Jonathan Safran Foer Let Them Eat Dog Analysis

In the article, “Let Them Eat Dog,” Jonathan Foer sheds light on a controversial topic, the consumption and breeding of dogs for food. Throughout Foer’s article he uses many different argumentative tactics in order to capture the reader’s attention on whether or not eating dogs should be considered morally. He uses three emotional tactics to establish his credibility and prove he knows the topic. The three tactics are ethos, pathos and logos Foer uses these three argumentative tools to convey his message across not only to prove eating dogs is wrong, but to take a stance on a bigger issue, the slaughtering of animals.

The final argument style I saw in this essay is directed towards the ethical standard behind the question. It’s interesting that with this topic, it really depends who your audience is. If this question was posed to different cultures across the world the ethical stance would be very different. There are plenty of cultures where eating what we consider domesticated animals is the norm and done with no emotional connection. Foer brings into question the ethical treatment of cows in slaughter houses. He brings into light the reports we have seen about how cruel some of the treatment is towards these animals and reminds us that as a whole we defend the practice of slaughter but we don’t defend the cruelty. So if there was a human way to extract and prepare the meat from dogs, could we then accept it, again, only approving the practice not the cruelty. He also drives from what we consider taboo. There is no law

In “The Psychology of eating Animals,” published in 2014 issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, Steve Loughnan, Brock Bastion, and Nick Haslam argues the psychological process of “meat paradox”(104). Loughnan and Haslam earned their degree in Psychological Science from University of Melbourne and Bastian also earned his degree in Psychological Science from University of Queensland(104). Many people have different thought process when eating meat, they explain, “to understand the psychology of eating animals by examining characteristics of the eaters (people), the eaten (animals), and the eating (the behavior)”(104). In the another study that they cites shows; that vegetarians have moral concerns for animals that are being used

Our nation’s industrial farming has become more than just feeding people; it has become a way for the food industry to make more money as human population continues to grow. Jonathan Safran Foer in his book Eating Animals, illustrates the effects factory farming has had on animals meant for human consumption. Furthermore, Foer asks many questions to the reader on what will it take for us to change our ways before we say enough is enough. The questions individuals need to be asking themselves are: how do we deal with the problem of factory farming, and what can people do to help solve these issues? Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation, also illustrates the animal abuse that goes unseen within the food industry as well as Bernard Rollin and Robert Desch in their article “Farm Factories”, both demonstrate what is wrong today with factory farming. Foer gives such examples of employees who work in slaughterhouses giving accounts of what goes on in the kill floors, and stories of employees who have witnessed thousands and thousands of cows going through the slaughter process alive (Animals 231). Namit Arora in the article “On Eating Animals”, as well as Michael Pollan in his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, both address some of the issues that animals face once they hit the kill floor. The food industry has transformed not only how people eat, but also the negative effects our climate endures as a result of factory farming as illustrated by Anna Lappe in “The Climate Crisis at the End

More than ever before, our planet is one filled with meat eaters. In fact, the average American consumes 270.7 pounds of meat per year. And, as one might have guessed, the question of where this food set before them on the table came from is often unregarded or ignored altogether. As more media forms commercialize extremely unhealthy versions of double cheeseburgers and meat lover’s supremes, the consumer’s demand for meat spikes up and companies in the food industry are faced with the ethical dilemma of benefiting themselves, their companies, increasing profits...and doing right by the animals- who without, they would not even be where they are today. Needless to say that animal rights and the humane treatment of their precious lives have been disregarded. Why do we, as a

Foer focuses on what makes animals and people different from each other. In this chapter, Foer introduces new terms such as: Anthropodenial, which is the refusal to concede significant experiential likeness between humans and the other animals. This states that one-time humans were once considered animals. We all have strong intuition of what suffering means, but they can be extremely difficult to capture in words. In chapter 4: Hiding/Seeking, Foer talks about the process of which the meat goes through to be processed. In order to research and uncover the truth about meat production, Foer writes to Tyson Inc. Foer hopes to find out what makes meat into the food for the consumer and why animals are eaten and not humans. As a reader, I do agree that why can’t we eat humans if we can eat animals. The message that Foer is trying to send out is worth

