Ethos Pathos Logos

Animal rights has been a great controversy for a long time. This topic is talked about in Tom Regan’s article entitled, “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs” and Linda Hasselstrom’s piece titled “The Cow Versus the Animal Rights Activist”. Each author debates how human benefits defend the killings of animals. Regan argues that harming animals is unjust. Hasselstrom believes that animals can be killed to benefit humans and still be loved with care. Both authors use ethos, pathos, and logos in different and similar ways.

Both authors use great ethos in their arguments. This gives them both great credibility. Regan is a “professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University” (336). Regan uses ethos by stating “the species is officially protected by agreement of the member nations of the International Whaling Commission” (336). He is very knowledgeable by knowing the law says. Hasselstrom usage of ethos is used very well also. She states in her article “I’m a rancher; beef cattle provide most of my money and food. I like cows; ive had a warm partnership with them for thirty-five

years” (Hasselstrom 327). Her knowledge and experience with cows and the beef industry allows the reader to trust her.

Although both authors share strong ethos, their usage of pathos is very different.

Regan’s tone throughout the argument is sad, dark, serious, and very moody. he uses multiple extrme imageries. For example, the account of Thai hunter describes how to hunt the baby gibbon by using a gun. He explains “slowly her fingers begin to loosen her grip. Death is there, staining her pale fur” (Regan 337). This is very descriptive becsuse regan wants the reader to feel what the animal are going through. The usage of pathos in Hasselstrom’s article is weak compared to Regan’s. even though she is passionate about her love for cows, she comes off in a vry comical way about it. She states “I also love to cut into a tender sirloin steak with a hint of pink in the center, and dip each bite into the luscious brown juice surrounding the potatoes on my plate” (Hasselstrom 327). Hasselstrom’s tone is not

formal.

Regan has many usage of logos in his article. He gets different people’s accounts on how they kill defenseless animals. In one interview, a man involved with killing the whale gives his account on how “there is now a fight between the mammal and the crew of the catching vessel- a fight to the death” (Regan 336). The man tells many facts by stating how struggling it is for the whale to escape and avoid death. This is good because Regan uses the animals being slaughtered as a way to make his reader’s see reality. However, Hasselstrom only uses logos in the beginning of her article. She states “statistics from a few years declared that the average American ate fourteen cows in a lifetime, but consumption will drop to a twenty-five-year low in 1990 as hysterical and ill-formed folks screech about the dangers of beef” (Hasselstrom 330). She could talk more about the proposed laws and what they are and how it affects things. This hurts her argument because her article needs concrete facts throughout her entire article so that it will support her personal stories.

In conclusion, the most effective argument is Regan’s piece. His tone makes the reader very emotional. His article is also more formal than Hasselstrom’s. Regan is very logical and uses more logos than Hasselstrom. They both use a good amount of ethos in their argument, which makes them both credible. Lastly, Regan uses more pathos than Hasselstrom