Rhetorical Analysis Of Animal, Vegetable, Miserable

The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollen utilizes elements of ethos and metaphors in the passage on pages 116 and 117 in order to persuade readers to believe that humans have become a “race of corn.” Ethos is one of the most notable forms of persuasion Pollen uses. He gets credibility by asking “Todd Dawson, a biologist at Berkeley, to run a McDonald's meal through his mass spectrometer and calculate how much of the carbon in it came originally from a corn plant...in the various McDonald’s menu items” (Pollen 116). Including a study written by a certified professional lends more support to his argument of the presence of corn. In addition, he also mentions that the research mentions menu items from McDonalds, a well-known, unhealthy company,

In the novella Animal Farm, the timeline of early 1900s Russia unfolds in an allegory, with revolutionists Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx sparking a rebellion against Czar Nicholas II. Subsequently, a social democratic party known as the Bolsheviks overthrew the czar, aided by two significant leaders: Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin. Even so, the newfound ideology of communism that Stalin introduced and quickly corrupted through propaganda proved to be just as oppressive as the reign of Nicholas II. Most importantly, this corruption and oppression was elucidated by British author George Orwell through the use of rhetorical devices in the allegorical satire Animal Farm, where the audience receives a glimpse into the cunning caricature of

After the guilt sets in from eating for the sake of pleasure, Scruton brings forth a multitude of facts and makes an effort to appeal to ethos. To do this, he addresses the benefits of small-scale livestock farming, the use of animals in scientific experimentation, and the actions taken against animals that promote harm. This flood of ethical evidence continues to leave readers wondering if Scruton is a vegetarian himself.

The suffering of animals who are raised and slaughtered for food is not justified, since it is not necessary for us to eat animals to get the nutrition we need. We treat animals cruelly simply just to serve our trivial enjoyment of taste. In addition, Rachels asserts that it is impossible to treat the animals decently yet still produce a sufficient amount of meat. According to him, the humane production of millions of pounds of meat would be so costly that it would force most of us to become vegetarians, as most of us would not have the resources to be able to afford much meat. In response to the question that: “if meat could be produced humanely, without mistreating the animals prior to eating them painlessly, would there be anything wrong with it?” (Rachels 372), he argues that human being the subjects of biographical and not merely biological lives is what qualifies humans for rights; however, the animals with which we are most familiar are subjects of biographical lives and if we have the right to life on the basis of having a life, then those animals have rights to life as well. Thus, even if the farming practices are completely humane, killing the animals is still immoral. There are millions of vegetarians already, there is already less cruelty than there would be otherwise, so little effect does not equate none. He uses the analogy of slavery to

A man should never go through an animal for its nutrients, when that animal receive all of its nutrients from plants. One man such, author Wendell Berry, wrote " The Pleasures of Eating," published in 2017, and he argues that every individual should be educated in what happens to their food before it becomes food. Many people are oblivious to what harmful things animals are put through in order to one day become our meal. Berry's intended audience is every single human being who eats meat, and even those who do not. I know this because Berry mentions the importance of individuals understanding where their meat comes from and why they should not let animals be treated this way. Berry assumes that individuals would not like to be treated that way, so why should animals be treated this way. Berry's purpose in this piece is to inform all humans of what inhumane things are done to animals in order to provide as one of our temporary fills. Berry's writing is somewhat credible and valuable because he is currently a farmer and currently a writer, he gives personal viewpoints and few examples, and he provides emotional statements about animal cruelty.

She cites a 2008 Carnegie Mellon University study, for example, to state how not eating red meat and diary just one day of the week can achieve just as much in greenhouse gas reductions as simply just eating local, organic food. Her argument though does suffer a bit when she begins to talk about the morality and ethics of eating meat. She doesn't back up her assertions with too many facts at this point and mainly uses her opinion at times as enough justification. Her mentioning of humane meat being an oxymoron and how it weighs on the consciences of its advocates seems to be more of her own drawn conclusions than a fact. Nonetheless, she presents her points

The answers Pollan offers to the seemingly straightforward question posed by this book have profound political, economic, psychological, and even moral implications for all of us. Beautifully written and thrillingly argued, The Omnivore’s Dilemma promises to change the