Today, the food industry has not just altered the American diet, but it has also had a negative effect within the labor sector as well as the animals meant for consumption and the lack of government oversight. Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation, and Jonathan Foer in Eating Animals, illustrate the mistreatment of labor workers as well as the animal abuse that goes unseen within the food industry. Foer gives such examples of employees who work in slaughterhouses giving accounts of what goes on in the kill floors, and stories of employees who have witnessed thousands and thousands of cows going through the slaughter process alive (231). Eating meat does not have to be so inhumane for example, Foer quotes Frank Reese, who does not permit inhumane practices on his ranch that are cruel, and Reese believes that there are other ways of having a sustainable humane animal agriculture instead of the methods of the large corporate meat industry (238). Namit Arora in the article “On Eating Animals”, as well as Michael Pollan in his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, address some of the issues that animals face once they hit the kill floor. The food industry has transformed not only what people eat, but how the government has neglected the issues of the wellbeing of labor workers and the animals that are processed for consumption.

Jonathan Foer, the author, uses “Eating Animals is Making us Sick” to illustrate his goal of how dangerous food is to the audiences health. Foer explains how there is a large quantity of zoonotic diseases in the food Americans consume and shows how much it can actually affect the consumer. Jonathan Foer argues animal consumption is hazardous to the health of Americans successfully because he uses the rhetorical appeals ethos, pathos, and logos to show how much zoonotic diseases are in the meat. Jonathan Foer’s intended audience includes: parents, Americans, and people who have/ are sick due to a “food borne illness.” Everyone is not aware enough of how bad meat is treated before it hits the table.

Alastair Norcross’s essay “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” explores the issue of animal rights. The essay explores a scenario which prompts a compelling argument against factory-raised animals and how the meat we consume on a daily bases comes at a sharp price. In addition, several counterarguments are presented throughout the essay.

​In conducting a rhetorical analysis of the two articles, "Joel Salatin: How to Eat Animals and Respect Them, Too" by Madeline Ostrander and "Humane Meat? No Such Thing" by Sunaura Taylor, both articles stand in stark contrast in terms of the viewpoints of meat that they present. In order to gain a better understanding of these viewpoints, it's important to understand the persuasive techniques that both authors use in the article for the reader. More specifically, the ethos, pathos, and logos that they employ, as well the way in which the evidence and support is presented will further elucidate upon the arguments that appear in both articles.

In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a

Moral quandaries regarding animals are still demanding the attention of many philosophers as they attempt to modify and inspect the relationship between morality and social policy.

An intense, aggressive moral scrutiny has sparked interest in the meat eating community. Eating is an activity that we as humans do frequently, and the variety of food is immense. We decide what we are about to eat and how it will affect our bodies. In different societies, controversy has arisen over the morality of eating meat from animals. However, the moral and ethical arguments of eating meat is not a new debate. Roger Scruton’s essay, “A Carnivore’s Credo”, addresses both carnivores and vegetarians by using an appeal to pathos and ethos to persuade people of the need to “remoralize” eating meat, and extrapolating that to mean that human beings have the conscious ability to choose and stand up for moral right and wrong.

We are a nation of meat eaters. We are socialized from a young age to consume high levels of animal products. This deeply ingrained meat-eating tradition is a big part of the American standard diet. A visit to the local grocery store shows that there is no shortage of animal products. Isle by isle you see a plethora of meats, neatly packed and ready to be cooked, dairy products neatly shelved, and even candies that contain animal by-products. This is an omnivore’s utopia, allowing for a lifestyle that involves the overconsumption of meats and animal by-products. The rampant meat industry has managed to condition people to disassociate the meats in our grocery markets and the animals from which they came. Most people have become unaware omnivores, consuming whatever meats are available to them. This shift of moral degradation is evident in how we process and consume our meats. We have become a selfish society that values our own convenience and affordability of meat rather than the consideration of the animal. This begs the question, is eating meat inherently wrong and should we forbid meat consumption under any and all circumstances? To fully address this issue, we must first define the moral status of animals. So, are animals equal to humans in worth and value and should they receive similar treatment?

What is the ideal doneness of a burger? Some may claim that well-done is the best, others may like medium-rare. While this is one of the most common questions asked in regards to meat-eating, there is an even more important one that everyone should be asking. What are the ethical implications of eating meat? This oft-debated question has been obscured, especially in recent years, by the outcry for the humane treatment of animals being raised for food. There have been many recent documentaries, books, and debates about how these animals sometimes never see sunlight before they are slaughtered, among many other abusive treatments. In his essay, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Gary Steiner raises this issue of the morality of meat-eating and challenges the readers to question their own views on this topic. Regardless of the morality of eating meat or using animal products, Steiner does not support his claim strongly enough to be accepted.