Rhetorical Analysis Of What's Wrong With Animal Rights By Vicki Hearne

The Times Union Editorial Board warns Americans about the dangers of their actions in their article “We Must Step Up Efforts to Save Endangered Animals.” They adopt a frantic tone in order to make the reader worry about what they’re doing. The Editorial Board uses pathos, logos, and ethos to convince the U.S. population to consider their actions.

Thousands of animals across the United States are being beaten, starved, abandoned, and left to defend for themselves. Animal cruelty has become a nationwide problem in today's society. In the Public Service Announcement (PSA), "Sarah McLachlan Animal Cruelty", produced by the ASPCA, this commercial persuades the audience through pathos appeals, but the PSA's representation of the appeals of ethos and logos are showing animals in America suffering from cruelty and neglect every day. The ASPCA and spokesperson, Sarah McLachlan are trying to convey a message to the public that there is an urgent need to donate money to save the lives of animals being abused and neglected. This appeal to the ethical(ethos), emotional(pathos), and logical(logos) senses of the audience to expose the evils of animal cruelty and convey to the audience that animals are in need of help.

In the op-ed piece “A Change of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin emphasizes the similarities between humans and animals by providing results on scientific research studies to illustrate that humans should be more empathetic towards animals. In addition, he further explains how research results have changed the ways humans perceived animals and indicates solutions that were taken by other countries and organizations to help improve and protect animal rights.

PETA is an acronym for the non profit organization of people for the ethical treatment of animals. The are dedicated to the protecting the rights of animals.

In Animal Farm, George Orwell warns how power will often lead to corruption. Napoleon was placed in a position of power after Major died, and he slowly starts to lavish in his power and become addicted to the lush life of a dictator. When Napoleon first becomes a leader, he expresses how everyone will work equally, but as his reign goes on, he shortens the work hours. At the very end of the novel, the observing animals even start to see that pig and man had become the same. The irony present in the above example, illuminates how regardless of how much a ruler promises to maintain equality and fairness, the position of power that they hold, will corrupt them. It is seen that the power rid of Napoleon’s conscience, and created a ruthless dictator.

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). Machan believes he has the best theory explaining why animals do not have rights. He makes this claim by first acknowledging how

Within Holder’s speech there were instances of multiple fallacies. One specific fallacy is the generalizations Holder makes in his speech, much like the ones that were used for deductive reasoning. These generalizations were often subjective and not backed up with evidence, which leads to hasty generalizations. Holder states that those who are against animal testing are mainly youth, which infers that all youth are against animal testing. However, it is not just youth who are against animal testing and not all youth are not against animal testing. That inference results in a hasty generalization and results in a fallacy within the speech, which can work in persuading some, but can also turn off a certain audience. In that case, that fallacy

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.

Most of us have pets and consider them part of the family. As a result, we could never imagine the horror some animals are forced to endure at the hands of their caretakers. This particular ad depicts a powerful visual of a neglected dog, in poor health, chained to what seems to be a barrel. The copy in the ad, while minimal, is powerful: “Help Us Help them” and the words “Donate Today” (ASPCA). This ad is a public service announcement to bring awareness to the community concerning the horrors of animal abuse, its helpless victims, and to compel the public to make a financial donation to put an end to animal cruelty.

Everyday, the sun rises in the morning and sets at night, but the debate about hunting always remains on the table. Hunters see their killing of an animal as an achievement, they put food on their tables, or a mount on their wall. Critics see this as a cruel way for a human being to take the life of an innocent animal. In the article “Is hunting a moral? A philosopher unpacks the question” written by Joshua Duclos, examined the question of why people hunt. Dudlos purpose was to describe the different types of hunting and contemplate whether hunting is moral is not. He establishes an sympathetic tone in order to bring together each side of the argument to create a sense of unity between hunters and non-hunters. Duclos begins building his credibility

Intersectional feminism including animal rights. I believe that intersectional feminism will one day need to evolve to include animal rights. Our current meat and dairy industry commits atrocities against animals that cannot go unnoticed. There are a number of parallels between the horrific treatment of animals and that of women. The most significant of these being seen as products instead of sentient beings and lack of body autonomy. Women and animals are both frequently treated as if their only value is their bodies and that they don’t have intrinsic value as living beings. We’re told we’re only worth something if we’re attached to a man, and animals only if they’re attached to an owner. The complete lack of bodily autonomy for animals should

In the article All Animals Are Equal, written by Peter Singer addresses the inadequacies surrounding the rights of animals in the societies of today. Singer opens the article by presenting a scholarly parallels between the fight for gender equality, banishment of racism and the establishment of rights for “nonhumans.” In order to explain this constant set of inequalities that seem to riddle our society, Singer readily uses the term “speciesism”, which he acquired from a fellow animals rights advocator, Richard Ryder. Essentially, this term is defined by Singer as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. Singer claims that if this idea of speciesism

The situation for animal rights remained relatively stagnant until 1970 when two oxford postgraduate philosophy students Roslind and Stanley Godlovitch formed the movement. The Godlovitch's met David Wood and John Harris, also philosophy postgraduates, the two were soon in agreement that animal rights were an important issue and akin to the Godlovitches became vegetarians. The newly formed group took action

Animal rights have and always will be a topic of heated controversy and debate, with both sides having their own good and bad points. There is a wide array of mistreatment amongst animals in today’s society, specifically in zoos, which can be said to be prisons for animals. It is an issue of paramount due to the fact of shared similarity between humans and animals, including some animals having high emotional intelligence. Although, it is an unclear issue, and currently I am unknown to a solution and what is right, due to my lack of awareness of the issue and knowledge of zoos, also added to the fact of the morality issue of what is right and wrong since animals tend to be valued less than humans.

Nothing is wrong with bringing a terrifying hairy 6 ton mammoth back from the dead, right? I believe that raising extinct species from the dead is a dreadful idea. Many examples are from disease carriers to environment changing.