Comparing the Arguments of Meat Consumption 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.
"Joel Salatin: How to Eat Animals and Respect Them,
…show more content…
Right from the very beginning, Ostrander employs the persuasive mode of ethos, in which she introduces Salatin by showcasing how he is relevant and a voice of authority as a sustainable farmer. After giving him a thorough introduction through describing his farm, Polyface and his personality, as well as how he rose to fame through the film Food, Inc. and The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, she states, "Who better to articulate an ethic of how, when, and whether we should raise and eat our fellow animals?" It is also in the introduction where Ostrander utilizes most of the pathos portion, appealing to the reader's emotions by describing Salatin in quite an honest way, even referring to …show more content…
No Such Thing" by Sunaura Taylor delves into the issue from the other perspective, which is that the cultivation of animals for the purposes of consumption is both unethical and immoral, not to mention being bad for the environment. The article is written from the 1st-person perspective, as Taylor frequently uses "I" and refers to herself throughout. Her credibility isn't quite established enough to be too persuasive. Rather than listing her actual credentials, Taylor states that she is a "28-year-old disabled artist, writer, and vegan." The credibility of her argument, however, does stem from the fact that she was in a debate at an art event in California with Nicollete Hahn Niman. Niman is the author of Righteous Porkchop and is also a cattle rancher and has credibility herself. Given that one has to be somewhat important to be invited to be one of the two participants in a debate, this and the credibility of Niman gives Taylor some as well. Plus, of course, she is the author of an article for YES!
Introduction In this article “Against Meat” (2009) Jonathan Safran Foer explains his experience from a young age until the present struggling whether being a vegetarian or an omnivore because he doesn’t want to hurt animals at the same time he can’t resist food because it tasted good. Jonathan Safran Foer is an American novelist (born February 21, 1977) He graduated from Princeton University with a degree in philosophy, in his freshman year he took a writing class from the novelist Joyce Carol.
Is eating meat a detrimental threat to the environment? This debate over meat’s involvement in the global warming crisis was what inspired Nicolette Hahn Niman to write, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma.” Niman hoped writing, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma,” would cause her audience to understand that eating meat, raised on traditional farms, was a superior alternative to vegetarianism. Niman supported her claim by explaining how industrialized farms and vegetarians produce more of the three greenhouse gases that caused global warming, than that produced by traditional farms. Niman’s article fell short of being effective due to flaws in her supporting evidence and conclusion.
“Thou shouldst eat to live; not live to eat”, is a famous quote by the well known philosopher Socrates, who believed this is the perspective we should take when we are eating food. Unfortunately, the times have changed and so has the way we eat. We no longer have to go hunting for our food, or grow crops to receive all of our fruits and vegetables. Because we have become a society that has grown into the new world of technology, there would be no need to rely on ourselves for what we need-- we can simply gather our resources from other people. In the book, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”, written by Michael Pollan, takes us on a journey full of concerns of the “Food Industrial Complex”.
This short story explains and questions how people find eating animals morally acceptable. Steiner 's short story explains that whenever people think these animals are being treated respectfully they are being ignorant to the fact of how these animals are truly treated; Steiner brings up the fact of how an animals typical horrid life is and how it transitions from its horrid life to being killed by a butcher in a matter of seconds. Moreover, Steiner also adheres to the topic of how unacceptable, it is to kill these animals just for human consumption. Steiner 's purpose in writing this short story is to display to us the fact that eating any animal is not only wrong, but it is just downright unacceptable as it is mass murder of these innocent animals. Finally, Steiner tries to define at his best, what a strict vegan truly
Animal rights and livestock farming Many of us, nowadays, eat and enjoy eating meat but many would agree that this is actually not an ethical action. Michael Pollan, in his persuasive style article “An Animal's Place" published in The New Work Times Magazine, on November 10, 2002 intends to persuade his audience that humans should respect animals and as long as they are treated well in farms and give them a more peaceful life and death it will be fine to eat them. According to Pollan, in today's huge industrial farms, cruel and unbearable things happen that are against animals rights. There is a high possibility that in the future these actions will stop as already some protest for animal rights have begun, because animals have feelings and farms take advantage of them thinking that they are mere machines, making them suffer. The solution to this conflict according to the author who supports friendly farms that respect and give a fun and secure life for animals.
Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” examines the proposal of consuming human flesh in order to solve the dilemma of the Potato Famine, in which drought was exacerbated by crop failures, and this tribulation of the Irish was largely snubbed by English landowners. His ironic persona (speaker), is one of confidence, reason, and worth. In addition, this persona presents a multitude of rhetorical strategies to prepare the audience for this overly deranged proposal, ranging from juxtapositions, to using emotion, reason, and credibility, to persuade the reader. Therefore, the ironic persona in “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift illustrates a wide assortment of rhetorical devices to convey the solution to the Potato Famine, and more broadly, Swift intended this ironic platform to serve as an expository of the avarice of landowners and their gain for self-interest.
Fraser's utilization of humor works to keep the reader or the audience engaged, makes their work memorable, and provides comic relief which overall, greatly contributes to her arguments for and against vegetarianism. Humor positively contributes to Fraser's overall argument and allows the reader to engage in her writing, without the possibility of them becoming uninterested. Since her essay works to argue for and against vegetarianism; a topic in which plentiful people are listless about, Fraser must employ humor to captivate her audience. For example, Fraser begins to talk percentages, “People who call themselves vegetarians somewhere between 4 and 10 percent of us, depending on the definition; only 1 percent of Americans are vegans, eating no animal products at all” (Fraser 546). Due to the fact that she speaks about numbers in her first three sentences of
Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals is a book about persuasion. Foer seeks to convince his readers to take any step in reducing what he believes is the injustice of harming animals. To achieve this, Foer employs many persuasion techniques and often changes his approach when he targets specific groups. His strategies include establishing himself as an ethical authority and appealing to his readers’ emotions, morals, and reason.
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.
The consumption of red meat has increased significantly in recent years. The link between red meat consumption and climate change is greatly evident. Therefore, this issue may be considered positive for various stakeholders, while also having a negative impact on others. Not only is the consumption of meat a major contributor to climate change, but the production of the meat consumed influences the climate as well. Livestock produces a considerable amount of greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, which accounts for more than 18% of greenhouse gas emissions.
In my synthesis essay, the three selected readings, “Equality for Animals” by Peter Singer, “You Can’t Run away on Harvest Day” by Barbara Kingsolver, and “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” by Gary Steiner, will answer the following question; What does it mean to eat ethically? What moral principles should guide our food choices and ways of eating? Between these three essays, they all made emphasis on how ethical eating is defined as sourcing food and eating it in ways that will not cause damage or injuries, neither physically nor mentally, to the food or the eater. Recently, people have expressed interest in where the meat and dairy they are consuming comes from and how it was raised.
As diets and health become more and more of a public concern in America. Two authors weigh in on their opinions on how the American public should handle the problem of obesity as well as their solutions to the overwhelming issue. In one article, “Against Meat,” published on the New York Times website in 2009, points out that the solution to obesity should be vegetarianism. Johnathan Foer who is a vegetarian, claims that his diet and way of living is his the way of improving health in the American public. Foer’s article provides a sense of humor as well as personal stories to attempt to persuade his audience for the ethical treatment of animals along with his personal solution for his own health and the health of his family.
In like manner adding an ethos appeals to his article. Singer also uses logos to showed his audience that he provides in his argument with his logical progression of ideas. Such as pointing out the unaware of people buying meat in the store: “In general, we are ignorant of the abuse of living creatures that lies behind the food we eat. We buy our meat and poultry in neat plastic packages. It hardly bleeds.
In today’s world, there is a division among the people in the world regarding whether or not it is ethical to eat meat. After researching about eating meat and vegetarianism, I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed ethical to eat meat in today’s society. Sure, eating meat might have its drawbacks, but I have found that the benefits of eating meat far outweigh the negatives of eating it. Eating meat not only helps improve people’s health, but it also helps strengthen our economy and it has little difference in the environmental impact that involves in the farming of vegetables. Eating too much of anything usually results in a negative outcome.
“I asked myself a question: "Knowing what I know, why am I not a vegetarian?"’ Graham Hill, an inspiring speaker, introduced a new way to eat. During his speech on TED Talk, he explains to his audience how eating meat has affected the world. In a calm and humorous tone, Hill proposes his purpose. He explains to his audience by becoming a “weekday veg” you will live a better live, it’s great compromise that will help people, animals, and the environment.