Norcross believe that one should not eat meat that is raised in a factory. He uses an argument about torturing puppies and eating their brains. Although his argument about Fred and his extreme cruelty to feel the sensation of eating chocolate is cruel, it puts one in a state of mind to pay close attention to his point. What is his point? Eating animals that are raised in factories are just is cruel as torturing puppies for one’s own pleasure. He states that Fred’s pleasures do not make it morally permissible to torture puppies. This is compared to livestock in factory farms because, they undergo the same kind of torture and abuse. His conclusion is that, torturing puppies and eating meats from factory raised cattle are one in the same and is immoral.
Machan addresses two different issues in his argument, animal rights, and animal liberation. Although they are fundamentally different subjects they are both contributed to animals for the same reason. He continues to look at the “rights” of moral agents and that moral agents can only be if they themselves can make moral decisions. Animals cannot make moral …show more content…
The treatment of animals should defiantly be considered when one is raising them for meat or using them for science experiments. One objection can be made about Norcross’s argument, he compares puppies to live stock and factory raised meat to torturing puppies in someone’s basement. I feel that this argument was a good attention grabber but to compare puppies to live stock in my opinion is not a good comparison. Why? In our culture puppies and dogs are part of the family and live stock is a food source. One would hunt and kill a deer in the backyard and serve it for dinner; however, they would not shoot the neighbor’s dog in their yard and eat him for dinner. If Norcross would have used another food source as an example his argument could have been
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
If you traveled to another country where the main course was a cocker spaniel, would you be so inclined as to try the meal; if so, would you then be comfortable admitting it was enjoyable? Most Americans would answer no, and with an astounded look on their face for such a crude question being asked. Author Jonathan Safran Foer pushed his audience’s emotional boundaries by proposing the idea that we do just that; eat our precious dogs. His argument within the article “Let Them Eat Dog: A Modest Proposal for Tossing Fido in the Oven” proves strong with what seems to be an unbiased, logical, and tryingly reasonable argument! Throughout this paper is a close analysis of Mr. Foer’s true argument, his tactics, and his personal style of writing.
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.
The argument selected by Dylan was really interesting since I have native heritage. The argument “Ned Blackhawk, argues that Native American sovereignty is being threatened by a recent appeal to the Supreme Court by the Dollar General Corporation.” (Morales-Dacy, 2015). After reading the article myself I can agree with Dylan that the claim is valid in the argument.
Rhetorical Analysis “Down on the factory farm” The last thing that comes to our mind when we order a piece of steak at a restaurant is how that animal we are about to eat was being treated while they were alive. According to author Peter Singer’s article "Down on the factory farm” he questions what happened to your dinner when it was still an animal? He argues about the use and abuse of animals raised for our consumption. In Singer’s article he states personal facts and convincing statistics to raise a legitimate argument.
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
In fact, within this claim he mentions dogs in a way that forces the reader to reflect on the claims he made about dogs earlier within the piece. Foer argues for the consumption of dog in a logical way in order to draw attention to a bigger issue: the treatment of animals in factory-farmed meat. While Foer might still be pro-eating dog, his entire argument that he presents throughout the essay is, essentially, a different perspective on the issue of factory-farmed meat. He relates this issue to the audience by bringing up a controversial topic, and while he may not convince his audience to eat dog, he at the very least shows that, logically, eating dog could make sense. Once he has made his point clear, he points to hypothetical situations of how dogs would be humanely prepared if they were to be eaten by stating, “we can all agree that if we’re going to eat them, we should kill them quickly and painlessly” (605).
Rachel and J. Gay-WIlliams have opposing ethical positions regarding physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. Rachel backs his ethical approval of euthanasia with two strong arguments. His first argument is the “Utilitarian version of the argument” (Rachels, RIght Thing To Do, 350). This basic claim is that “any action or social policy is morally right if it serves to increase the amount of happiness in the world or to decrease the amount of misery” (Rachels, RTD, 350). Since those who would be euthanized would become relieved of their unpreventable and agonizing pain (i.e. misery) euthanasia would be morally right.
Puppies are animals that are raised and loved by many people across the world. Of course, any dog owner would be sympathetic to the torturing of these puppies for gustatory pleasure. Farm animals are raised for the sole purpose of profit and value. Norcross’s argument does not have any validity, and therefore, does not contain enough evidence to support it.
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.
Alastair Norcross takes the position in the animal rights argument that torturing animals for their use is unacceptable. He asks to consider a case where a man, Fred, lost his ability to enjoy chocolate because he lost the ability to produce Cocoamone. Fred’s doctor tells him that a recent study shows that, when puppies are tortured and then brutally killed, they produce cocoamone that Fred can then harvest. So Fred sets up his basement where he can torture puppies and then slaughter them in order to taste chocolate again. Norcross claims that this is obviously wrong and draws a correlation between Fred’s case and the situation where we cause chickens to suffer in order to mass produce their meat.
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
One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477).
Since animal testing is cruel, inhumane, and alternative testing methods now exist, we should discontinue animal testing once and for all. For these reasons, animals should not be used in research or to test the safety of human products. To begin with, animal testing is cruel, inhumane and it violates animals’ rights. The USDA reported that in 2016, 71,370 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia at all for relief.
The meat packing industry disregards animal’s emotions and their rights all together by the malicious treatment of animals. The way animals are being treated is highly unfair. Being slaughtered for their body parts and suffering just to be used for protein or an asset to humans is unbearable. An animal’s life is at equal values to a human and deserve the same rights as