Rhetorical Analysis: Should People Touch Animals

Language is powerful and can evoke guilt, fear, admiration, and joy. At times, however, emotional language has a negative effect when the author uses words that seem to disrespect or guilt the audience. In Gary Steiner’s essay “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Steiner debates that veganism is the only acceptable lifestyle because it does not endanger the lives of animals. Although Steiner clearly explains his firm stance, he uses a disdainful tone when relating personal struggles that ultimately disconnects the audience. Steiner does not relate and does not effectively prove veganism would end all animal suffering. Instead of discussing the advantages of veganism in an objective manner, Steiner’s tone comes across as arrogant and fails to create

As a European white man in the British colony of India, George Orwell, in his narrative essay Shooting an Elephant, describes one of his most memorable events while living in the Southeast Asian nation of Burma. Orwell’s purpose is to share the absolute horror of living in imperialism. He adopts a tense tone throughout his essay by using vivid description and gruesome imagery in order to relate the incident with the elephant to what it is like to live in imperialism.

Animal Farm begins on Manor Farm, where overworked, tired, and hungry animals are unhappy in the conditions that they are in, but when an old boar named Old Major introduces the idea of a rebellion and encourages the animals to take control over the farm, the animals begin an uprising against the humans, taking control over the land and renaming the farm “Animal Farm.” However, greedy and corrupt leaders rise to power and turn a once prosperous farm, into a nightmare. In Animal Farm, George Orwell asserts the idea that absolute power results in corruption. Napoleon and the other pigs, interested in remaining superior, persuades the other animals by using intimidation and emotional appeals in order to keep control of the gullible animals.

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.

Doesn’t it kill you to see a movie and see an animal get killed or just hurt in it? Good thing that’s all special effects. Back in the day, around 1966, movies didn’t always use special effects. Khartoum, a movie based on a holy war in the Sudan desert, directed by Basil Dearden and Eliot Elisofon, used horses a great deal, but did not use the special effects in order to not hurt the animals. Many horses died in the making of this movie, as well as others, even including a major hit, Ben-Hur. Today, there are many activist groups that fight for and about the unfair treatment and protection for animals in everyday life. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is one of these groups. PETA was founded in

When you think of an intelligent and social animal, what do you think of? A chimp, a dolphin, or a dog? Actually, an elephant can be included as well. Elephants have been proven to show cognitive abilities through a new experiment and study where they tested elephants to see if they would work together to gain food. Three pieces of information that talk about this incredible new study are the article “Elephants Can Lend a Helping Hand” by Virginia Morell, the video ”Elephants Shows Cooperation” presented by Discovery News. Although these selections talk about the same topic, they are different in many ways. The video is different from the two texts because of the differences in the information

The undeniable greed Napoleon possesses can only be fulfilled by giving the other animals the illusion of bettering themselves by not questioning his logic: “Boxer, who had now had time to think things over, voiced the general feeling by saying, ‘If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be right.’ And from then on he adopted the maxim, ‘Napoleon is always right,’ in addition to his private motto of ‘I will work harder’” (Orwell 60). Because Animal Farm’s audience predominantly consists of working class citizens, they begin to feel sympathy for Boxer since he cannot recognize Napoleon is exploiting him exclusively for his personal goal of becoming a puissant leader; therefore, animosity towards Napoleon develops in the audience. Considering the animals promptly welcome Napoleon’s promise of a better life, they work towards exhaustion, unknowingly fueling Napoleon’s greed: "All that year the animals worked like slaves. But they were happy in their work; they grudged no effort or sacrifice, well aware that everything that they did was for the benefit of themselves and those of their kind who would come after them, and not for a pack of idle, thieving human beings" (63). Although the animals working for Napoleon are unaware he is gradually becoming more human and willfully betraying his fellow animals for his own benefit, it is evident to the audience that Napoleon is corrupt. As Napoleon cunningly achieves power, his greed continues to grow, the same as a totalitarian leader’s:

The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollen utilizes elements of ethos and metaphors in the passage on pages 116 and 117 in order to persuade readers to believe that humans have become a “race of corn.” Ethos is one of the most notable forms of persuasion Pollen uses. He gets credibility by asking “Todd Dawson, a biologist at Berkeley, to run a McDonald's meal through his mass spectrometer and calculate how much of the carbon in it came originally from a corn plant...in the various McDonald’s menu items” (Pollen 116). Including a study written by a certified professional lends more support to his argument of the presence of corn. In addition, he also mentions that the research mentions menu items from McDonalds, a well-known, unhealthy company,

Between the two, Hearne’s argument in “What’s Wrong With Animal Rights” is widely preferred, because Hearne chooses to focus on compelling people’s emotions. Her arguments and reasoning are more understandable and believable to a wider audience. Though she makes naive mistakes, her establishment of authority on the topic of animal rights still makes it easier to skim over them. Since Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status” is intended for scholars, it makes it harder to spread his message. His lack of pathos throughout the article makes it harder to allow the reader to connect and have a better understanding of the author’s logic. Even then, when he uses his logic to say what should be done and why, he doesn’t have a limit to what there should be, causing the reader to think to the

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

In the novella Animal Farm, the timeline of early 1900s Russia unfolds in an allegory, with revolutionists Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx sparking a rebellion against Czar Nicholas II. Subsequently, a social democratic party known as the Bolsheviks overthrew the czar, aided by two significant leaders: Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin. Even so, the newfound ideology of communism that Stalin introduced and quickly corrupted through propaganda proved to be just as oppressive as the reign of Nicholas II. Most importantly, this corruption and oppression was elucidated by British author George Orwell through the use of rhetorical devices in the allegorical satire Animal Farm, where the audience receives a glimpse into the cunning caricature of

Rough Draft Over Orwell An allegory is a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one. In the essay “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, he uses many different hidden meanings or symbols to reveal how imperialism is evil. Orwell uses symbolic meanings of his allegoric illuminate the evils of imperialism through the characters, destinations, and objects.

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

backs and they were dragging their hind legs (Reed 38). While in the lab, the

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