McTeague or Animalism Essay

In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” (1 September 2003), published by Los Angeles Times, author Jeremy Rifkin discusses how “... researchers are finding [is] that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we imagined.” (Rifkin 61). Using academic diction, Rifkin develops his main idea with evidence such as “They [animals] feel pain, suffer, and experience stress, affection, excitement, and even love -- and these findings are changing how we view animals. ”(Rifkin 61). This suggests a pathos and logos persuasive appeal that broadens the reader’s understanding and knowledge in changing our perspective of the inhumane and inequality treatment that non domestic animals receive. Rifkin’s use of pathos and logos appeals is to

More than a million different kinds of animals inhabit the earth. The exact number is not known, for new kinds are continually being discovered. They live in the seas, from the surfaces down to the black depths where no ray of sunlight penetrates. Animals can be domesticated or left in the wild where they truly belong. However, as time passed by, nowadays, animals are endlessly being exploited and fought for around the globe. Different opinions from different countries and races have divided to defend to defend their views and make a stand. This issue about the animals’ welfare should be taken more seriously until we find the right answers.

Eric Blair wrote “The Animal Farm” during 1945, which he writes about a dystopian society with animals. He makes connections to real world problems throughout the story. He refers to animals being human by making connections by forming a government, because it's in human nature to form any type of government. In this case, the animals form a democracy from the commandments they put in their constitution; with all the corruption it mimics a communist government. The corruption deals with the leaders taking advantage of the commandments by overriding them while the other animals have to obey them. The main characters were Napoleon, Snowball, Boxer, and Squealer which can be connected to real world leading figures. The author also put in

A quick comparison to Vicki Hearne’s “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights?” to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status”, might indicate Hearne’s argument is stronger due to her strategic and effective use of emotional appeals (i.e. pathos). These appeals allow Hearne to connect quickly and easily with her audience. Hearne is also quite clever in terms of stressing her occupation as an animal trainer. However, after a swift comparison of the two articles, it is evident that Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status” offers readers a stronger and more valid argument. Both Singer and Hearne are arguing their position on animal rights and the extent of human involvement. Since Hearne’s article is primarily based on her attempt to persuade her

As you look at the text of “A Change of Heart about Animals,” answer and then discuss the following questions:

The first portion of the passage is a focus on detail and the description of McTeague. The author uses similes and metaphors when describing McTeague. From lines 11 through 21, the narrator describes the him as being, "a young giant," and having, "immense limbs, heavy with ropes of muscle," making McTeague seem like a brutish sort of man. Another example is in lline 16 when the narrator describes McTeague's hands, 'were as hard as wooden mallets,' making them seem like they were some tool. In lines 18 and 19 that is even further emphasized as the narrator describes how McTeague removes teeth with his thumb and finger. In lines 22 through 25 the narrator also speaks of

Despite the fact that the two are deciding which one will have Trina, without her input on the matter, they feel that they are both noble men. “The dentist treats his friend for an ulcerated tooth and refuses payment; the friend reciprocates by giving up his girl. This was nobility” (Norris 48-9). After this encounter, the two men go back to their flat where a fight between two dogs is about to occur. Norris uses foreshadowing at this point and more animal imagery to describe the silent rage growing inside Marcus. “Suddenly the quarrel had exploded on either side of the fence. The dogs raged at each other, snarling and barking, frantic with hate” (Norris 52). This scene is repeated throughout the novel when McTeague and Marcus meet, adding to the feelings of tension between the two.

McTeague is described as having “enormous strength and hands”, “immense limbs”, and “ropes of muscles”. These details are exaggerated and from them, one would think of McTeague as violent and dangerous; however, instead he is attributed a personality which one can only lead one to picture him as gentle and harmless. These physical details are the giant half of McTeague’s characterization. Though quite exaggerated, the narrator’s description of McTeague is objective observations; they are how others would perceive McTeague if they were ignorant of his nature. The reader may also infer from the juxtaposition how McTeague might generally be misunderstood due to his appearance; that rarely anyone perceives him as a gentle giant until they get the chance to know

While hiding away from any human, he happened to see a little girl fall into a stream, and “‘with extreme labour from the force of the current, [he] saved her, and dragged her to shore.” (101). He attempted to revive her until a man went, snatched the girl from the creature’s arms, and fled. Upon following the man, the creature was shot. This event was a major turning point in the life of the monster.

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

The last decade of the twentieth century in America saw a rise in programs for human's "self betterment." A popular form of betterment is that of the inner animal. Interest in Native American animal mysticism, vision quests, and totem animals have increased dramatically in the past few years. No forms of media have been spared; Calvin Klein's supermodels come on during sitcom commercials to tell viewers they need to be a beast, or to get in touch with their animal within. In the last decade of the nineteenth century, however, animalism was viewed not as a method of self-improvement but as the reprehensible side of humanity that lingered beneath the surface, waiting for an opportune time to come

Why is it that we as a society condemn the actions of a man against a man but very rarely a man against an animal? I think this question must be understood if we are ever to change the rights animals have. As of yet I don't believe animals have any actual rights. Rather humans have rights that involve animals. If we are to truly allow animals to have rights the same or similar to humans then we must first define what it is that makes us feel as if they are entitled to rights.

For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.

third world. Singer feels that since the people of the third world are so far

Non-human animals are given rights only because of their interactions with human beings. Without involvement with humans, animals do not deserve rights. It is through this interaction with humans that animals are even given moral consideration. We do not give rights to a rock simply because it is a creation of Mother Nature, similarly non-human animals do not have rights unless it is in regards to humans. As pointed out by Jan Narveson "morality is a sort of agreement among rational, independent, self-interested persons who have something to gain from entering into such an agreement" (192). In order to have the ability to obtain rights one must be consciously able to enter into an agreement, non-human animals are