Why I Became a Vegan: A Cannon 1 Kimberly Cannon Professor Clark ENGL 1301 10 June 2024 Rhetorical Analysis personal narrative, Ray Monk’s article “Why I Became a Vegan” is not just a but a compelling rhetorical piece that aims to to reconsider their transformation from a meat-eater to a committed vegan is a carefully that appeals to the logic. His use of rhetorical his case, both relatable and to reflect on their own habits and the of their food choices. and the Monk begins his article by addressing the factors that influenced his decision to become a vegan. He recounts a realization, a common tactic in pathos, where he could not his love for animals with the act of consuming them. This serves to humanize his accessible and emotionally resonant. …show more content…
By painting a stark picture of the animals, Monk taps into the readers’ sense of compassion and justice. This moral appeal is to consider the dietary aspects of their diet a reevaluation of what it means to live a life aligned with their values. Logos and the Argument of Reason Monk’s article is not solely an emotional plea; it is also grounded in He presents a series of well-researched facts and statistics about the of meat production, the health benefits of a plant-based diet, and the inefficiencies of This use of logos strengthens his argument by providing a rational basis for his decision, industrial practices behind cruelty inflicted powerful because challenges readers ethical implications choices, prompting Logical Appeal: logical reasoning. environmental impact of animal farming. Cannon 3 appeals to readers who are persuaded by facts and …show more content…
His of the and of veganism demonstrates a deep commitment to understanding the of his choices. By drawing on his expertise and Monk as a reliable and vegan. Conclusion: A Call to Reflection and Action scientific studies issues, thereby constructing combining ethical considerations multifaceted argument Ethical Appeal: Monk’s credibility, established through reflective writing present himself infallible authority; instead, uncertainties throughout humility makes relatable, encouraging readers Moreover, Monk’s background thoughtful analysis ethical, environmental, health-related aspects broader implications personal experience, effectively establishes himself trustworthy advocate In closing, Ray Monk’s “Why I Became a Vegan” is a of Through the use of pathos, logos, and ethos, His moral appeals to compassion and self-reflection, creating a persuasive and thought-provoking piece. Monk’s article is not about his, it is a call to action for readers to consider the health implications of their diets. By engaging with his story, readers are invited to embark on their own journey of reflection, that his “Why I Became a Vegan” is powerful and to the discourse on
The argumentative article “More Pros than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson was published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. In Garretson’s article, she said that a vegetarian lifestyle is the healthy life choice and how many people don’t know how the environment is affected by their eating habits. She argues how the animal factory farms mistreat the animals in an inhumane way in order to be sources of food. Although, she did not really achieve the aim she wants it for this article, she did not do a good job in trying to convince most of the readers to become vegetarian because of her writing style and the lack of information of vegetarian
Lundberg describes how the demand for animal protein was incredibly higher than the production. She quoted Marlow’s article stating, “A nonvegetarian diet requires 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticide than does a vegetarian diet and the greatest difference comes from beef consumption” (Lundberg 483). She then questions: "Do we really want to wait until it’s too late to change our way of eating?” (Lundberg 485). These two points will make readers subconsciously pause to answer this question themselves, put themselves in the situation imagining the products used and having an immediate reaction to it.
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).
Lundberg’s mother and her healthy ways had influenced Lundberg to start eating green. Her mother believed in having two vegetables with every meal and exercising daily. This healthy ritual led Lundberg to do the same for her family by preparing meals from scratch, because she knew that having good health did not just happen on its own (570). As an adult she took this ritual of health further by becoming vegetarian and later a vegan, saying “I look and feel better at fifty two then I did five years ago. For my health and well-being, becoming a vegetarian was the best thing I could have done.” (571) She ties her personal experience with what she expects everyone else to experience by making the same decision of not eating
Taylor, Alexander and Sunaura Taylor, “Is It Possible to Be a Conscientious Meat Eater?” Rpt in Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Barnet, Sylvia and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St.Martins. 2011. Print. 199-204.
