What Is Elizabeth Costello's Argument For Alienation?

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

The other half of Singer’s notion that our society is speciesist rests on how humans treat animals to produce food. “Factory farming” techniques cause “animals [to] lead miserable lives from birth to slaughter” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p.

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

I am going to argue in support of Peter Singer’s claims against speciesism. It is right to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal considerations. Both humans and nonhuman species suffer both physically and emotionally and both deserve equal considerations on the basis of morality.

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

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

​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 is a utilitarian, so his belief is that humans should do what maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. He believes that eating meat is speciesist because it sacrifices the major interests of non-human animals (to not die) for the minor interests of humans (to enjoy the taste of meat). Singer claims that any being that has the capacity for suffering should be given the right to equal consideration, and so people should stop eating meat because animals have an interest in avoiding suffering. He claims that we should avoid killing animals for food except when it is necessary for survival.

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.

Morality is adaptable in extreme situations. The Holocaust is an example of what happens to one’s morality when forced to adapt to animalistic behavior in order to survive. Life in Auschwitz required a purging of one’s human dignity for survival. Prisoners were constantly exposed to perpetual dehumanization, which inevitably led to the dehumanization, and restoration of one’s mental, physical, and social adaptation. Because of this, one’s morality begins to erase. It is in the adaptation of living in a merciless world that the line separating right and wrong begins to blur. Primo Levi’s Survival in Auschwitz and Art Spiegelman’s Maus, both represent how morality and ethics are challenged in the means of survival.

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.

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

After the guilt sets in from eating for the sake of pleasure, Scruton brings forth a multitude of facts and makes an effort to appeal to ethos. To do this, he addresses the benefits of small-scale livestock farming, the use of animals in scientific experimentation, and the actions taken against animals that promote harm. This flood of ethical evidence continues to leave readers wondering if Scruton is a vegetarian himself.

This idea of humans disregarding the feelings of animals for human selfishness through the use of animals for food is also a main point Walker makes. She discusses how we do not consider the impact that the methods of production have on the animals. Most humans want to be ignorant on how the animals they eat are killed. She explains this idea of the “contented cows” that we see on our milk containers. We choose to be ignorant so we don’t have to own up to all of the bad things we do as a race. Indians are envied for their land and are therefore slaughtered then called animals or savages to make up for our wrong doings. By reminding us of our ignorance in the past she shows us that we have been wrong before and continue to be wrong when it concerns the rights of animals. She ends the piece by claiming that she was “eating misery”, which again shows the emotions that animals have that are so nonchalantly