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

In his essay, Singer brings up key ideas that give insight to the readers as to why they should follow utilitarianism and vegetarianism. He argues that pain and pleasure are the basis of all moral values and because animals experience pain and pleasure, this makes them morally significant as well. Singer also states that utilitarianism gives good reasons to avoid certain kinds of sourcing meats. Therefore, factory farming should be avoided and that free-range organic methods of raising animals should be used instead because it is morally neutral or good. As well, even if livestock is raised in humane ways, it is morally wrong to kill and eat the animal because it will feel pain. Singer also notes that many things must be taken into account: the potential loss of happiness of vegetarians, the loss of livelihood of producers of factory-farmed products, environmental consequences, global and individual health concerns as

Humans have always had a complicated relationship with non-human animals. This relationship has always benefitted the needs of humans, with little consideration for animals’ needs. Some animals are tortured for entertainment, some are butchered for food and others are taken from their habitat and family, and forced to be pets for humans. These are all examples of the ways humans have exploited animals for their own satisfaction. Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us” describes the complicated relationship that humans and animals have, and how difficult it is to determine what is ethical when dealing with animals. Jonathan Safran Foer makes a similar observation in his essay “The Fruits of Family Trees” of the ethical issues in the

More than ever before, our planet is one filled with meat eaters. In fact, the average American consumes 270.7 pounds of meat per year. And, as one might have guessed, the question of where this food set before them on the table came from is often unregarded or ignored altogether. As more media forms commercialize extremely unhealthy versions of double cheeseburgers and meat lover’s supremes, the consumer’s demand for meat spikes up and companies in the food industry are faced with the ethical dilemma of benefiting themselves, their companies, increasing profits...and doing right by the animals- who without, they would not even be where they are today. Needless to say that animal rights and the humane treatment of their precious lives have been disregarded. Why do we, as a

Over fifty-six billion animals are slaughtered yearly for consumption, but because we are conditioned from a young age to view animals as resources, we neglect that they are passionate and intelligent living beings. Cows want to enjoy their lives, pigs want to enjoy their lives, and many other farm animals want to enjoy their lives but instead are abused and confined in small cages. Ironically, though, when someone does likewise to a cat or dog, they’re prosecuted. The sole solution to these inhumane acts is Veganism. Veganism is the ideal diet because plant-based foods are plentiful, and it recognizes the unethical treatment of animals.

Can it be morally permissible to eat meat when plant-based foods are available? In this paper my aim is it to explain why this is morally wrong to do. One problem with eating meat is humans are putting animals in unnecessary pain. Another problem is that the majority of our environmental destruction on our planet is due to agriculture. Philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both back up this view with their own arguments.

In addition to his solutions, Pollan’s modern narrative sheds light on the façade of our food industries; asking us to rethink what we know. Despite the mention of certain inhumane acts in All Animals are Equal, Pollan takes us one step further to uncover the reason for which we continue to purchase our corrupt food. We all know animal abuse exists, but the average consumer like myself is more worried about the best price and the fastest way to get a burger rather than how fairly the animals are treated in the process. Whether it be the confined living space of chickens or the mental and physical torture of pigs, we continue to blind ourselves from reality. Is it purely out of selfishness? Or are we too ignorant to come to terms with our wrong doings? Like Pollan explains, it takes seeing the abuse before the shame of our disrespect can be felt (pg.6). After seeing Pollan’s truth, I might now think twice before eating out and the choice to support organic produce can make a dramatic difference for those farmers who promote the ethical lifestyle.

As humanity becomes more civilized, many of us perceive that eating livestock is morally incorrect, but aren’t we are designed to be an omnivore? Our teeth and digestive system serve the purpose of breaking down animal and plant foods and to bring these important nutrients to every part of the body. Despite the fact that, in 2011, U.S. meat and poultry production reached more than 92.3 billion pounds, the ethic of killing and eating animals as well as the concern of the environmental burden caused by the production of meats is debatable. However, animal based diet is necessary for the human body to function properly and we can choose the meat produced from environmentally sustainable farms to avoid the moral ambiguity.