Safran Foer's Argument For Slaughtering Animals

The article was well-written and it’s a narrative and argumentative article although the author argument appears to be more ethical rather rational. The article begin in an unexpected way which is telling stories about his life he mentioned his grandmother which adds to the argument an high emotional tone but his calls to the reasons are weak. The main idea of the article was understood and it supported with personal experience overall, the article was well structured and the language used in the article was simple and informal although he clearly supported one side of the argument which is we shouldn’t harm animals also Foer ignores the fact animals protein is essential for humans so it seems little bit unfair and biased. Foer appeals repeatedly to emotionally tone, to raise compassion to creatures Foer attempts to inspire compelling feelings in the audience. The article contained huge amount of pathos due to the fact he shares his own personal story about his childhood memories how he admires his grandmother and her special dish chicken with carrot, his teenagers years as a confused teen searching for his identity leading to meeting his wife and having first baby. He sometimes appealed to logos by stating some facts “According to an analysis of U.S.D.A data by the advocacy group farm forward, factory farms now produce more than 99 percent of the animals eaten in this

The suffering of animals who are raised and slaughtered for food is not justified, since it is not necessary for us to eat animals to get the nutrition we need. We treat animals cruelly simply just to serve our trivial enjoyment of taste. In addition, Rachels asserts that it is impossible to treat the animals decently yet still produce a sufficient amount of meat. According to him, the humane production of millions of pounds of meat would be so costly that it would force most of us to become vegetarians, as most of us would not have the resources to be able to afford much meat. In response to the question that: “if meat could be produced humanely, without mistreating the animals prior to eating them painlessly, would there be anything wrong with it?” (Rachels 372), he argues that human being the subjects of biographical and not merely biological lives is what qualifies humans for rights; however, the animals with which we are most familiar are subjects of biographical lives and if we have the right to life on the basis of having a life, then those animals have rights to life as well. Thus, even if the farming practices are completely humane, killing the animals is still immoral. There are millions of vegetarians already, there is already less cruelty than there would be otherwise, so little effect does not equate none. He uses the analogy of slavery to

A happy sunny farm versus a dark and bloody slaughter room. This is where most naive young children think where their meat comes from versus the reality. The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan is a book with a purpose to educate people about their food system so they can make informed choices. The three writing techniques Michael Pollan uses to persuade his readers are ethos, pathos and logos. He uses the method ethos by making his readers think he is a reliable and credible source. He uses pathos by evoking an emotional response from the readers. Michael Pollan uses logos to appeal to logic and reason. The persuasive techniques ethos, pathos and logos used by Michael Pollan helped him to convince his readers to feel plus think a certain

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

Everyone has an opinion when it comes to animals being killed and eaten. If a person agrees or not is completely their own opinion and will not be the focus of the essay. David Wallace’s essay “ Consider the Lobster,” is used to address perspectives of varying opinions while trying to persuade the reader. The author accomplishes this throughout the essay through the excellent use of multiple rhetorical techniques. Rhetorical devices such as ethos, lothos and pathos are all used in the essay to convey the author's opinion and try to convince the reader to choose a side.

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

Purpose Formula: To persuade my fellow classmates, who are consumers of animal based products and supporters of zoos and wildlife conservation efforts, that animals deserve the same rights as humans and should not be used for profit.

​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

Animals are bread forcibly, then nourished with specific intent of managing fat content, meat flavor, and healthiness, each of which discounts the Utilitarian claim that nature makes our carnivorous methods ethically permissible. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, such a claim is in direct contradiction to the Utilitarian tenet that each individual has equal value regardless of identity or stature. Because humans could be sufficiently nourished without the killing of animals, it cannot be argued that the consequence of causing death to an animal is equivalent or less substantial than that of feeding a man.

Humans have always had a complicated relationship with non-human animals. This relationship has always benefitted the needs of humans, with little consideration for animals’ needs. Some animals are tortured for entertainment, some are butchered for food and others are taken from their habitat and family, and forced to be pets for humans. These are all examples of the ways humans have exploited animals for their own satisfaction. Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us” describes the complicated relationship that humans and animals have, and how difficult it is to determine what is ethical when dealing with animals. Jonathan Safran Foer makes a similar observation in his essay “The Fruits of Family Trees” of the ethical issues in the

In our world, protests occur each day on the issues of animal cruelty and human rights, but when the issues are put together which will reign over the other? The author Peter Singer of “All Animals are Equal” and “Tools for Research” presents his argument for determining when animal experiments are justified. The author starts his paper with a counter argument, questioning if one would be willing to let thousands of people die if those people could be saved by experimentation on a single animal. The answer is a unanimous no; in our culture we value human life over everything else. The author follows by asking the reader if they would be prepared to carry out their experiments on humans who are mentally retarded or orphaned babies, if that

Whether it be because of religion, culture, or personal choice, millions of people worldwide do not eat meat, and the majority of the population, the omnivores, often ridicule these people, the vegetarians, for their choices. This has sadly created a divide between thousands of people, however the cause of this separation is simple. One side, whether it be the omnivores or the vegetarians, feels the need to impose its choices onto the other side. Both sides are at fault here, as the omnivores tell the vegetarians that they cannot get proper nutrients from a plant-based diet, and the vegetarians try to tell the omnivores that they are torturing animals by killing them for food. The omnivores are wrong because, while it does require careful planning, vegetarians can easily get the nutrients they need, and the vegetarians are hypocritical because, as the article will show, farming kills thousands of creatures.

Animal rights is a very important issue that has been discussed and talked about for a long time now. It has been shown that numerous people have argued about whether or not creatures have ethic/moral rights and if these animals do have these rights, some people may start to ponder if animal rights can even be genuinely compared to ours in the first place. Although we have formed different reasons whether or not animals do or do not deserve rights, it does not appear that we as individuals in a society can reach a conclusion or understanding on this vital issue. I will focus on the argument shown in Tom Regan’s “The Case for Animal Rights” argument, and then state a few different objections from Alastair Norcross and Mary Anne Warren. I will show that Norcross’ and Warrens objections prove that aspects of Regan’s argument are flawed.