Michael Pollan brings to our attention the arguments that relate to the treatment of animals. He begins his essay with examples talking about how pigs are seen as nothing more than meat and how dogs get their own birthday and Christmas presents. Here he questions how certain animals receive different attitudes from us and makes us think about how each animal has a different fate. Pollan wants us to question ourselves and to look at animals from another perspective and see if they deserve more equality or if we need to have a different attitude towards them all together. These arguments are very effective in that they make us question of whether or not our attitude towards certain animals are different because of how they are used or in our eyes some are just more important than others. The author highlighted another paradox when it came to analyzing human attitude towards eating …show more content…
Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion” (Pollan). It’s in our nature to eat animals; we have been doing it since the beginning of time. Peter Singer sent an email to Pollan regarding the animals that lived on Singer’s Good Farm, saying, "I agree with you that it is better for these animals to have lived and died than not to have lived at all” (Pollan). Getting the chance to live is indeed better than to not live at all, regardless of your lifespan, unless that life is filled with nothing but torture and turmoil. I mean why even treat animals any better than how they treat each other. Animals eat each other in the end anyway. Also it might be possible that us killing the animals ourselves might be less harmful than them fighting each other and getting wounded in the process, even if one of them is the winner they still suffer for a long period of
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Although Jeremy Rifkin, Bob stevens, and Lois Frazier have all written about their view on animals and how they are treated globally, but when bringing in animal rights groups like ASPCA and PETA, different bias and tactics are newly introduced. Of all the articles, Jeremy Rifkin uses the most credible sources such as lab studies and examples. In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” Rifkin uses sources such as Purdue University and the European union when talking about situations. One situation he writes about is how pigs need social activity so the pigs are not “lacking mental and physical stimuli [which] hand result in deterioration of health”.
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.
Many Americans blindly believe that animals deserve the same rights as humans, but little do they know about the differences between the welfare of animals and the rights of animals. In the article A Change of Heart about Animals, Jeremy Rifkin cleverly uses certain negative words in order to convince the readers that animals need to be given same rights as humans, and if not more. Research has shown that non-human animals have the ability to “feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love” (Rifkin 33). Animals may be able to feel emotions, however this does not necessarily mean that they are able to understand what having rights mean. While humans must accept their moral responsibility to properly care for animals,
Relevance between Food and Humans with Rhetorical Analysis In the modern industrial society, being aware of what the food we eat come from is an essential step of preventing the “national eating disorder”. In Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma, he identifies the humans as omnivores who eat almost everything, which has been developed into a dominant part of mainstream unhealthiness, gradually causing the severe eating disorder consequences among people. Pollan offers his opinion that throughout the process of the natural history of foods, deciding “what should we have for dinner” can stir the anxiety for people based on considering foods’ quality, taste, price, nutrition, and so on.
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
In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.
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. Rifkin provides examples that demonstrate animals have emotions, conceptual abilities, self awareness, and a sense of individualism just like humans. For example, Pigs crave for affection and get depressed easily when isolated, two birds Betty and Abel have tool making skills, Koko
Imagine piercing a tender piece of lobster with a fork, drenching the piece in the golden melted butter, and the flavors that erupt in your mouth when a piece of lobster is eaten. It may taste delicious to some; conversely, some people find the cooking process to be too unbearable to even consume lobster. In “Consider the Lobster,” David Foster Wallace argues that people should not consume lobster on account of the animal’s suffering during the preparation and cooking processes. He makes his argument by invoking the principle that creatures should not suffer in order to fulfill the needs and wants of people. Also taking a stand on whether or not to eat meat, Jay Bost also invokes a principle in his essay, “Sometimes It’s More Ethical to Eat Mean Than Vegetables,” that was published in the New York Times.
He explains of the stress filled lives these animals endure for the pleasure of humans. The humans are not properly aware of the situations of these animals. They are consistently in cramped cages in farms, while human’s sense of morality towards farm animals has been nonexistent. Norcross’s conclusion does not argue against eating meat, but he justifies it to an extent. Norcross compares two distinctive creatures in his argument, and their comparison does not justify his point of view.
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.
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).
Eating meat is beneficial to humanity, because they provide nourishment that cannot be obtained from other sources. Without the support of animals, humans lack a distinctive diet, that is essential to their well-being. However, since animals are so important to the diet, they deserve great care and respect as well. Humans were always hunters and gathers. They always knew that meat was a big source of protein that helped keep them going(Araki).
Alongside to the economic benefits that meat brings into our society, meat industries also help people from the lower class. Without meat industries, people from the lower class would eventually starve out as their easy and cheap access to food would be taken away from them. Simply eating small grains and vegetables would no longer provide the same amount of nutrients in their diet as previously mentioned in the paragraph above. It is for this reason that eating meat is ethical as taking it away would cause detrimental effects to our