbed since men step foot on this earth. Some people are so selfish that the only thing that look over is about their own selves and not other humans or living things in this world. Animal rights is a big thing to some people and to others it not this paper talks about how it's cruel to research on animals, how research doesn't improve health,and how it's not regulated.
In the article “No, animals don’t have rights” (2014), the author argues that the movement for animals rights is reducing humans to animals, or upgrading animals to humans. However, this is not entirely true, humans are also animals, but with a higher degree of intelligence. In the article “Yes, animals have feelings” (2014), has shown that most scientists agree that vertebrates animals are, to different degrees, sentient. Humans can’t understand what they feel exactly, but we can notice their change in behavior and emotion. Animals are responsive and expressive, they have their intentions and preferences. Opponents believe that animals don 't have rights or that even if they do, those rights should count for less than human desires; others believe giving animals rights would demean humanity and animal rights must be rejected; also, that human welfare is more important than animal welfare, interests of animals should be overruled when necessary. A research by the Clever Dog Lab at the University of Vienna, shows that dogs, just like humans, glance at the left side of the human face first, this is where the bilateral brains exhibit more emotion. Therefore, dogs rapidly read mood and intentions. A research led by Giorgio Vallortigara of the University of Trento, found that dogs were relaxed when they watched videos of dogs wagging their tails mainly to the
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' (PETA) campaign “I'd Rather Go Naked than Wear Fur,” in order to argue that, rather than changing people's thoughts and behavior for the benefit of animals, the campaign succeeds merely in demeaning and hyper-sexualizing women. While PETA has often been successful in generating visual rhetoric that appeals to both the public’s logical reasoning and emotional sentiment, the visual rhetoric in this campaign is unable to generate the same effect. An analysis of the implementation of the three rhetoric appeals - pathos, logos and ethos - show that the organization’s inability to catalyze behavioural change in their target audience can be largely attributed to conflicts