Hartnett's Mistake: An Analysis

Again we must look at the means he used to come up with this theory. Mark Twain who is known for his fictional stories has once again added to his fictional collection with this work. The facts Twain states about man are all true, the issue that animals do these same things only in a different form and venue. With all the bias, exaggeration, and lack of actual proof; truthfulness is lost in Twain’s portrayal of human nature. He ascribes no linking chain to animals and humans.

Over the course of history, humans have classified various animals from companions, playmates we will love until the end of the world; to nourishment, meat we look forward to for our next meal. Be that as it may, how ever did we reconcile theses ways of loving some animals while eating or hating others? In Hal Herzog excerpt, “Animals Like Us”, using anecdotal stories Herzog tackles the reasoning behind our contradicting relationships and behaviors regarding this 'trouble middle' for different animals. In order to resolve the murkiness of the trouble middle we must reshape our ethics on why we treat certain animals differently by eliminating our misconceptions of each animal and understanding that every animal should be treated equally.

I am going to argue in support of Peter Singer’s claims against speciesism. It is right to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal considerations. Both humans and nonhuman species suffer both physically and emotionally and both deserve equal considerations on the basis of morality.

The statement that can best be made about the purpose of The Lowest Animal by Mark Twain is that he believes that mankind is immoral, vulgar, wasteful, vengeful, discriminatory; cruel, greed, and obscene. This is because he has a moral sense and conscience despite this, doesn’t make our decisions right and properly. However, contrast with Mark Twain’s thesis; I think human beings are not that all bad and not the lowest animal, but perhaps not the highest animal either.

In the short story “Babycakes” written by Neil Gaiman, everything wraps up to assert and imply a theme or an idea that underlies and dominates a significant part of human society, particularly the economic sector, which is known as the animal industry. The idea behind the story relates to the concept that is called speciesism. Speciesism is a term by Peter Singer used to describe the type of discrimination that occurs between the human species and the nonhuman species or nonhuman animals. It favours the human species over any other species and discriminates against nonhuman species or animals. The segments of the short story all work together to put into perspective the aforementioned idea in such a way that it would be better understood by readers as the story uses, first of all, a figure of speech called personification, of all animal species barring human beings themselves, calling upon the readers the ability to empathise or at the very least view the situation in a better and different light.

The human race can be criticized in many different ways on how we act, why we make the choices we do, and how we treat one another. In the two writings “Living like a Weasel”, written by Annie Dillard, and “The Lowest Animal”, written by Mark Twain, these types of criticism are very evident throughout each. However not only do they criticize the human race they bring about ideas about how we should act, how we should make choices, and how we should treat one another. Although both authors have respectively different views, it will be made clearly how evident how realistic the criticism is and whether or not the suggested behavior can become an attainable goal.

Daniel Dennett thinks that we are our body and our brain and that is it. His response to the mind body problem is Physicalism, because he believes that we are only made up of matter and that there is no spiritual part like the soul, for example included. He thinks that “what you can’t see, isn’t there and what isn’t there, doesn’t have to be explained. Correspondingly, Dennett has another philosophy, which overall, states that our lives would be nothing if we didn’t have a brain. He explains how, if we didn’t have a brain, we would not be able to feel emotions, or pain or be able to classify something as beautiful or ugly. We would not be able to see, smell, taste or touch anything as we need a brain to process everything.

The other half of Singer’s notion that our society is speciesist rests on how humans treat animals to produce food. “Factory farming” techniques cause “animals [to] lead miserable lives from birth to slaughter” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p.

He displays growth and passion when he overcomes his terror and defends his friend, respectively.

By using pathos, he creates an appeal to the reader from many different aspects. Fear is one emotion he tries to get at. When he

. This book tells us that human feelings do not exist anymore because of the artificial life. He feels that Violet really loves him and really cares for him as a boyfriend.

One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.

Where I do not disagree with the basis of Singer’s argument, I do disagree with some of the minor facts used to support this argument. I disagree with the notion that the human race is ready to do anything to another species in order to satisfy our taste, that non-human animals are seen like machines and they are kept in unsuitable conditions. In general, Singer’s argument seems to be based on vague points and generalizes the human population.

The difference between humans and animals is not their ability to reason or think about reality, but rather the human tendency for anthropocentric idealism – a false illusion of superiority in which society accesses nature through an exclusively anthropomorphic perspective. As we distinguish and separate ourselves from nonhuman animals, we, in the process, lose our connection to nature, to the natural world. Michel de Montaigne, in his essay “Apology to Raymond Sebond,” emphasizes how the cause of this divergence from nature was due to “presumption [,] our natural and original illness.” According to Montaigne, humans, despite being the “ill fated and [feeblest] of all creatures,” assumed the role of superiority by “equating themselves with

In her essay, “Am I Blue,” Alice Walker argues how humans disregard the emotional similarities they share with animals. Walker incorporates in her argument the similarities between her emotions as a human, and the emotions of animals. Additionally, she presents her argument through the structure of the essay, and through her use of language. Furthermore, the overall argument of this essay is not only eye-opening, but also persuasive considering that it leaves the reader with a life question; what standards am I living by?