You could save an animal from drowning, but you could save a person from drowning too; the choice is difficult. You could protest for animals to have rights and not be tortured at slaughterhouses and still eat them from factories that do things like kill them in an abusive way. Animal rights, animals should have some rights with some limitations. I have issues involving this topic about animal rights because i have mixed emotions about how we can experiment and torture animals but still have them as pets. In articles by Jeff McMahan, “Eat Animals The Nice Way”, and by Maureen Nandi Mitra, “Animals Are Persons, too”, they talk from two different positions where we should eat animals and another where we shouldn’t experiment on them and let them be.
However, the way in which Steinbeck implements this “colorful language” is key to understanding why he used it at all. Ordinarily, an author would describe a character by their physical human traits rather than accentuating animal-like characteristics, which is how Steinbeck depicts Lennie. As a result of the utilization of Lennie’s animal-like depiction, Steinbeck subliminally dehumanizes Lennie in the reader's mind and justifies the death of animals at the hands of their masters. Ultimately, in Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck dehumanizes Lennie to the reader through the use of animal imagery, in order to allow the reader to justify Lennie’s death at the hands of his best friend, George as a warranted act of
In the essay “Let Them Eat Dog”, Foer did just that to strengthen his point of view that dogs are really just another ordinary, to use his words “remarkably unremarkable…”(Foer) animals out in the wild. He quoted “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” from the famous allegorical novella – “Animal Farm” by George Orwell (Foer), which gives the reader a glance of inequality on how different animals are treated differently. Foer utilizing the quote to encourage the audience to think about what is it that makes it acceptable for the public to consume beef, pork, even horse meat but it is a taboo to eat dog. He makes it clear that if we truly treat all animals equally regardless of their kind, eating dogs should not be a taboo; it should be more acceptable and equalized just like the
In the article, “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater”, the authors argue that processed meat can greatly affect the many things in our everyday life. Sunaura and Alexander’s argument is significantly unreliable because of the certain professions both authors yield. As stated in the article “Sunaura is an artist, writer, and activist in Oakland.” “Alexander’s profession is studying philosophy, and ethics in Athens, Georgia.” This shows that neither of them are qualified to argue in the subject of conscientious meat eaters.
One can have their minds in the right place, but the way they convey their thoughts may seem impractical. An analogy aims to prove a point by relating and comparing ideas that are familiar. They give the audience an opportunity to interpret and visualize words that the writer is using. In the novella The Lives of Animals by J.M Coetzee, Elizabeth Costello fails to prove the appropriateness for her analogies. Elizabeth is an avid supporter of animal rights who guest lectures at her son’s work to showcase the issues of “animal cruelty”.
In the articles of Jeremy Rifkin, Victoria Braithwaite, and Ed Yong, there's a deep research and debate whether animals should be given the right to have human rights or not. All authors include their perspective on the issue and provide scientific evidence. However, I believe that there should be a separation of rights between animals and humans because there is no biological basis for drawing the line. Giving the right to apes, what factors exclude other mammals like dogs, cats, and birds.
Royal Dixon argues that lack of feeling in science has made humans ignorant to the features that animals and humans share. His argument contains logic and connects to the reader's emotion to illustrate his ideas. In Dixon’s The Human Side of Animals he uses many persuasion techniques including rhetorical questions, imagery, and examples of various traits of animals.
In the article “Dog Ban Only Solution to Attacks”, the author expresses his opinion of banning certain types of dog breeds in America. The author opens his article by talking about the educational programs many schools have to teach children how to work with animals. He then makes the point that although it is important to teach children how to act around animals, that won’t keep dog attacks from happening. He supports this point by following it with a story of a zookeeper with twenty years of experience who was killed by a tiger.
Many animals are abused everyday. Chickens and other farm animals are constantly being killed for food. In this article, “PETA Making a Social Noise: A Perspective on Shock Advertising,” Jonathan Matusitz and Maya Forrester focus on the fact that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) often goes too far with their advertisements. Animal rights groups such as PETA use shock advertising as a means of getting the message that abusing animals, eating animals, or using animals in entertainment is wrong (Matusitz and Forrester). Matusitz and Forrester look to expose PETA’s indecent advertisements, but the argument relies too heavily on pathos than any other rhetorical appeal.
The publisher’s intended audience are people who advocate for the rights of animals and are searching for different methods of testing products. The purpose is to inform the people that animal testing is “old school” compared to the new innovative ideas. They want the people to be aware that these experimentations are not successful with the animals nor when they are tested on humans.
In his article “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Rifkin points out that “ they feel pain, suffer, and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love--- and these findings are changing how we view animals.” Currently people are treating animals with disrespect by abusing , eating them , and slaughtering them. Rifkins point of view is to catch people's attention to change their attitude towards animal abuse so that we can think twice about animal cruelty. He states that animals have the similar intelligence as us human beings.
In An Animal’s Place, Michael Pollan describes the growing acknowledgement of animal rights, particularly America’s decision between vegetarianism and meat-eating. However, this growing sense of sentiment towards animals is coupled with a growing sense of brutality in farms and science labs. According to Pollan, the lacking respect for specific species of animals lies in the fact that they are absent from human’s everyday lives; enabling them to avoid acknowledgment of what they are doing when partaking in brutality towards animals. He presents arguments for why vegetarianism would make sense in certain instances and why it would not and ultimately lead to the decision of eating-meat while treating the animals fairly in the process. Pollan
My objective is to address this question working within a utilitarian perspective. I believe that there are two main reasons why is important to address this problem within the utilitarian approach. First, utilitarianism has proven to be a great tool in the animal rights movement. The 'equal consideration of interest for all who can experience pleasure and pain' is a simple and powerful maxim to defend the need to transform the way we treat non-human animals. Even if Peter Singer did not start the animal rights movement, he was the one who popularised it.
In his work, Tom Regan establishes the rights of animals used in scientific research. He argues that when animals are used as objects of experiment, they are not respected and their inherent value is not acknowledged. Having inherent value, as defined by Regan, is a state, in which a being is not just a vessel, but a being with a complex mental life. All who have inherent value are to have it equally.