Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments about animal rights
CHAPTER 2 EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGy
Arguments about animal rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments about animal rights
Around the world it is acceptable to eat certain animals depending on one’s culture. “The French, who love their dogs, sometimes eat their horses. The Spanish, who loves their horses, sometimes eat their cows. The Indians, who love their cows, sometimes eat their dogs” (Foer 604). “Let Them Eat Dog” is an excerpt from Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer. The excerpt explains the many benefits to eating dogs and the taboo behind it. The author also uses humor, imagery and emotional appeal to get across to the reader the logic of eating dogs. One chooses to eat meat based on what the culture deems acceptable. Foer questions why culture deems certain animals acceptable to be eaten, and illustrates why it should be acceptable to eat dogs. The …show more content…
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 …show more content…
For instance, Americans know about the horror stories of factory farmed meat and how cruel the slaughterhouses are. Factory farmed meat is the “number one cause of global warming, it systematically forces tens of billions of animals to suffer in ways that would be illegal if they were dogs, it is a decisive factor in the development of swine and avian flues, and so on” (Foer 606). The author suggests that Americans are already willing to eat animals that had already been abused, so Americans should be willing to eat dogs. Yet Americans still find the idea of eating dogs repulsive, but dogs would go through no more torture than any other animal in a slaughterhouse. Foer plays on the reader’s emotions to show how cruel slaughterhouses are. These emotions make the reader question if he or she should consider eating dog meat. Economically “if [people] let dogs be dogs, and breed without interference, [one] would create a sustainable, local meat supply with low energy inputs” (Foer 606). With population growth, finding enough sustainable food is a worldwide problem. Foer effectively uses emotional appeal to make the reader consider the current situation of how the world struggles to produce enough food to feed everyone. In other words, dogs should be eaten to help the environment and help feed the
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.
One issue the documentary highlights is the abuse of animals and workers by the food companies, in order to reveal how the companies hide the dark side of the food world from the public. In several instances, we see animals being treated cruelly. The workers have little regard for the lives of the animals since they are going to die anyways. Chickens are grabbed and thrown into truck beds like objects, regulation chicken coups allow for no light the entire lives of the chickens, and cows are pushed around with fork lifts to take to slaughter. Many chickens are even bred to have such large breasts that their bones and organs cannot support their bodies. These chickens cannot walk and they even wheeze in pain for the cameras. The film is clearly using the unacceptable premise fallacy of appeal to emotion in this instance, because the viewer is meant to feel pity at the sight of the abused animals. This supports their conclusion, because many American’s imagine their food coming from a happy, country farm and would be horrified to know the truth.
“Let Them Eat Dog” talks about how in many countries it is completely normal to eat the family pet. I personally could not eat my pet. Foer quotes George Orwell saying “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”(2). In my opinion this means
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.
Most of us do not think twice about the foods we pick up from the supermarket. Many Americans have a preconceived belief that the food being sold to us is safe, and withholds the highest standard of quality. Certainly, compared to many places in the world, this is true. But is the United States sincerely trying to carry out these standards, or have we begun to see a reverse in the health and safety of our food- and more explicitly in our meat? Jonathan Foer, author of “Eating Animals” argues for reform within the food industry- not only for the humane treatment of animals but moreover for our own health. Although Foer exposes the ills within the food industries in order to persuade readers to change their diets for the better, his “vegetarianism or die” assessment may be too extreme for most Americans. The true ills do not start with the meat, but with industrialized production of it through methods practiced by factory farming.
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.
One objection Norcross states in his essay is that “perhaps most consumers are unaware of the treatment of animals, before they appear in neatly wrapped packages on supermarket s...
“An Animals’ Place” by Michael Pollan is an article that describes our relationship and interactions with animals. The article suggests that the world should switch to a vegetarian diet, due to the mistreatment of animals. The essay includes references from animal rights activists and philosophers. These references are usually logical statement that compare humans and non-human animals in multiple levels, such as intellectual and social.
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.
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).
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
Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Much argument has arisen in the current society on whether it is morally permissible to eat meat. Many virtuous fruitarians and the other meat eating societies have been arguing about the ethics of eating meat (which results from killing animals). The important part of the dispute is based on the animal welfare, nutrition value from meat, convenience, and affordability of meat-based foods compared to vegetable-based foods and other factors like environmental moral code, culture, and religion. All these points are important in justifying whether humans are morally right when choosing to eat meat. This paper will argue that it is morally impermissible to eat meat by focusing on the treatment of animals, the environmental argument, animal rights, pain, morals, religion, and the law.
“I always knew that becoming a vegetarian would help prevent cruelty to animals but I was not aware of the environmental consequences of a meat-eating diet.” writes Lillie Ogden, a writer for the popular recipe magazine, Vegetarian Times. The first part of her statement, about “cruelty to animals” is a familiar argument, and generally the one that surrounds the case for adopting a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. However, this exhausted argument is ineffective in actually changing anyone’s eating habits. You can show me as many videos of suffering farm animals as you want, but that argument isn’t going to change the fact that at the end of the day I’m still going to enjoy a juicy, medium-rare steak. The reason being isn’t that I’m not a empathetic person or that I
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 ...
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