Peter Singer's Chant For A Better Kinder World

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.

Michael Pollan’s, An Animal’s Place, analyzes the controversial topic of animal abuse while Pollan himself struggles to comprehend the relationship between humans and non-humans. Whether animals are used for food or clothing, Pollan’s impartial view of the moral ethics behind the treatment of animals acknowledges that we as readers are susceptible to influence and he encourages the questioning of our own beliefs. Rather than succumbing to Singer’s, All Animals are Equal demands of making it our “Moral obligation to cease supporting the practice” (pg.4), Pollan conveys the benefits as well as the concerns to the consummation of animals. From the personal connection Pollan establishes with his readers, his progressive beliefs

Peter Singer is defined by being the most positive influencer of all living philosopher in the world. An Australian moral philosopher, environmentalist and animal activist, most noted for his work of Animal Liberation that was published in 1975, a canonical text in animal rights/liberation theory (Singer, 2002). Singer is often found arguing the wrongfulness of what human society performs to millions of suffering animals. A vigorous activist who specializes in applied ethics and ethical issues (Singer, 2002). He firmly believes that as humans we should become just like him and think and feel the way he does. Following his way of life, we could become vegetarians and not perform any wrongfulness to animals that do not deserve to be eaten

First, there are many pros to this argument. One pro of this argument is that there are generous prosperous people who would be willing to give money not used to charity. By writing this Singer can persuade the generous prosperous to donate and they will aid these organizations. When this happens people will be helped and these organizations will be aided. Another pro is that people who don’t spend much on luxuries or non necessities will be persuaded to give. The people who don’t have much more money than they

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” by Peter Singer, Singer uses analogies and propaganda to defend his solution for world poverty. In the article, Singer parallels a story of a man choosing to save a car over saving a child with modern Americans choosing luxuries over donating money to save underprivileged children. He provides resources of organizations to help these children, and he continuously describes the problems with both materialism in American society and children who are dying preventable deaths. Singer’s solution is that individuals should simply give away any money that is not absolutely essential for basic necessities.

On the topic of animal rights, Vicki Hearne and Peter Singer represent opposite ends of a belief spectrum. Singer describes, in numerous articles, that he believes animal rights should focus on if the animal is suffering, and the best option to prevent it is to limit interaction between animals and humans. Specifically, in “Speciesism and Moral Status” Singer compares the intelligence and ability of non-human animals to those with severe cognitive disabilities to establish an outrageous solution to animal belittlement. He uses logos (the appeal to reason) and ethos (the appeal to ethics), to question the current rights in place to appeal to other scholars. Nevertheless, his approach can cause an emotional disconnect to the readers; this apparent in contrast to Hearne’s pathos (the

It presents an extreme version of the opposing argument, and persuades the reader to think of Australians for Animal Rights as being unreasonably controlling. Conversely, the writer presents himself as being both progressive and reasonable. The irony of the situation is ‘to provide cheap food when we could afford to pay more’, suggesting that Australians for Animal Rights is being manipulative and hypocritical. The reader is positioned to reject any Australians for Animal Rights’s attempt to gain even more power. Using inclusive language, the writer suggested that the issue is inescapable. This reinforces the argument that people must act now and also emphasises the issue’s relevance and significance to the

The art of persuasion is required when writing a speech or debating with someone. People must be persuasive if they want other people to follow them or believe what they do. Speakers at rallies convince people to continue fighting for what they think is right by incorporating rhetoric elements into their speeches. Margaret Sanger is one of those speakers who was able to persuade groups of people at rallies. In Margaret Sanger’s speech “The Children’s Era”, she uses figurative language and the rhetoric element of syllogism and ethos to persuade her audience.

​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.

Peter Singer has a strong bias for what he is writing about. Writing with bias is not necessarily the problem is that he result of the way he wrote was that the book was read, mainly, by people who already agreed with what he was saying. Even though Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement may have had a

The main theme of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer is summarized in one quote by Isaac Bashevis Singer, “In their behavior towards creatures, all men [are] Nazis” (84). Singer spends the whole book attempting to prove that Nazis and the abusers of animals are the same. He does this by talking about scientific testing and the way animals are treated before being killed for their meat. He dives into the specifics of what happens during animal testing and animals killed for meat in order to appeal to the humanity of the reader in order to exploit it. By exploiting the humanity of the reader Singer attempts to guilt the reader into becoming a vegetarian.

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan emphasizes his philosophy on animal and human equality. After reading further into his work, he illustrates a societal system that belittles animals and their significance to our own existence. Regan conceptualizes that animals won’t have real rights unless we change our beliefs. We need to acknowledge a problem. After identifying the issue, we must recognize that there is a need for change in society. In addition, he also reiterates the importance of the populace changing the way they view animals. The way society views animals will create a snowball effect that will influence politicians to also believe in animal rights.

In this paper I will begin by explaining Singer’s utilitarian argument in “The Life You Can Save” regarding the obligation of affluent nations to give in order to alleviate global poverty. Secondly, I will analyze one objection to Singer’s argument that opposes charity. Thirdly, after examining the objection to Singer’s argument, I will present Singer’s noteworthy reply. Finally, after offering both an objection to Singer’s argument, as well as Singer’s rebuttal, I will offer my own view on whether or not Singer’s refutation is convincing.

In Peter Singer’s piece “All Animals Are Equal”, he begins his argument by an in-depth consideration of notable rights movements, such as the Black Liberation and women’s rights movement, then segues into the justification for equal consideration of rights regarding animals, before finally exposing the immorality behind factory farming and animal cruelty. According to Singer, “the basic principle of equality…is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights” (Singer 1974, 506). Based off proposed animals’ rights to equal consideration, Singer formats his main arguments against factory farming and the mistreatment of animals in general. These arguments stem from

Peter Singer addresses the ordeal of animal rights better than I have ever seen anyone address it. His analysis laid out in A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation is remarkably stated. He pushes the viewer to see animals as equals to us.