In her Salon.com essay, “Why I Stopped Being a Vegetarian,” writer Laura Fraser uses her own life experiences to explain why she became a vegetarian, what it did to her, and why she decided to go back to being an omnivore. Fraser’s main idea was that even though being a vegetarian might be slightly healthier than a “usual diet”, and that people should not go against what they are made for. Fraser explains why being a vegetarian can be healthier for people in some places, why it is hard to be a full vegetarian, and why it is a good idea to not go against humans natural ways as a human being. By establishing her personal view and facts that she has researched, and appealing to emotions and logic in some ways, Fraser succeeds in writing an
Years ago it would have been unheard of for anyone to not eat meat on a daily basis, since during one period of time it was considered a staple for some. However, meat eaters started to pay attention to what they were consuming once Upton Sinclair’s famous novel The Jungle was published in the early 1930’s. It drew so much attention that the Pure Food and Drug Act passed to prevent the unsanitary and hazardous practices mentioned in The Jungle from happening. However, before Upton Sinclair’s novel was published few were already recognizing the ethical and nutritional (in this time period) hazards that happened because of the commercial meat industry. The International Vegetarian Union was established in 1908 and was one of the first notable movements and the organization that brought the most publicity towards vegetarianism in the western world. This organization stood against the ethical, environmental, and economic effects the commercial meat industry had on our nation. Even with the founding of this organization many do not understand vegetarianism or veganism in Europe or the United States and thus discuss it negatively, but this is an event that should cease to happen. The negative discussion of vegetarianism has negative effects that should be avoided and will be discussed.
"PRIMARY News from the Vegan Home Front." News from the Vegan Home Front. Web. 18 Mar. 2014. .
However, Hare’s pro demi-vegetarian argument provides an unequivocal view on the discussion of economic, ecological, and moral topics. While the look into market trends of meat is lacking Hare discusses a reality of the meat industry and its food competitors, that being the cost behind animal rearing and husbandry. While the high costs incurred does not entail permissibility the surrounding circumstances do. If fodder is grown on terrain only suitable for a pasture, then as a result husbandry and animal domestication (and later slaughter) is permissible because the economic consequences of harvesting crops would greatly outweigh the benefits and as such the community improves more from the meat/animal byproduct industry. This economical and ecological argument is one of several that Hare provides in his article Why I Am Only A Demi-Vegetarian, in addition to the market term being coined and reasoning behind
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.
Walters, Kerry S, and Lisa Portmess. Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. Print.
Rachels, J. (2013). The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism. In L. Vaughn, Contemporary Moral Arguments - Readings in Ethical Issues Second Edition (pp. 617-622). New York: Oxford University Press.
...e Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21.6 (2008): 580-96. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
The issue of meat consumption has been a controversial topic on whether to allow the practice or discontinue it, non-meat eaters argue it’s unethical because it is abusive to animals. On the other hand, meat consumers argue that eating meat is ethical as long as meat eaters are conscious of how their meat is collected and the treatment of livestock is fair. The consumption of meat is an act that an individual decides whether to partake in or not. Therefore, the option of eating meat should not be completely taken away, but it should be limited. Eating meat ties in with vegetarian and vegan diets, in the sense that both have to follow guidelines to create an ethical approach to eating any grown foods. The consumption of food is ethical when
As we can now observe, vegetarianism has become something fashionable, and the number of people who reject eating meat is constantly increasing. In Britain, for instance, over 5 million people have done it so far. It is obviously connected with the recent animal diseases, but this tendency is likely to spread on the other regions of the world. However, it is not only a fashion or fear of illnesses. I myself became a vegetarian about 2 years ago, and I can see a number of reasons why people should stop eating meat. They are mainly of ethic, economic and health type. Those who think in an ecological way should also be aware of how this meat consumption ruins our environment. I don’t have an intention to force anybody to become a vegetarian, but I hope that my argumentation would be strong enough to make some people think about it, at least. In this essay I will try to present this point of view, expressing my personal feelings and showing scientific facts about the problem.